Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I have such complicated feelings about all this.

On one hand, while the world requires Oil, having market access for our oil is important. And I am disappointed that it will have some negative economic impact on our region.

On the other hand, the world is going to transition more away from fossil fuels, whether we like it or not, because of climate impacts and other emerging energy sources that are becoming more economic. The world is always going to need more and more energy, and nothing makes me more anxious than our companies seemingly unwilling or unable to participate and lead in business and opportunity related to energy sources other than oil and gas.

I detest that the bolded is a semi-popular opinion among millennial Albertans. We're sitting on one of the world's largest deposits of energy (Oil, natural gas, etc.), directly bordering the world's biggest consumer of energy, and within reasonably short shipping distance from the other large consumers of energy and yet we're so f'ing stupid that we refuse to move heaven and Earth to fully realize the potential of the world's luckiest endowment of natural resource riches. Then people lazily dismiss this stupidity and rationalize it away and suggest that our economy should look past our built-in competitive advantage and lead the charge into areas in which the entire world can compete with us on almost equal footing.

[Fuzz]

These leaders need to come to the realization that you are never going to save the earth by cutting Alberta off. If the US really wants to save the planet, they need to start by setting up an energy budget, and gradually reducing it. Look at that budget, and then decide where it makes the most sense geopolitically, financially, and total emissions -wise, and purchase oil from those countries.

If that includes Canada(which it logically would), then great. As their energy budget decreases to only using local sources, well then I could see us getting cut off. But this ridiculous game of saying no to one source of oil, while purchasing it elsewhere from places that is worse for a multitude of reasons is not going to save the planet. You are still using more than you should. Start with your budget, and work back from there.

[Bunk]

Ok, sure. Describe what "moving heaven and earth" looks like? Federal governments buying pipelines?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Bunk

Ok, sure. Describe what "moving heaven and earth" looks like? Federal governments buying pipelines?

I dont know where you're going with this.

This was the very definition of 'Screwing Yourself' and thats putting it politely because this site has a swear filter.

There was a private company that was ready, willing and able to do it. The Government simply couldnt get out of their own way in terms of permits and approvals and at the end of the day, when something was for the public good but the Government didnt have the testicular fortitude to just do what was right they were forced into an unenviable endgame.

Make no mistake, the Government purchasing that pipeline wasnt a positive. It was a last-ditch scenario of their own making.

And now here we are. But in no way was this a good thing.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I detest that the bolded is a semi-popular opinion among millennial Albertans. We're sitting on one of the world's largest deposits of energy (Oil, natural gas, etc.), directly bordering the world's biggest consumer of energy, and within reasonably short shipping distance from the other large consumers of energy and yet we're so f'ing stupid that we refuse to move heaven and Earth to fully realize the potential of the world's luckiest endowment of natural resource riches. Then people lazily dismiss this stupidity and rationalize it away and suggest that our economy should look past our built-in competitive advantage and lead the charge into areas in which the entire world can compete with us on almost equal footing.

How many coal rich regions thought the same way a few decades ago, only to be destitute by not being able to shift their economies when coal died? Oil is a dying industry, pipelines are nothing but a bandaid solution at this point. The biggest problem facing Alberta right now is having a government that refuses to believe that and has wasted billions of dollars on a sinking ship

[burn_this_city]

The world has changed in the last few years. O&G investors don't want growth, they want money returned to shareholders. Everywhere is facing the same pressure, reduce cost, maintain production, and give us our money back.

They also want production with no GHG emissions, or a plan to achieve that by mid century at the latest.

Companies will grow incrementally over the next few years, but they aren't going to plan large expansions, because the market has told us they don't want risky growth.

There is still going to be a ton of work over the next few years and beyond. If oil pops due to lack of investment there will be a mini boom while everyone races to restore production and tap their low hanging growth prospects.

Beyond 2030 I think the emphasis will be on GHG projects to get us to zero emissions or competitive with the best in class.

The industry is looking at a whole bunch of future opportunities, geothermal, blue hydrogen ect.

I guess I don't share the same bearish outlook over a pipeline that even Trump himself couldn't get done in 4 years. That we arguably don't need for at least 5 years maybe forever.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

How many coal rich regions thought the same way a few decades ago, only to be destitute by not being able to shift their economies when coal died? Oil is a dying industry, pipelines are nothing but a bandaid solution at this point. The biggest problem facing Alberta right now is having a government that refuses to believe that and has wasted billions of dollars on a sinking ship

You're joking...right?

[Table 5]

I read that because of Covid, by most expert estimates, the Y/Ys demand for oil was expected to drop by around 25%. We were shut in our homes, the global economy ground to a halt, people were working from home, flights were mostly grounded, cross-border travel neutered....and yet demand only dropped by around 7%.

Spoiler!

Why? Because our need for energy for even basic functions is massive, and because there is an insatiable and growing appetite for energy in the developing world. While it may seem to us in the developed world that the death of oil is just around the corner, the reality is that there's a massive demand for energy in the developing world. That's where the vast majority of people are, where the most room for economic growth is, and where many people are simply looking to play catch up and improve their standard of living (and let's face it, these people are not going to go from a tuk-tuk to a Tesla).

