Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

It would be a mistake to think that. Irrational and illiterate vocal minority may seem like "many of us", but they are not that many, just more loud and more visible floating on the surface. Humanity has never willingly abandoned an available source of energy.

Whatever the actual breakdown may be, there's clearly enough opposition to be a major force in terms of driving a significant amount of economic/political policy on the matter in this country.

Btw, I'm not sure that type of labelling will help matters!

[Locke]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

It would be a mistake to think that. Irrational and illiterate vocal minority may seem like "many of us", but they are not that many, just more loud and more visible floating on the surface. Humanity has never willingly abandoned an available source of energy.

I dont get this. Of course we have. Over and over and over and over whenever something better, more efficient or more convenient comes along we drop whatever we were using before for that newer, better thing.

Or are you still reading at night by lamp-light powered by whale-oil?

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont get this. Of course we have. Over and over and over and over whenever something better, more efficient or more convenient comes along we drop whatever we were using before for that newer, better thing.

Or are you still reading at night by lamp-light powered by whale-oil?

Nuclear comes to mind too.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by TorqueDog

Nuclear comes to mind too.

I veer away from Nuclear power because it is the red-headed stepchild of energy.

I'm a huge proponent personally, but it carries a lot of negative weight.

Plunk a few reactors around this giant land of ours and we'd be getting a lot closer to those Paris targets while seeing our Utility bills practically dry up.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Not having followed Keystone in detail, what was the reason for phase 4 having such a radically different route than phase 1? Surely it would have been much easier to gain approvals on land where those phase 1 deals were already in place. Obviously it's shorter, and I see that there was a plan to access the Bakken formation fields in Montana. Are those the only reasons? Was it thought that approval on the phase 4 route would be easier than additional capacity along the phase 1?

In retrospect, would a larger-capacity along the phase 1 line, combined with a connector line with the Bakken fields as a later phase have been better?

Phase 1 took the long route because they converted a big chunk of the old natural gas mainline to oil service. So most of the Canadian portion was already built.

For KXL they planned to build new, so they went the shortest route.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Locke

I veer away from Nuclear power because it is the red-headed stepchild of energy.

I'm a huge proponent personally, but it carries a lot of negative weight.

Plunk a few reactors around this giant land of ours and we'd be getting a lot closer to those Paris targets while seeing our Utility bills practically dry up.

Nuclear safety reminds of the airplanes vs cars comparison. Nuclear from a big-picture perspective is extremely safe and rarely ever fails, but when it fails it, it gets a lot of attention... like a plane crash. Meanwhile, other sources of energy are like car accidents...they add up, but don't necessarily make the news. When it comes to energy, there many more cumulative negative health and environmental effects (air pollution, mining, dangerous working conditions etc.) from non-nuclear sources, yet they don't get the headlines in the same way because there's not that one big news-making event.

I'm with you though, I think if we're serious about climate targets and still want to maintain our energy lifestyle, a much heavier reliance on nuclear is needed. It actually already makes up something like 20% of the USA's energy needs. In France it's a whopping 70%. France is an interesting case-study in that it's energy prices are half the cost of those of it's neighbour Germany (who went big on solar/wind instead).

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Locke

I veer away from Nuclear power because it is the red-headed stepchild of energy.

I'm a huge proponent personally, but it carries a lot of negative weight.

Plunk a few reactors around this giant land of ours and we'd be getting a lot closer to those Paris targets while seeing our Utility bills practically dry up.

I want all nuclear. I love the idea of a Mr Fusion on our cars. I want to see the nuclear version of the Pinto, where every day on the way to work we see these small mushroom clouds caused by rear end collisions.


(Or as Han Solo says Nuclear power doesn't work that way)

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont get this. Of course we have. Over and over and over and over whenever something better, more efficient or more convenient comes along we drop whatever we were using before for that newer, better thing.

Or are you still reading at night by lamp-light powered by whale-oil?

Perhaps more accurately it would be that humanity has never abandoned a primary source of energy. Despite the common use of whale oil as an example, it was never a major source of energy.

So when coal supplanted biomass, people still kept on burning wood. And when oil supplanted coal, coal use in 2019 is only 1.5% off its all-time high and 60% higher than it was 20 years ago. And natural gas is growing much faster than other sources of energy (mainly coal and nuclear) are declining from NG competition.







https://www.axios.com/despite-renewa...bce483473.html

[Rutuu]

Originally Posted by Locke

I veer away from Nuclear power because it is the red-headed stepchild of energy.

I'm a huge proponent personally, but it carries a lot of negative weight.

Plunk a few reactors around this giant land of ours and we'd be getting a lot closer to those Paris targets while seeing our Utility bills practically dry up.

The energy mix in most Canadian homes leans more heavily towards natural gas heating than electricity usage. Change heating to electric on all new builds would be key in your scenario.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Rutuu

The energy mix in most Canadian homes leans more heavily towards natural gas heating than electricity usage. Change heating to electric on all new builds would be key in your scenario.

