Layoffs in the Oil Patch 3

[blender]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Just to add to some great points in a very simplistic way. Our marketing failed us. Too much this;



Not enough this;

I like this post.
The two images certainly convey two different impressions, yet the reality is neither one accurately displays any valuable evidence about the industry. Looks are deceiving at the best of times.

[Ashasx]

Originally Posted by blender

I like this post.
The two images certainly convey two different impressions, yet the reality is neither one accurately displays any valuable evidence about the industry. Looks are deceiving at the best of times.

It plays to emotions. Speaking out about this rationally has not benefitted Alberta so far in this game.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by RichieRich

I detect a spirit of angst blending away within you. Be calm... there was no affront intended just merely jovial wordplay.

So we got played... starting back in the 70's roughly when the USA recognized Canada's potential. Lobbying started, NEP was implemented, the development and construction of large processing facilities (think Joffre and Fort Saskatechewan mega-plex) started slowing down. Our government bought into external influences and stopped thinking for themselves, as well the decision makers out east looked after their people. Then, starting 10-15 years ago once it appeared that oilsands (SAGD, in-situ, tarsands, whatever you wish to label them) within Canada were clearly highly profitable there started a political and moreso public campaign which Federally was ignored and corporately was not recognized for it's danger. Somehow Canadian production became the bad guy despite implementing leading edge technologies that managed costs, environment, etc.

Next thing we had Hollywood celebrities flying over our open mines gasping in disbelief, yet they could/would not comprehend what they saw was on a lesser scale than many middle east, Russian, Indonesian, and African exploitation means. These other locations either would not allow these flyovers or engagement at all. These celebrities also did not, I assume, tour major production fields around the USA where drilling rigs were spud'd every 50m, where solution gas was freely vented to atmosphere (and still is), or no environmental issue gave cause to pause, stop, or approach development/exploitation by a more expensive yet more environmentally sensitive means.

Are there other resources that are being exploited that result in substantial physical damage, emissions, divided opinions, or Federal support/suppression? most certainly. And this includes the reality that full life-cycle of "green energy" which most often is anything but.

Anyways... that's my take on it. 'nuff said. Between this and all the other postings we've had a pretty good knowledge/opinion share.

You forgot that these celebrities were too lazy or too well paid to look in their own back yards. California's environmental record on their own oil fields is one of the dirtiest on the planet. Canada is easy to whine and protest about for these groups and celebs because we're pushovers, and because protesting in the States would probably get you arrested (oh the horror) or protesting in Saudi Arabia or China or elsewhere would get you killed.

[bizkitgto]

Originally Posted by bizkitgto

As far as public opposition to O&G development goes, it is real and it is sometimes vehement. Even if it is misguided, and some of it certainly is, in a country like Canada policy makers need to walk the line. We can't just force pipelines through aboriginal territories or constituencies that are against them.


This is laughably comical considering the ridiculousness of Bill C-69 and what it did to Alberta's oil and gas industry.

Brett Wilson's take on Bill C-69 is something all Canadians need to hear.

Here is the link to Bret Wilson’s take on Bill C69 and how damaging it is, I wish more Canadians understood how damaging this was to Alberta, and Canada in general:

https://youtu.be/WeCf1BOv1QQ

[CaptainCrunch]

C69 in combination with C48 is lethal

[Roughneck]

Alberta oil made it into the New York Times:


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/c...e=articleShare


These Zombie Wells Threaten the Whole Planet

[cal_guy]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

C69 in combination with C48 is lethal

https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-conte...-Bill-C-69.pdf

Specific to petroleum-based energy projects (oil, gas and coal), 50% of
projects under this activity type (14) remained unchanged from CEAA. Of
the project descriptions changed, 5 became less stringent (including a slight
increase in the storage capacity allowed before an LNG facility triggers
federal review) and 6 became more stringent through broadened scope.

In situ oil sands extraction facilities are a new addition to the list,
with possible exemption: a facility with a production capacity of 2,000
m3/day or more will require review, unless the facility is located in a
province with a legislated (and unreached) greenhouse gas emissions limit
for oil sands sites. As such, this exemption currently applies in Alberta.

The IAA list is arguably more lenient than CEAA on oil and gas pipeline proponents. Of the 4 oil and
gas pipeline entries, the impact is split: 1 removed, 1 less stringent, 1 more stringent and 1 new.
Most notably, the entry for a new onshore pipeline became less stringent, with both a reduced
threshold and narrowed scope.2 Only pipelines requiring 75km or more of a new right-of-way will
be designated, compared to 40km or more of new pipeline under CEAA; this means that pipelines
built within an already established right-of-way will no longer be automatically designated. The
description was also amended to include pipeline decommissioning and abandonment and the
separate entry for those end-of-life activities removed, meaning only one federal assessment is
now required over the lifetime of a pipeline project.
Based solely on a comparison of projects that will automatically require federal review, it is not
likely that the IAA will be a disabler of major infrastructure projects, especially oil and gas pipeline
infrastructure, as compared to the outgoing CEAA

[Johnny199r]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Alberta oil made it into the New York Times:


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/c...e=articleShare


These Zombie Wells Threaten the Whole Planet

Is there a good reason why the government didn't enforce cleanup of these wells over the last several decades?

