Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by GullFoss

Looking at proxies this year for some mid-cap oil companies I've bought - executive compensation is crazy for these guys. For example, the total pay-packet for the executive team at one of the companies is $20m+ vs the market capitalization of the company is $500m. These guy's are literally robbing the owners blind. They're getting paid more than the CEO's of companies that have market caps 10x their size!!! And their stock prices are down 90% in the past five years. It's disgusting.

Honestly, in the long run, the only oil & gas companies worth owning in this country are Suncor and CNRL. Among the many reasons why investors are shunning mid-cap and small-cap canadian oil and gas, this has to be one of them.

This is typical. Also look at the terms for dismissal - they're hilariously one-sided.

[BigNumbers]

Originally Posted by GGG

Turnaround season is also coming up so May /June will have lower production within Canada as well

More importantly, we are coming into WCS's high-demand season, as WCS bbl's are used for asphalt production, and now through August is prime road repair season in NA.

We always see WCS pricing pick up this time of year, due to seasonal demand.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by BigNumbers

More importantly, we are coming into WCS's high-demand season, as WCS bbl's are used for asphalt production, and now through August is prime road repair season in NA.

We always see WCS pricing pick up this time of year, due to seasonal demand.

While I don't disagree with the macro view of things re:WCS, something else is afoot here. As noted - Venez tar is far worse than WCS, and a number of the Gulf refineries are geared towards it and are short some barrels, so WCS is fitting into that mix nicely, fueling demand and tightening the diff. Turnaround season and asphalt season just play into the normal annual cycle for downstreamers.

[Fuzz]

At an Alberta oil loading terminal, a convoy of big rigs are gearing up to haul Canadian crude oil hundreds of miles through bone dry fields across the U.S. border into Montana, where the oil will be transferred to pipelines and rail cars headed south and west.
Trucks loaded with crude are an increasingly common sight at the border. Production has risen in the world’s fifth largest producer but full pipelines and a rail car shortage have made it difficult for drillers to ship oil out of Canada.
Some oil producers are feeling the pressure from customers.Alberta-based Gear Energy Ltd pumps about 7,500 barrels of oil equivalent per day, and recently had an Asian customer walk away from an agreement to buy crude after failing to secure a way to ship oil to the West Coast.

https://boereport.com/2018/04/22/fac...d-at-a-time-2/

Now we are shipping oil by truck. STOP THE MADNESS! Stupid protesters.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm kind of glad that I'm not the Premiere of Alberta, because I would have executed order 68 on Canada and BC by now.

[Tron_fdc]

Can we not build a giant pipeline to Montana, and then at the same time load up on rail cars to ship oil to the West Coast? I know Notley said the pipeline will be built by any means necessary, but maybe the approach would be to move the oil by any means necessary. This includes rail, truck, car, boat, whatever. Fill slip tanks with bitumen and send a fleet of F350's out while "rolling coal" through Burnaby for all I care.

Admit defeat and give the protesters what they want.... which is a more hazardous, cost intensive solution to no pipelines. Build a pipeline from Northern Alberta to a hub to (let's say) Medicine Hat, then either rail it to the coast or pump it south.

It's just so ridiculous and frustrating.

[Shazam]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Can we not build a giant pipeline to Montana, and then at the same time load up on rail cars to ship oil to the West Coast? I know Notley said the pipeline will be built by any means necessary, but maybe the approach would be to move the oil by any means necessary. This includes rail, truck, car, boat, whatever. Fill slip tanks with bitumen and send a fleet of F350's out while "rolling coal" through Burnaby for all I care.

Admit defeat and give the protesters what they want.... which is a more hazardous, cost intensive solution to no pipelines. Build a pipeline from Northern Alberta to a hub to (let's say) Medicine Hat, then either rail it to the coast or pump it south.

It's just so ridiculous and frustrating.

Keystone XL.

Rail is really expensive. The price differential occurs because transport costs are so high.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by Shazam

Keystone XL.

Rail is really expensive. The price differential occurs because transport costs are so high.

Why are they shipping by truck to Montana then? Is Keystone maxed?

Rail may be more expensive but it's still better than no shipments at all.

[Shazam]

Yes. That is why Keystone XL is being made.

A lot of the opposition is funded from the Koch brothers. They own refineries that process heavy oil and they want it cheap.

[Tron_fdc]

The bottlenecks are frustrating for Canadian oil producers because heavy crude is in great demand from U.S. Gulf of Mexico refineries, which are designed to process it, and have faced shortages of Venezuelan and Mexican heavy crude.

Large producers tend to store oil until they have enough volume to fill a train, but for smaller producers who cannot shut production and lack storage capacity, trucks may be the only option, said a Calgary trader.

