Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[V]

Originally Posted by KTrain

Workers Allegedly Threatened With Jail if They Don't Work Overtime

https://www.newsweek.com/workers-all...reddit-1737721

What a terrible article. I don't typically read the news, but when did it become newsworthy to report on reddit discussions. Wow.

Also, they added the word voluntary, albeit in single quotes. I haven't read the Collective Bargaining Agreement related to this particular case, but I did read the findings that iggy posted (thanks) and I don't see the word voluntary anywhere in there. While most workers think that overtime is voluntary, it would be highly irregular for that word to be found in an Agreement with respect to overtime. Typically the verbiage would speak of the company requiring work to be completed outside of regular working hours. It would also typically speak to how the overtime would be distributed amongst the employees, but I've never seen an agreement that would say that workers are within their rights to pick and choose what overtime they take. Common practice is you try to distribute equally, and you can usually find someone to take the shift, but rarely do you find a case where the collective group refuses to take overtime shifts, so this kind of thing doesn't typically come up.

While it may be an unpopular decision for workers, and assuming the CBA doesn't have highly irregular language, a coordinated effort by the employees as a collective to refuse work that the company deems required is absolutely an unlawful strike.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by V

What a terrible article. I don't typically read the news, but when did it become newsworthy to report on reddit discussions. Wow.

Also, they added the word voluntary, albeit in single quotes. I haven't read the Collective Bargaining Agreement related to this particular case, but I did read the findings that iggy posted (thanks) and I don't see the word voluntary anywhere in there. While most workers think that overtime is voluntary, it would be highly irregular for that word to be found in an Agreement with respect to overtime. Typically the verbiage would speak of the company requiring work to be completed outside of regular working hours. It would also typically speak to how the overtime would be distributed amongst the employees, but I've never seen an agreement that would say that workers are within their rights to pick and choose what overtime they take. Common practice is you try to distribute equally, and you can usually find someone to take the shift, but rarely do you find a case where the collective group refuses to take overtime shifts, so this kind of thing doesn't typically come up.

While it may be an unpopular decision for workers, and assuming the CBA doesn't have highly irregular language, a coordinated effort by the employees as a collective to refuse work that the company deems required is absolutely an unlawful strike.

I was actually inclined to agree with most of what you wrote here but I looked up what I think is the CA for this group and to my surprise they actually do have language stating that overtime is voluntary:

https://www.hrreporter.com/dynamicda...s_UBC_2010.pdf

Article 9 g) All overtime hours will be on a voluntary basis, scheduled or non- scheduled.

In any event though if an employer can prove that employees are taking job action by intentionally avoiding overtime to try and change conditions of employment that has very little to do with OT. Had the employees not circulated a letter stating their intentions I don’t think the board would have had sufficient evidence to rule it was an illegal strike.

[V]

Yeah, the letter is really what sunk them. Without it there could be no real proof that there was a coordinated effort to change terms of the agreement. Fun case, though, a good one to learn from.

[iggy_oi]

Originally Posted by V

Yeah, the letter is really what sunk them. Without it there could be no real proof that there was a coordinated effort to change terms of the agreement. Fun case, though, a good one to learn from.

It’s also a good reminder to people that as you mentioned overtime isn’t voluntary unless you have that stated in your contract, so long as it doesn’t extend your workday beyond 12 hours your employer can demand that you stay. A lot of people are completely unaware of this and don’t realize that by refusing to stay they are giving their employer cause to discipline them for job abandonment.

[cral12]

https://twitter.com/user/status/1565149514729947136

ah, meant to put this in the AB politics thread...sorry

[Yikes]

So I have pretty much zero knowledge of whatever agreements Alberta/Canada has with the USA regarding resources but I do have a question/scenario for those here that might know more about this.



What I don't understand is why we are not building a pipeline straight south within our border to the USA. We keep it within our borders and no one has a thing to say about it?



- Sell the oil sand product as feed stock, unprocessed, x amount per year, 50 year deal (?), we deliver it to the border and don't care what the customer does with it. Let the suits figure it out.



- Do not involve any form of Government in the USA.
- Sell all product to a group of private big boys put together by Buffet or whomever...the big leagues. Let those guys deal with all levels of Government to get THEIR PRODUCT to tide water/refineries/whatever, bribes, donations, lobby, let the Americans do what they do cuz if there are billions on the line they will get it done.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

It is getting it over the border that is the issue. To cross it, the Feds are involved.
What you seem to be describing is Kenney’s idiotic attempt to fund/build Keystone XL to the border. Utterly useless without a pipeline on the other side. The current US administration does not seem interested in building that pipeline.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It is getting it over the border that is the issue. To cross it, the Feds are involved.
What you seem to be describing is Kenney’s idiotic attempt to fund/build Keystone XL to the border. Utterly useless without a pipeline on the other side. The current US administration does not seem interested in building that pipeline.

Of course not. Neither was the last administration nor the one before that.

Because they are busy looking out for 'America First' and I hate to say it, but they've done a good job.

We're the ones too busy kicking in our own balls to understand the importance of energy independence and natural resource revenue.

America is growing their own independence and taking care of themselves. Like we should be doing.

And since it unduly benefits Alberta primarily, despite equalization payments, the rest of our 'Country' isnt interested and plays whatever politically beneficial cards they want to kill industry.

Which is why we are less of a 'Country' than we are a loosely affiliated collection of geographically adjacent territories. We have no concept of 'National Benefit.'