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

Alberta oil made it into the New York Times:


https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/30/c...e=articleShare


These Zombie Wells Threaten the Whole Planet

Interestingly enough I met with Alec when he was here this past summer researching for this story. Very nice and intelligent guy. I do like the article he wrote.

Only thing that bugged me is I asked if he did any similar research into the USA and their issues and he said he does know about it but that’s not what he was tasked with.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Interestingly enough I met with Alec when he was here this past summer researching for this story. Very nice and intelligent guy. I do like the article he wrote.

Only thing that bugged me is I asked if he did any similar research into the USA and their issues and he said he does know about it but that’s not what he was tasked with.

Thanks for this. A clear illustration that the best defense is a better offense. In other words, like magic, misdirection and small lies and say it enough times and people will believe you. Furthermore, control the media and you control the people.

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by Johnny199r

Is there a good reason why the government didn't enforce cleanup of these wells over the last several decades?

Because that costs money and companies didn't want to pay it, so they successfully lobbied the government so that they wouldn't need to enforce cleanup.

[JD]

At least they didn't choose a sensationalist headline or anything.

So when can we expect these wells to come for our brains anyway?

[sa226]

Is it standard practice in severance deals to add stipulations for not telling anyone outside immediate family, not disparaging the company, etc?

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

[ah123]

Originally Posted by sa226

Is it standard practice in severance deals to add stipulations for not telling anyone outside immediate family, not disparaging the company, etc?

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

My severance agreement had something that I could only share the details with immediate family and legal/financial advisor. Don’t remember any other clauses

[Oling_Roachinen]

Originally Posted by sa226

Is it standard practice in severance deals to add stipulations for not telling anyone outside immediate family, not disparaging the company, etc?

I can't speak to if it's standard, but it's not unusual.

https://ca.practicallaw.thomsonreute...ta=(sc.Default)

This provision is commonly found in:
Settlement agreements.
Severance agreements.
Stock or benefits agreements.
Employment agreements.
Employee handbooks.

https://www.flodenward.com/post/wron...berta-releases

Non-disparagement provisions basically say that you won't say anything negative about the company. In my view, it is frankly better for employers not to give employees anything to complain about during their employment/dismissal. Not all employers subscribe to this view and so will insist on non-disparagement.

I think there's been a couple cases thanks to the likes of social media and Uber that have had some interesting things happening but I think it's still a legal clause.

[Superfraggle]

Originally Posted by sa226

Is it standard practice in severance deals to add stipulations for not telling anyone outside immediate family, not disparaging the company, etc?

Sent from my SM-G973W using Tapatalk

Mine was like that, yeah.

[Oling_Roachinen]

I would say that even though it may be common, it still a clause in a contract that you don't need to sign.

If it's super important to you to be able to talk #### about your former employer (to the point you are actively trying to make waves),or reveal your severance, then that's a right you have as long as it's not defamation (depending on what other contracts you may have signed throughout your employment). Signing that agreement, agreeing to the clause, takes it away.

Get an employment lawyer if it's important to you, but I think probably most of us would try to fight for more money rather than the ability to talk #### if we were looking at legal counsel lol.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Oling_Roachinen

I would say that even though it may be common, it still a clause in a contract that you don't need to sign.

If it's super important to you to be able to talk #### about your former employer (to the point you are actively trying to make waves),or reveal your severance, then that's a right you have as long as it's not defamation (depending on what other contracts you may have signed throughout your employment). Signing that agreement, agreeing to the clause, takes it away.

Get an employment lawyer if it's important to you, but I think probably most of us would try to fight for more money rather than the ability to talk #### if we were looking at legal counsel lol.

Having been through this, Employment Lawyers are insanely expensive. So unless you think you're owed a substantial amount of money, and typically the difference between that number and the severance likely doesnt span the Gulf of the Legal Fees, its my experience that most employment law is about Vengeance. One way or the other.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by Locke

Having been through this, Employment Lawyers are insanely expensive. So unless you think you're owed a substantial amount of money, and typically the difference between that number and the severance likely doesnt span the Gulf of the Legal Fees, its my experience that most employment law is about Vengeance. One way or the other.

Sometimes a simple demand letter can be sufficient though and they are relatively cheap.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Weitz

Sometimes a simple demand letter can be sufficient though and they are relatively cheap.

If thats your experience then it is what it is. Its not mine though.