Personally I'm of the opinion that we in Alberta need to play both sides to be successful. 1) Make sure we diversity enough from oil to fit the social sentiment and political/environmental realities of the West, and 2) Do whatever we can to make sure that we can still sell our primary asset to the East.... because that's where the growth is and where the real money is going to be made over the next several decades.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Locke

I dont know where you're going with this.

This was the very definition of 'Screwing Yourself' and thats putting it politely because this site has a swear filter.

There was a private company that was ready, willing and able to do it. The Government simply couldnt get out of their own way in terms of permits and approvals and at the end of the day, when something was for the public good but the Government didnt have the testicular fortitude to just do what was right they were forced into an unenviable endgame.

Make no mistake, the Government purchasing that pipeline wasnt a positive. It was a last-ditch scenario of their own making.

And now here we are. But in no way was this a good thing.

I thought the federal government approved TransMountain. Was it because it wasn't litigation proof or something that Kinder Morgan wanted to take the risk itself? Would that have required being declared "of national importance" or something?

I'm asking what actual tactics are needed to get out of the quandary. I agree market access is an important issue. Current tactics of being mad at opponents and calling them stupid and not getting it, while psychologically satisfying, hasn't worked. So, what do you actually do?

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

I detest that the bolded is a semi-popular opinion among millennial Albertans. We're sitting on one of the world's largest deposits of energy (Oil, natural gas, etc.), directly bordering the world's biggest consumer of energy, and within reasonably short shipping distance from the other large consumers of energy and yet we're so f'ing stupid that we refuse to move heaven and Earth to fully realize the potential of the world's luckiest endowment of natural resource riches. Then people lazily dismiss this stupidity and rationalize it away and suggest that our economy should look past our built-in competitive advantage and lead the charge into areas in which the entire world can compete with us on almost equal footing.

Ok, fine. My question is "why not both"? Seems like hedging is not a terrible economic strategy. Our current plan doesn't seem to be working very well.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I thought the federal government approved TransMountain. Was it because it wasn't litigation proof or something that Kinder Morgan wanted to take the risk itself? Would that have required being declared "of national importance" or something?

I'm asking what actual tactics are needed to get out of the quandary. I agree market access is an important issue. Current tactics of being mad at opponents and calling them stupid and not getting it, while psychologically satisfying, hasn't worked. So, what do you actually do?

they asked the government for assurances on being able to build it, the Government ragged the puck and wouldn't give a straight answer, the Kinder decided to stop throwing money at it and walk away and invest their cash elsewhere.


In terms of the whole shut down Oil in Canada argument. The Oil industry isn't dying not yet, there's still a heavy requirement for it. Its still also a essential part of manufacturing technology and cars etc.

What do we think is going to happen if we poop can our industry through indecision or indifference, that the other world producers are going to go Canada is so swell, we're going to follow our lead? Or are they going to laugh at us and up their exports, and that includes the States. the market share won't diminish it will just go to Russia, and Saudi Arabia and the States and Norway for example.

And its not like the Green Energy Companies are going to make up that gap, they are all clamering for heavy government subsidies.

And where are we going to get the money to build these solar farms and windmills and electrication of the grid for cars that's going to cost trillions. Is it just going to be the government writing checks against the debt? At least with Oil and Gas which we're cleaner then Arabia and Russia and the states for example can pay for that infrastructure like it helped pay for equalization.

This whole the Oil industry is dying, not true, this whole renewables can easily replace it, not yet and not without major investment.

We're being dumb on this, we have a resources in demand and we are the only nation in the world that feels shame about exploiting it.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

We're being dumb on this, we have a resources in demand and we are the only nation in the world that feels shame about exploiting it.

This seems to be the only answer. Saying well "we're dumb" or this is "stupidity". That hasn't worked. How do you overcome hurdle?

I noted that TC Energy to try and save Keystone XL promised carbon neutral development, solar power elements. Is that's what's persuasive? Could these tactics have actually been effective 7-8 years ago when trying to build the case for approval, instead of when it was already too late?

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

How many coal rich regions thought the same way a few decades ago, only to be destitute by not being able to shift their economies when coal died? Oil is a dying industry, pipelines are nothing but a bandaid solution at this point.

Those coal rich regions probably died because

a) They ran out of good coal, not an issue for Alberta's large oil reserves
b) They faced competition from cheap natural gas and weren't able to export coal to coal hungry regions. Australia's coal exports are almost as big as Alberta's oil exports.

But as a critically important global source of energy, declarations of the death of coal look extremely premature (coal is the top line).

The biggest problem facing Alberta right now is having a government that refuses to believe that and has wasted billions of dollars on a sinking ship

The biggest problem for Alberta is that relatively unique for a major oil exporter, it has trouble getting oil to world markets. Like with LNG, the lack of export capability means that Canada has left tens of billions of dollars every year on the table for the Middle East and Australia to scoop up.

