Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 11-06-2019, 12:33 PM   #4381
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Well first of all its called the Orphan Well Association - not fund. And they don't hold money (or at least like a fund would) year over year.
I wasn't the one that called it a fund. I called for the creation of a fund about 12 years ago.
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 01:19 PM   #4382
OMG!WTF!
#1 Goaltender
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Exp:
Default

I read it as Orphan Wall Fund and thought I was in the American Politics thread.
OMG!WTF! is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-06-2019, 02:57 PM   #4383
burn_this_city
Franchise Player
 
burn_this_city's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bizaro86 View Post
That's a fair point. Water treatment definitely has huge scale benefits. I've worked on development of SAGD projects on both sides of the border, and as a citizen I think the AB water rules are better. Use that much water and it is responsible to recycle it.

I still think at a low enough SOR something Lindberg size works nicely. Connacher had huge reservoir problems and had a huge SOR - they never really got conformance. Even Athabasca SOR is much higher than Lindberg iirc.
I totally agree about the marginal reservoir killing a bunch of these guys. The Sask rules around surface water usage and no recycle are mind boggling to me. I still believe you need a certain scale to absorb the fixed costs involved. You can go super lean but you probably leave a lot of opportunity on the table when you are barely treading water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy View Post
The commentary about the marginal reservoirs that smaller thermal operators face is telling. We might have an assload of resource, but it’s in poor reservoir, requires lot of energy to extract, and is a low quality product. These are physical realities that will make attracting new investment into these plays a major challenge, even if we had zero tax and unencumbered market access. Low EROI energy sources will always need to be subsidized by higher EROI energy sources if they are going to continue to be utilized. These don’t make good investments, by and large.
The Tier 1 properties are where the majority of future growth will come from. No way you would build a project now with an SOR of 3-4 or higher, especially with ESG being a huge component of attracting capital going forward. Only the guys with low SOR will survive in the long term and even they will need to capture carbon at some point soon.
burn_this_city is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Old 11-07-2019, 01:00 PM   #4384
InglewoodFan
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OMG!WTF! View Post
I read it as Orphan Wall Fund and thought I was in the American Politics thread.
Or the Saskatchewan Politics Thread.
InglewoodFan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to InglewoodFan For This Useful Post:
Old 11-07-2019, 01:15 PM   #4385
zamler
Franchise Player
 
zamler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
California's oil fields are absolutely filthy.
Also one of the ugliest things you will ever see what they did to the landscape it criminal
zamler is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to zamler For This Useful Post:
Old 11-07-2019, 10:10 PM   #4386
boogerz
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zamler View Post
Also one of the ugliest things you will ever see what they did to the landscape it criminal

California deserves to burn
boogerz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2019, 05:43 PM   #4387
Tiger
Scoring Winger
 
Tiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Slightly right of left of center
Exp:
Default

This was very well written and many people need to read and understand this. Written by Mac Van Wielingen on basically the current political state of the oil industry

Please read Here
__________________
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.
- Aristotle
Tiger is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Tiger For This Useful Post:
Old 11-08-2019, 06:39 PM   #4388
redforever
Franchise Player
 
redforever's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger View Post
This was very well written and many people need to read and understand this. Written by Mac Van Wielingen on basically the current political state of the oil industry

Please read Here

Mac Van Wielingen and Peter Tertzakian are two of the smartest minds from Calgary.
redforever is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to redforever For This Useful Post:
Old 11-08-2019, 08:09 PM   #4389
tkflames
First Line Centre
 
tkflames's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiger View Post
This was very well written and many people need to read and understand this. Written by Mac Van Wielingen on basically the current political state of the oil industry

Please read Here
This is a very good summary of statistics and at least a much more intelligent starting point to start a discussion than "the east hates us" and "everyone hates us so we should separate".

