Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

As I said, most of the people on the ground are very likely sincere in their beliefs. But while they likely do not realize it, many of them are also very likely working with or for organizations that are heavily funded by American groups such as the Rockefeller Foundation and Tides Foundation. Tides, for instance, has outright bribed Native leaders to oppose oil sands development. And the lengths they go to to obfuscate their actions does little to suggest that the originating sources of these bribes are on the up and up.

Do you have a better source than Levant? It's not that I don't believe you, but he cites absolutely nothing in that story to back up his claims and we all know what his schtick is.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't like Levant but every once in a while he does stumble on to things, and his research is pretty good.

He pointed to the IRS report there and traced that the money went to a numbered company owned by a company with the chief as a share holder.

That seems pretty documented.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't like Levant but every once in a while he does stumble on to things, and his research is pretty good.

He pointed to the IRS report there and traced that the money went to a numbered company owned by a company with the chief as a share holder.

That seems pretty documented.

Okay, but there's a difference between donating to the Chief, and doing so with the explicit instruction that the Chief goes after Alberta oil.

[Ducay]

Hovering around $29.60 this morning. Might have to take this into my own hands.

On an unrelated note, anyone know where to get a ballistic missile capable of striking Iran/Saudi?

[Resolute 14]

Financial Post (2010)

Unlike many charitable foundations, Tides U.S. doesn’t have a large endowment. “In practice, Tides behaves less like a philanthropy than a money-laundering enterprise, taking money from other foundations and spending it as the donor requires,” writes the U.S. Center for Consumer Freedom. “Called ‘donor-advised’ giving, this pass-through funding vehicle provides public-relations insulation for the money’s original donors.”

Huffington Post (2011)

Financial Post (2013 - discusses just how much Tides is spending on Native groups)

Alberta Oil Magazine (2014)

Vancouver Sun (2015)

Moneytrail.ca (Advocacy site, ymmv)

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Just so I'm clear - if the royalty review comes out tomorrow - and there is little to no change - is anyone suggesting there is suddenly going to be a barrage of investment in Alberta by the O&G industry?

Yes. A greater than zero amount would be shifted back into Alberta.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, but there's a difference between donating to the Chief, and doing so with the explicit instruction that the Chief goes after Alberta oil.

Except if you look at the history of groups like Rockerfeller and Tides and the money going to the chief and then the chief basically going after Alberta Oil its a pretty strong link.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Okay, but there's a difference between donating to the Chief, and doing so with the explicit instruction that the Chief goes after Alberta oil.

Sorry Rube, I do like having your perspective in oil conversations but even you must see that the above is grasping at straws here.

[Regorium]

Christ what an awful start to the stock market in 2016.

The contagion seems to be spreading to non-O&G.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Sorry Rube, I do like having your perspective in oil conversations but even you must see that the above is grasping at straws here.

Honestly I wasn't. I fully believed Resolute, but it was a bad source and I think even he would admit that. Glad he posted the other links.

Edit: I've also fully admitted that I'm way out of my depth when it comes to oil debates. I like having the debates solely because I learn more from the other posters here.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Regorium

Christ what an awful start to the stock market in 2016.

The contagion seems to be spreading to non-O&G.

Perfect storm of China collapsing due to basically Enron style accounting and the Oil Prices going through the floor.

I was watching BNN news, and they described the market as officially bear and the market trying to re-adjust and not being able to get a foothold because of a lot of negative things happening at once.

I feel sorry for the guests that ring the opening bell at the NYSE, they're sitting there watching the countdown through phony smiles and gritted teeth and watching the countdown to opening and saying in their heads (I don't wanna ring this damn thing)

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can only speak anecdotally on this topic, but the FN and environmental friends/protesters I've spoken with on the manner are primarily concerned with protecting the coast line from tanker traffic, and trying to get the government to practice more consensual policy decisions with FN bands. There have also been a number of earth sciences, environmental studies, biology, etc., professors out here from UVic, SFU, UBC, etc., who have gone on record against Northern Gateway because they feel the potential impact on the environment outweighs the economic benefits for BC. I don't think all of these people are on the payroll for American oil interests.

The problem with this is that people are talking about tanker safety and traffic, and pinning that on the pipeline company. People are talking about emissions in the oilsands and that's the pipeline's fault. People are talking about cheap heating for houses and people driving too much, and that's the pipeline's fault too.

My issue with a lot of these things is that pipelines are unfairly blamed for a lot of upstream/downstream effects (eg. the BC gov and the letter from all those professors). I don't see, for example, people protesting GM/Ford plants because every additional car on the road causes pollution! I don't see people protesting about tanker safety, more strict regulations on tanker certification and inspections or anything like that. It's all the pipeline's fault.

Somehow, pipelines became the symbol for which all of the world's problems can be blamed. As someone that has done a public consultation (KXL), it was unbelievable to me. I came to the consultation prepared with water crossing studies, soil studies, integrity studies and the like. Then someone asked me how we planned to deal with increased smog over cities from increased driving due to the pipeline.

That's the kind of stuff we have to deal with, so as a someone in pipelines, I think that kind of shows where we're coming from when we get cynical about "environmental issues".

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The problem with this is that people are talking about tanker safety and traffic, and pinning that on the pipeline company. People are talking about emissions in the oilsands and that's the pipeline's fault. People are talking about cheap heating for houses and people driving too much, and that's the pipeline's fault too.

My issue with a lot of these things is that pipelines are unfairly blamed for a lot of upstream/downstream effects (eg. the BC gov and the letter from all those professors). I don't see, for example, people protesting GM/Ford plants because every additional car on the road causes pollution! I don't see people protesting about tanker safety, more strict regulations on tanker certification and inspections or anything like that. It's all the pipeline's fault.