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

It is getting it over the border that is the issue. To cross it, the Feds are involved.
What you seem to be describing is Kenney’s idiotic attempt to fund/build Keystone XL to the border. Utterly useless without a pipeline on the other side. The current US administration does not seem interested in building that pipeline.

I get all of that, what I am saying is NO government on the USA side. All private involvement with deep, deep pockets buying directly from the big players in the Tar Sands with everyone still getting paid in Canada (yes Quebec as well). No pipeline on the US side?, no big deal, grease some palms, buy some politicians, farmers don't like it, buy them out...everything gets pushed out of the way if the right players are involved in the States.


Deal with people that get sh*t done and leave it to them to get it done.

[Suave]

But you need the government to approve the pipeline and issue a permit. You can't build a pipeline without government involvement on the regulatory side.

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by Suave

But you need the government to approve the pipeline and issue a permit. You can't build a pipeline without government involvement on the regulatory side.

Understood, I'm not seeing this as an issue if the pipeline is within Alberta borders....don't we still own a ton of NDP rail cars as well?


Crossing the Federal border? Well, if Ottawa still get's their cut that will be easy as well.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Yikes

I get all of that, what I am saying is NO government on the USA side. All private involvement with deep, deep pockets buying directly from the big players in the Tar Sands with everyone still getting paid in Canada (yes Quebec as well). No pipeline on the US side?, no big deal, grease some palms, buy some politicians, farmers don't like it, buy them out...everything gets pushed out of the way if the right players are involved in the States.


Deal with people that get sh*t done and leave it to them to get it done.

I am sorry, but none of this makes sense. Governments are involved when crossing a border. Full stop. To say “no problem” to no pipeline in the US is ignoring the problem to solve. We need pipelines to access other markets. We have some to the US. We need more to tidewater.

To avoid US politics, we need to avoid the US. That leaves us with building more pipe in Canada. I guess your answer is it “grease some palms”, but that seems to have been rather ineffective in Canada for some time. That is a lot of palms.

[Yikes]

I'm probably wrong but I see it as simple.


1) Find a USA corporation(s) as a customer.
2) Get the suits to figure out a long term contract for x$ per ton, FOB: Coutts (or whatever), factoring in all that they factor in over the term.

3) Build a pipeline within Alberta borders, straight south.
4) Use rail as required.
5) When the product crosses the border Ottawa gets their cut.
6) We really don't care what the USA corporations do with their product (they now own it) or how they choose to move it, process it. That is between them and whomever it is they have to deal with. The big boys that would get in on this have more political connections at all levels than the fools in Edmonton and Ottawa could ever dream of, dangle the biggest carrot in history and they will find a way to move the muck.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yikes

I'm probably wrong but I see it as simple.


1) Find a USA corporation(s) as a customer.
2) Get the suits to figure out a long term contract for x$ per ton, FOB: Coutts (or whatever), factoring in all that they factor in over the term.

3) Build a pipeline within Alberta borders, straight south.
4) Use rail as required.
5) When the product crosses the border Ottawa gets their cut.
6) We really don't care what the USA corporations do with their product (they now own it) or how they choose to move it, process it. That is between them and whomever it is they have to deal with. The big boys that would get in on this have more political connections at all levels than the fools in Edmonton and Ottawa could ever dream of, dangle the biggest carrot in history and they will find a way to move the muck.

It’s cheaper to move by rail if that’s the plan.

Savings 1000km of rail isn’t really material savings especially because with rail you ship far less diluent so you’d need diluent recovery at the boarder when converting from pipe to rail.

[OldDutch]

Originally Posted by Locke

Of course not. Neither was the last administration nor the one before that.

Because they are busy looking out for 'America First' and I hate to say it, but they've done a good job.

We're the ones too busy kicking in our own balls to understand the importance of energy independence and natural resource revenue.

America is growing their own independence and taking care of themselves. Like we should be doing.

And since it unduly benefits Alberta primarily, despite equalization payments, the rest of our 'Country' isnt interested and plays whatever politically beneficial cards they want to kill industry.

Which is why we are less of a 'Country' than we are a loosely affiliated collection of geographically adjacent territories. We have no concept of 'National Benefit.'

A year ago you would have been given a retort “Look at Germany” and “Oil is Dead”

The sad part is our current government actually still says that with a straight face

[Yikes]

Whatever is required for the customer to work with what is being shipped to them is their problem. Their problem, their issue, we don't care.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Yikes

Whatever is required for the customer to work with what is being shipped to them is their problem. Their problem, their issue, we don't care.

We do care

No one is buying it if it’s more expensive than shipping by rail.

Simplistically WCS at Hardisty is set by the marginal shipping cost + the WCS at Cushing or Midwest refineries.

The problem isnt getting oil to the gulf coast it’s the steep discount it creates to get it to the gulf coast

[Yikes]

No we don't care.


We ship the product to the FOB point for x amount of money.



If the contract makes no sense then it makes no sense, let the CEO's work that out. But I don't see how it could not considering the logistics of this versus the hell the industry goes through now to get product to customer.

[jammies]

Have you considered that if it was that simple the hundreds of thousands of people in the oil industry would have already figured it out?

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

[Yikes]

Originally Posted by jammies

Have you considered that if it was that simple the hundreds of thousands of people in the oil industry would have already figured it out?

Sent from my Pixel 4a (5G) using Tapatalk

Of course, lot's a smart people around. Maybe we just are not playing to USA greed well enough to get done what needs to get done? Trust me, guys like Buffet could get this done faster than you would believe.