Can someone with a stronger technical background than me explain why on page 4 on multiple occasions we are comparing GHGs for extraction in Alberta to GHGs emitted for barrels refined in the US. Would it not make sense to compare lifecyle GHG emissions from extraction through refining of a similar quality canadian product to a Houston equivalent or is this what the article is in fact saying that through carefully chosen words??
__________________
Go Flames Go
tkflames is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2019, 08:33 PM   #4390
DiracSpike
First Line Centre
 
DiracSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tkflames View Post
This is a very good summary of statistics and at least a much more intelligent starting point to start a discussion than "the east hates us" and "everyone hates us so we should separate".

Can someone with a stronger technical background than me explain why on page 4 on multiple occasions we are comparing GHGs for extraction in Alberta to GHGs emitted for barrels refined in the US. Would it not make sense to compare lifecyle GHG emissions from extraction through refining of a similar quality canadian product to a Houston equivalent or is this what the article is in fact saying that through carefully chosen words??
First of all no ones said those two “quotes”. The east is however treating the west and it’s resource sector unfairly and hypocritically.

Secondly for someone who lives out east and has previously expressed skepticism to the truth that Westerners are unfairly being maligned thank you for taking the time to read that. It explains how unfairly the oil and gas sector is being treated better than a million posts from me on CP ever could. In regards to your question, they’re both talking about the GHG required for extraction. Comparing it to the US refined average is comparing our oil to the ghg from extraction for any other barrel of oil as they all descend on the gulf coast to get refined. Basically, despite claims of oil sands oil being catastrophically dirty many oil sands barrels are now less ghg intensive than average.
DiracSpike is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to DiracSpike For This Useful Post:
Old 11-08-2019, 09:56 PM   #4391
cal_guy
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike View Post
Basically, despite claims of oil sands oil being catastrophically dirty many oil sands barrels are now less ghg intensive than average.

While it's true that some oil sands projects produce oil with a carbon intensity that is competitive or even better than say the average WTI barrel, it's also true that some are among the worst in the world. On the whole the oil sands are in the top third of carbon intensity per barrel.
cal_guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-08-2019, 10:02 PM   #4392
RichieRich
Draft Pick
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cal_guy View Post
While it's true that some oil sands projects produce oil with a carbon intensity that is competitive or even better than say the average WTI barrel, it's also true that some are among the worst in the world. On the whole the oil sands are in the top third of carbon intensity per barrel.

ya'll need to be more specific when it comes to using the term "oil sands"... do you mean:
1. open pit / mining style. This is the badder-boy.

2. in-situ (ie stays underground, uses steam/heat).



I'd like to see a comparison to coal mining and delivery to market
RichieRich is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to RichieRich For This Useful Post:
Old 11-09-2019, 01:45 AM   #4393
cal_guy
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieRich View Post
ya'll need to be more specific when it comes to using the term "oil sands"... do you mean:
1. open pit / mining style. This is the badder-boy.

2. in-situ (ie stays underground, uses steam/heat).



I'd like to see a comparison to coal mining and delivery to market
Mining in fact has a lower carbon intensity than SAGD(but obviously there's more to pollution than carbon).
cal_guy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 02:09 AM   #4394
Corral
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Corral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stampede Grounds
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Do you even know how it works?
Absolutely. The corrupt and inept Alberta Energy regulator sets the orphan levy on industry each year and sets it way too low to cover actual costs. No surprise there since the regulator depends on industry money to operate. So taxpayers had to ‘lend’ the OWA $200 million a couple years ago to try and cover reclamation costs.