Somehow, pipelines became the symbol for which all of the world's problems can be blamed. As someone that has done a public consultation (KXL), it was unbelievable to me. I came to the consultation prepared with water crossing studies, soil studies, integrity studies and the like. Then someone asked me how we planned to deal with increased smog over cities from increased driving due to the pipeline.

That's the kind of stuff we have to deal with, so as a someone in pipelines, I think that kind of shows where we're coming from when we get cynical about "environmental issues".

The oilsands aren't protected like Manufacturing because of the concentration of voters in Ontario manufacturing sectors. The automotive industry is never really going to be successfully attacked because of the number of people they employ and that the automotive industry controls the narrative.

Frankly the Alberta energy sector is under attack because its easy to attack globally and then people pick up the cause because DiCaprio thinks its important, and because a ton of money is supporting the protests.

Nobody really attacks China, because China wouldn't give a crap nor would India.

Nobody attacks the California oil field disasters because of big money, and a President that is focused on global and not national climate issues.

Nobody protests the coal industry because its not sexy and that industry protects itself like a steroid boosted wolverine with rabies.

Globally the Oilsands, really isn't the biggest issue to be tackled, but its the easiest to be attacked.

[Jason14h]

Globally the Oilsands, really isn't the biggest issue to be tackled, but its the easiest to be attacked.

And we aren't going to get harder to attack with the weak provincial and federal leadership/perogatives (In this respect at least)

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I agree. Many NDP apologists keep harping on the fact that the world price for oil is the major reason for economic troubles in Alberta as cover for all the economically irresponsible things the NDP have done since grabbing power only 8 short months ago.

It's akin to visiting an ailing friend in the hospital and then suffocating them to death with a pillow and then explaining to the police afterwards that you didn't put them in the hospital in the first place as your defense.

Honest question though, Cowboy:

In your opinion, has it ever been a good time to do a royalty review? If so, when was that time, and why wasn't a review done then?

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Regorium

My issue with a lot of these things is that pipelines are unfairly blamed for a lot of upstream/downstream effects (eg. the BC gov and the letter from all those professors). I don't see, for example, people protesting GM/Ford plants because every additional car on the road causes pollution! I don't see people protesting about tanker safety, more strict regulations on tanker certification and inspections or anything like that. It's all the pipeline's fault.

Oh you are 100% right here. Transcanada pretty much ended up being the proxy state in an environmentalists vs oil sands war. And really, the environmentalists are partially a proxy state for true source of their money (Rockefeller Foundation for one...)

Shotgun the oil sands getting to be the great Western hope in this analogy and the environmentalist money getting to be the evil commies.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Honest question though, Cowboy:

In your opinion, has it ever been a good time to do a royalty review? If so, when was that time, and why wasn't a review done then?

During a boom cycle it would make way more sense to do the review.

There was a review done in 2007.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Jason14h

And we aren't going to get harder to attack with the weak provincial and federal leadership/perogatives (In this respect at least)

Don't go there man. You're just baiting and asking for a thread derailment. And its probably inaccurate anyways. Alberta is directionally more difficult to attack environmentally with NDP leadership vs the old PC leadership.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The problem with this is that people are talking about tanker safety and traffic, and pinning that on the pipeline company. People are talking about emissions in the oilsands and that's the pipeline's fault. People are talking about cheap heating for houses and people driving too much, and that's the pipeline's fault too.

My issue with a lot of these things is that pipelines are unfairly blamed for a lot of upstream/downstream effects (eg. the BC gov and the letter from all those professors). I don't see, for example, people protesting GM/Ford plants because every additional car on the road causes pollution! I don't see people protesting about tanker safety, more strict regulations on tanker certification and inspections or anything like that. It's all the pipeline's fault.

Somehow, pipelines became the symbol for which all of the world's problems can be blamed. As someone that has done a public consultation (KXL), it was unbelievable to me. I came to the consultation prepared with water crossing studies, soil studies, integrity studies and the like. Then someone asked me how we planned to deal with increased smog over cities from increased driving due to the pipeline.

That's the kind of stuff we have to deal with, so as a someone in pipelines, I think that kind of shows where we're coming from when we get cynical about "environmental issues".

I couldn't do your job btw, "Are you f$$$$$$ stupid?" is too big a part of my vocabulary

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Regorium

The problem with this is that people are talking about tanker safety and traffic, and pinning that on the pipeline company. People are talking about emissions in the oilsands and that's the pipeline's fault. People are talking about cheap heating for houses and people driving too much, and that's the pipeline's fault too.

My issue with a lot of these things is that pipelines are unfairly blamed for a lot of upstream/downstream effects (eg. the BC gov and the letter from all those professors). I don't see, for example, people protesting GM/Ford plants because every additional car on the road causes pollution! I don't see people protesting about tanker safety, more strict regulations on tanker certification and inspections or anything like that. It's all the pipeline's fault.

Somehow, pipelines became the symbol for which all of the world's problems can be blamed. As someone that has done a public consultation (KXL), it was unbelievable to me. I came to the consultation prepared with water crossing studies, soil studies, integrity studies and the like. Then someone asked me how we planned to deal with increased smog over cities from increased driving due to the pipeline.

That's the kind of stuff we have to deal with, so as a someone in pipelines, I think that kind of shows where we're coming from when we get cynical about "environmental issues".

I think it's because people feel they have more control over the pipeline side of things. The idea is once the pipeline gets to the coast, the floodgates are open and then we're screwed with the tanker traffic. That's the mentality I'm picking up anyways. Wasn't the spot that NG picked in Kitimat considered to be particularly tricky for tankers to navigate?