[CaptainCrunch]

No and it won't work now, the whole concept of social license is a failure. If People were interested in actual environmentalism, then the demand would be to shut down US production, especially in California, and Saudi Arabia and Russia who have really no environmental standards.

Canada gets targeted because it works because we have a unneccessary collective weakness. The Russians, Saudi's and American's don't care about that, they pump it and sell it and we hear nary a word.

When Biden came out with his tar sands word choices, all I could think of is what is this bs, California is far dirtier and their off shore stuff far more dangerous then anything we do up here. But there's no where near the same intensity of protest against those. this isn't about the environment, this is about competition elimination and market share. We're willing to give up ours, because somehow we have an over inflated sense of self that people are going to respect it.

The idea of social license, even internally in Canada outright failed. And Canada's reliance on the concept of somehow being soft on using our resources is going to lend an example isn't going to work.


We could come up with a extraction and pipeline concept in Canada that would actually clean the air and bring back carrier pigeons and it wouldn't matter.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by Bunk

This seems to be the only answer. Saying well "we're dumb" or this is "stupidity". That hasn't worked. How do you overcome hurdle?

I noted that TC Energy to try and save Keystone XL promised carbon neutral development, solar power elements. Is that's what's persuasive? Could these tactics have actually been effective 7-8 years ago when trying to build the case for approval, instead of when it was already too late?

You'll notice everyone and their mother are using the social license argument to try and drive demand and rationale for getting AB product to market. However, it's obviously falling on deaf ears. People were panning Notley's administration for the same thing.

I'm not sure what move to do next, other than stress the "North American" energy framework approach to US politicians, or let developing countries know we'll ship it to their doorstep at rock bottom prices. Somehow I think both are doomed to fail.

[accord1999]

Originally Posted by Bunk

I thought the federal government approved TransMountain. Was it because it wasn't litigation proof or something that Kinder Morgan wanted to take the risk itself? Would that have required being declared "of national importance" or something?

I'm asking what actual tactics are needed to get out of the quandary. I agree market access is an important issue. Current tactics of being mad at opponents and calling them stupid and not getting it, while psychologically satisfying, hasn't worked. So, what do you actually do?

I'm not sure there are any tactics. LNG Canada and its NG pipeline, Coastal Gas Link, are supported by the BC and Alberta Governments and the Federal Government, aren't the "dreaded" bitumen that contaminate coastal areas if spilled and yet a small number of protesters against the project were able to halt much of Canada's railroad system with little repercussion.

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

The idea of social license, even internally in Canada outright failed. And Canada's reliance on the concept of somehow being soft on using our resources is going to lend an example isn't going to work.

I hear people say this - and environmental action will never placate the most ardent opponents to resource development to be sure. But, the Prime Minister did use climate action as political cover with respect to decisions around TransMountain. Clearly he believed that was important in some respect to convincing the large political middle in Canada that this was a good decision. I don't think you can unequivocally say social licence as a concept outright failed, or will always fail. If he didn't understand this below statement to have political value, he simply would not have used it as rationale.

"Let me say this definitively, we could not have approved this project without the leadership of Premier Notley and Alberta's climate leadership plan," Trudeau told reporters in Ottawa Tuesday while announcing the go-ahead of the pipeline. "A plan that commits to pricing carbon and capping oilsands emissions at 100 megatonnes per year."

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...vals-1.3873664

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Hemi-Cuda

How many coal rich regions thought the same way a few decades ago, only to be destitute by not being able to shift their economies when coal died? Oil is a dying industry, pipelines are nothing but a bandaid solution at this point. The biggest problem facing Alberta right now is having a government that refuses to believe that and has wasted billions of dollars on a sinking ship

Last I checked, people are travelling more than ever in the modern era. Unless there's a viable alternative to jet fuel, oil isn't going away anytime soon. It may go away eventually, but it's far from dying now. Last I checked, global consumption of oil just keeps going up.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Bunk

This seems to be the only answer. Saying well "we're dumb" or this is "stupidity". That hasn't worked. How do you overcome hurdle?

You and I are lucky that our livelihoods are not directly tied to the energy sector, but I can see why it is extremely frustrating to those that are. The majority of these hurdles are not free-market driven, were put there by those outside of our province's borders, and we are not allowed to navigate around them as we see fit. The only path forward that we are being given is to start doing things that are outside of our natural competitive advantage. It's like taking away the basketball from Lebron James, and telling him that he's welcome to play hacky sack.

[CaptainCrunch]

I'm tired of this government refusing to answer any questions. Sounds like the government is just going to fold under on this.

https://twitter.com/user/status/1352023863274528768


If this was effecting Ontario, I'm sure there would have been some kind of discussion on what the government would do to protect jobs in Ontario. Just a completely weak answer on Garneau's part.



As well its a bit of a slap in the face to Canada that Biden didn't have a discussion with Justin prior to this sneaking out in the news a couple of days ago.


There will be no fight by the government and the government won't go after the American's under NAFTA.


Wonder how hard the government will fight when Biden goes after things like Dairy and agriculture and other things that fall under his America first platform.