Its a total failure.
Corral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 09:52 AM   #4395
DiracSpike
First Line Centre
 
DiracSpike's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: BELTLINE
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cal_guy View Post
While it's true that some oil sands projects produce oil with a carbon intensity that is competitive or even better than say the average WTI barrel, it's also true that some are among the worst in the world. On the whole the oil sands are in the top third of carbon intensity per barrel.
From the article linked, the claims from both Cenovus (“oil sands emissions intensity that is less than the average barrel of oil refined in the US”) and CNRL (“GHG emissions intensity for oil sands operations are approximately 5% higher than emissions intensity for global crude”) would seem to contradict that they’re in the top third. I’m sure there are some ops that are worse than others and there is a distinction between mining and SAGD but on average, unless these companies are lying, they around average. That probabaly also doesn’t include the carbon sequestration CNRL has, they’re the fifth largest sequester of any oil and gas company in the world taking 750,000 cars off the road annually.
DiracSpike is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 10:17 AM   #4396
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by DiracSpike View Post
From the article linked, the claims from both Cenovus (“oil sands emissions intensity that is less than the average barrel of oil refined in the US”) and CNRL (“GHG emissions intensity for oil sands operations are approximately 5% higher than emissions intensity for global crude”) would seem to contradict that they’re in the top third. I’m sure there are some ops that are worse than others and there is a distinction between mining and SAGD but on average, unless these companies are lying, they around average. That probabaly also doesn’t include the carbon sequestration CNRL has, they’re the fifth largest sequester of any oil and gas company in the world taking 750,000 cars off the road annually.
Cenovous has Christian Lake which is a crazy good asset driving down SOR. So while Cenovous is excellent compare it with say Imperials Cold Lake cyclic steam asset or the CNRL Cyclic steam assets where the SOR is much higher.

For GHG production I think you really need to look asset by asset. What would be nice would be an approximate SOR equating a per barrel emmissions intensity for easy comparisons for in situ production.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 10:53 AM   #4397
Azure
Had an idea!
 
Azure's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

From what I've read the big companies have a lot of stuff going on that can reduce their emissions per barrel output even more as stuff comes online.

Both in oil and gas.

Again, exactly the problem that Greta and her cronies have. They don't want to admit that oil & gas are necessary, and that Alberta and Canada as a whole have been instrumental in creating green technology to reduce the emissions overall while still providing the world with the energy it needs.

I'll say it again, we have a moral and ethical obligation to export our technology, know-how and resources to the world. The sooner we admit that, the faster we can fight climate change.
Azure is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Azure For This Useful Post:
Old 11-09-2019, 11:08 AM   #4398
Weitz
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Corral View Post
Absolutely. The corrupt and inept Alberta Energy regulator sets the orphan levy on industry each year and sets it way too low to cover actual costs. No surprise there since the regulator depends on industry money to operate. So taxpayers had to ‘lend’ the OWA $200 million a couple years ago to try and cover reclamation costs.

Its a total failure.
Lol

The feds gave 30 million to spur some jobs and then the NDP took the 30 million to pay interest costs and gave the OWA 235 million.

How is the levy too low? They spend their money every year. It’s not something you could just throw more money at and be solved.

Last edited by Weitz; 11-09-2019 at 11:10 AM.
Weitz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 03:29 PM   #4399
Corral
Powerplay Quarterback
 
Corral's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Stampede Grounds
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Lol

The feds gave 30 million to spur some jobs and then the NDP took the 30 million to pay interest costs and gave the OWA 235 million.

How is the levy too low? They spend their money every year. It’s not something you could just throw more money at and be solved.
?? So are you telling people here that the OWA receives all the money it needs each year to clean up all the inventory of abandoned wells and facilities in Alberta? Like there is no unfunded liability here?

Please tell me you have more than this.
Corral is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-09-2019, 03:40 PM   #4400
GGG
Franchise Player
 
GGG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Weitz View Post
Lol

The feds gave 30 million to spur some jobs and then the NDP took the 30 million to pay interest costs and gave the OWA 235 million.

How is the levy too low? They spend their money every year. It’s not something you could just throw more money at and be solved.
The past few years would have been good years to throw money at the problem. Lots of service rigs were under employed and abandoning wells would have been a good recession stimulation program for the government for work that needs to be done.

The big issue is some of the very dubios transfers of assets that have been allowed which have led to companies bankrupting themselves leaving massive liabilities on the province.
GGG is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:04 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016