Hey man....if it were up to me we'd have been splittin' some atoms years ago!

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hey man....if it were up to me we'd have been splittin' some atoms years ago!

Just an FYI, but we already are. There are 19 power reactors inside 5 nuclear plants in Canada (4 in Ontario, 1 in NB) that provide about 15% of our country's energy.

All in all, the majority of our electricity is generated from "renewable" resources...mostly hydro and nuclear.

Spoiler!

Compared that to China, where something like 59% is derived from coal.

[RichieRich]

Some interesting weblinks specific to Alberta below:
Alberta Major Projects: https://majorprojects.alberta.ca/#/
LIVE AESO Power: http://ets.aeso.ca/ets_web/ip/Market...DReportServlet
- this is cool because u can see the source energy whether it's hydro, solar, natural gas, etc.
Here's a different, more colorful, take on the above: https://www.dispatcho.app/

[burn_this_city]

I'm not too broken up about KXL. Truth be told I've questioned it's necessity for the last couple of years. We have pipe going in the ground for both Line 3 and TMX, is there really a business case for another 800kbpd?

The age of major projects is probably behind us for good, I'm skeptical we're going to add more production where the additional takeaway is needed.

Industry is looking hard at reducing diluent requirements, that's where I see our incremental capacity increases happening going forward. We could add 1/3 more production if we eliminated diluent blending.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'm not too broken up about KXL. Truth be told I've questioned it's necessity for the last couple of years. We have pipe going in the ground for both Line 3 and TMX, is there really a business case for another 800kbpd?

The age of major projects is probably behind us for good, I'm skeptical we're going to add more production where the additional takeaway is needed.

Industry is looking hard at reducing diluent requirements, that's where I see our incremental capacity increases happening going forward. We could add 1/3 more production if we eliminated diluent blending.

Pipelines won't get final investment decision until capacity is committed by the producers. It's a "build it and they will come" situation. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Pipelines won't get final investment decision until capacity is committed by the producers. It's a "build it and they will come" situation. Someone can correct me if I'm wrong on that.

The provincial government putting their thumb on the scale distorts the economics. Producers were signing up for any proposed capacity a few years ago, but now I doubt many have the same growth ambitions.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

The provincial government putting their thumb on the scale distorts the economics. Producers were signing up for any proposed capacity a few years ago, but now I doubt many have the same growth ambitions.

In the Pre Covid months Canada was still exporting 1.5 million m^3 per month by rail. This is about 350,000 bbls / day of current demand. That’s all of line 3s excess capacity.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by GGG

In the Pre Covid months Canada was still exporting 1.5 million m^3 per month by rail. This is about 350,000 bbls / day of current demand. That’s all of line 3s excess capacity.

True, but now that everyone has sat on their nickels for another year we've probably had a decent legacy decline in production, at least in conventional and some SAGD. 2019, no one spent money because of curtailment, 2020 had Covid shut in and plummeting rig count. We've had two years where we either cut back or didn't spend enough to really sustain the maximum capacity. There's also some shut in bottom tier SAGD that I'm skeptical get turned back on or will decline into nothing.

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Industry is looking hard at reducing diluent requirements, that's where I see our incremental capacity increases happening going forward. We could add 1/3 more production if we eliminated diluent blending.

The NDP Government launched a $2.1 Billion partial upgrading program to develop technologies to do exactly that but the UCP decided to cancel the program. Here's what the Sonya Savage had to say when defending the cancellation.

These programs rely on grants and loan guarantees, and carry a higher financial risk to government – and ultimately, to Albertans,

Morons

[Oil Stain]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'm not too broken up about KXL. Truth be told I've questioned it's necessity for the last couple of years. We have pipe going in the ground for both Line 3 and TMX, is there really a business case for another 800kbpd?

The age of major projects is probably behind us for good, I'm skeptical we're going to add more production where the additional takeaway is needed.

Industry is looking hard at reducing diluent requirements, that's where I see our incremental capacity increases happening going forward. We could add 1/3 more production if we eliminated diluent blending.

Should be pushing pipelines hard to the coast, and some major LNG projects.

LNG is at a record high price level currently and its going to be a growth market for years.

[the_only_turek_fan]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

I'm not too broken up about KXL. Truth be told I've questioned it's necessity for the last couple of years. We have pipe going in the ground for both Line 3 and TMX, is there really a business case for another 800kbpd?

The age of major projects is probably behind us for good, I'm skeptical we're going to add more production where the additional takeaway is needed.

Industry is looking hard at reducing diluent requirements, that's where I see our incremental capacity increases happening going forward. We could add 1/3 more production if we eliminated diluent blending.

This decision has pretty much put me in a state of depression the last week.

It pretty much guarantees that major expansions at places like Christina Lake and Foster Creek are dead.

I am not going to make the case for Alberta oil here. There are hundreds if not thousands of posts on the form making the case.

It’s just a sad day. I just feel helpless and sad.