“At the end of the day, you cannot put it back in the ground- it has to go somewhere,” he said. “If your alternative is a camel or a donkey, then that’s the alternative you have to go with.”

https://boereport.com/2018/04/22/fac...d-at-a-time-2/

You just gotta lol at this point.

[SebC]

Dirigibles, please.

[CliffFletcher]

Alberta energy company to use airplanes instead of pipeline to transport oil

[CaptainCrunch]

Didn't Boeing at one time want to develop massive oil tanker aircraft?

[Regorium]

Pretty massive setback for Enbridge here

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/busi...sota-rejected/

Judge Ann O’Reilly said Line 3 should proceed, but only on condition Enbridge removes and replaces the aging line along its existing right-of-way – an option the company had previously dismissed as impractical and cost prohibitive.

Shares down more than 5% today. To do a replacement in ditch is an incredible cost that will 100% mothball the project. It's frustrating because one of the main reasons that Enbridge proposed a new path is because of consultations with Indigenous peoples and to deal with environmental concerns.

This basically puts them, and the public utilities commission that will make the final call in June, between a rock and a hard place.

[Fuzz]

Just curious why it is cost prohibitive? First off, that's not very convincing as I would hope one day when the pipes are abandoned they are reclaimed. If this is admitting they don't plan on doing that...well..amo for the environmentalists. Second, they have to make a right of way, which involves all manner of tree cutting, clearing, leveling, property issues...how is it more expensive to use what is already there? They have to dig a ditch anyway, why not remove the old pipe at that time? Sounds like it is done for anyway.

[Peanut]

Im not an expert but my understanding was they usually decommission old pipelines in place. ie. they clean them out and then cut and cap. It’s considered more disruptive to the environment to haul equipment back out and tear up right-of-ways to dig the pipe back out of the ground, then have to backfill the trench and let the vegetation have to start regrowing all over again. Plus more disruptive to wildlife.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just curious why it is cost prohibitive? First off, that's not very convincing as I would hope one day when the pipes are abandoned they are reclaimed. If this is admitting they don't plan on doing that...well..amo for the environmentalists. Second, they have to make a right of way, which involves all manner of tree cutting, clearing, leveling, property issues...how is it more expensive to use what is already there? They have to dig a ditch anyway, why not remove the old pipe at that time? Sounds like it is done for anyway.

Depending on the width of the existing right of way you may not have room for a second trench. In a large scale pipeline construction you build an assembly line of trench digging, welding, nde, rolling into the ditch, and covering. So you significantly disrupt the process by trying to reclaim ditch.

With pigging and cleaning the line along with atmospheric monitoring of the line you ensure that no contaminates are left. Most pipeline right of way is down to just pickup access not crane access so like peanut said above the impact of removal is significant.

The only argument I could see in favour of rip and reuse is that you don't disrupt a second right of way but letting the existing one grow in is actually very quick reclamation. Then you have questions around is the current ROW suitable given modern environmental and design standards.

Leaving a clean pipe in the ground is an environmentally suitable reclamation of the land.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

The bottlenecks are frustrating for Canadian oil producers because heavy crude is in great demand from U.S. Gulf of Mexico refineries, which are designed to process it, and have faced shortages of Venezuelan and Mexican heavy crude.

Large producers tend to store oil until they have enough volume to fill a train, but for smaller producers who cannot shut production and lack storage capacity, trucks may be the only option, said a Calgary trader.

“At the end of the day, you cannot put it back in the ground- it has to go somewhere,” he said. “If your alternative is a camel or a donkey, then that’s the alternative you have to go with.”

https://boereport.com/2018/04/22/fac...d-at-a-time-2/

You just gotta lol at this point.

If it is in heavy demand, wouldn't it cost the refineries money if they can't run at higher capacities?

I also don't understand why we just don't expand our pipelines south. With Trump in power that shouldn't be an issue.

[puckedoff]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Just curious why it is cost prohibitive? First off, that's not very convincing as I would hope one day when the pipes are abandoned they are reclaimed. If this is admitting they don't plan on doing that...well..amo for the environmentalists. Second, they have to make a right of way, which involves all manner of tree cutting, clearing, leveling, property issues...how is it more expensive to use what is already there? They have to dig a ditch anyway, why not remove the old pipe at that time? Sounds like it is done for anyway.

I'm guessing cost prohibitive because they would have to take the exisitng line out of commission while they do some upgrades. They would prefer (as would heavy oil shippers) that this line stays in use while the new line is run.

[Tron_fdc]

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5936

Rapid economic development in China and India, coupled with relatively consistent energy use in industrialized nations, will likely strain the world's ability to meet a projected rise in energy demand of some 1.6 percent a year until 2030, the agency predicted Wednesday in its annual World Energy Outlook report.

$100 oil on the horizon?

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/23/oil-...ommentary.html