Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[puckedoff]

Finally some good news. KXL gets jumpstart from Trump.

[Regorium]

I wonder which parts of the permit he changed - isn't it just going to get an injunction on it right away anyways if he just issued the same thing as March 2017?

[CaptainCrunch]

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...line-1.5093861

A new study shows that the total number of companies producing oil and gas in Western Canada has fallen by 17.5 per cent in the four years since global oil prices began crashing at the end of 2014.


Consulting firm XI Technologies of Calgary says an analysis of its database shows that a total of 1,334 active companies — publicly traded, privately held and foreign-owned — reported oil or gas production in December 2018.


That's down 282 from 1,616 in the same month four years earlier, a period in which investor confidence was strained due to low oil prices which bottomed out in late 2016 and by oil discounts last year blamed on a lack of pipeline capacity.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...line-1.5093861

While interesting, i'd be curious to know some more information. Its a lot harder to make it as a junior these days.


On a side note, Nexen is laying off 550 staff over the next 18 months. Centralizing positions at their head office in China.

[GullFoss]

US poised to announce removal of waivers for Iran oil. This is a big deal. Potentially a game changer

[Ducay]

Double meat again?

[Slava]

There’s some thought that Brent would hit $80 if Iran stops exporting. Who knew that all we needed to do was get rid of Notley?!

[OMG!WTF!]

I thought Trump was not into high oil prices.

[_Q_]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I thought Trump was not into high oil prices.

I don't think Trump has the brain capacity to understand what causes high oil prices.

[Ashasx]

Oilsands CO2 emissions may be far higher than companies report, scientists say

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/o...tudy-1.5106809

Nice headline, CBC.

Oh wait.

The lead author of the paper, John Liggio of Environment Canada, was quick to point out that the lower emissions rates reported by companies are in no way due to data-toggling or dishonesty on their part. Instead, the differences between his team's estimates and previously reported numbers are related to methodology

This is why people hate Oil & Gas. They read a headline, and that's all they need.

It means that Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions would be around 2.3 per cent higher than previously thought. And if research eventually shows that other oilsands sites are subject to similar underreporting issues, Canada's overall greenhouse gas emissions could be as much as six per cent more than thought — throwing a wrench into the calculations that underpin government emissions strategies.

So following standard methodology dictated by the UN, and it's still only potentially SIX percent understated. From an area that accounts for 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

"far higher". Jesus Christ.

[OMG!WTF!]

I miss when we muzzled scientists.

[Regorium]

That scientist is straight up ######ed.

[dre]

Originally Posted by Ashasx

Oilsands CO2 emissions may be far higher than companies report, scientists say

https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/o...tudy-1.5106809



So following standard methodology dictated by the UN, and it's still only potentially SIX percent understated. From an area that accounts for 0.1% of global greenhouse gas emissions.

"far higher". Jesus Christ.

From the article: "The researchers, mainly from Environment Canada, calculated emissions rates for four major oilsands surface mining operations using air samples collected in 2013 on 17 airplane flights over the area."

Could that give you an incorrect reading? Where were the sensors placed, behind the exhaust?

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by dre

From the article: "The researchers, mainly from Environment Canada, calculated emissions rates for four major oilsands surface mining operations using air samples collected in 2013 on 17 airplane flights over the area."

Could that give you an incorrect reading? Where were the sensors placed, behind the exhaust?

What height did they fly? What operations were happening during those flights? When did they fly?

Why only 2013 (ie. during the height of the boom), and comparing to current day reports?

[RyZ]

Originally Posted by dre

From the article: "The researchers, mainly from Environment Canada, calculated emissions rates for four major oilsands surface mining operations using air samples collected in 2013 on 17 airplane flights over the area."

Could that give you an incorrect reading? Where were the sensors placed, behind the exhaust?

I was listening to 770 an hour or so ago and Danielle Smith read an email sent in by a guy claiming to be on the panel that reviewed the report in 2013 and he claimed the sensors were, in fact, flown directly behind the planes, directly in the exhaust stream causing the spike in readings. Take it for what it is worth, but that claim is certainly out there by someone directly involved in reviewing the original report.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by RyZ

I was listening to 770 an hour or so ago and Danielle Smith read an email sent in by a guy claiming to be on the panel that reviewed the report in 2013 and he claimed the sensors were, in fact, flown directly behind the planes, directly in the exhaust stream causing the spike in readings. Take it for what it is worth, but that claim is certainly out there by someone directly involved in reviewing the original report.

That really is shocking.
Especially considering that it would obviously be impossible to say, get baseline readings away from the facilities, and/or calibrate for the fact that the sensors are behind the plane.

Obviously this is invalid because the people who do these sorts of things are completely unaware of how their equipment works, what could affect the readings, and how to correct for those factors. I mean, it took what, 3 posts for someone to ask if this was behind a plane. I can't believe the would miss something so obvious.

[burn_this_city]

Seems unlikely that they didn't account for that.

[GGG]

A few things this reportemtions but doesn’t make the headline is that GHG emmissioms are reported based on the UN agreed upon measure so finding between 10% and 60% increased emissions shows there could be a significant methodology problem with all of the UN data when calculating industrial emissions.

Do the headline should be UN methodology under reports industrial emissions not Oilsamds pollutes more than stated because the headline of the article implies that this is a localized problem.

The article does do a good job of stating the oil sands companies are compliant with the reporting requirements for CO2 and methane emissions.

[Fuzz]

There are several satellites up or going up in the next few years that should be able to sort this out. I think the data is available now to use, so maybe the scientists should try comparing against that before releasing this? All this report says is "two methods are giving different results. We have no idea which one is correct, if any."

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

There are several satellites up or going up in the next few years that should be able to sort this out. I think the data is available now to use, so maybe the scientists should try comparing against that before releasing this? All this report says is "two methods are giving different results. We have no idea which one is correct, if any."

But CBC is quick to blame Alberta companies once again.

Scientists that talk to the CBC need to be smarter, unless this is the exact response they wanted. As the framing and clickbait headline from CBC was completely expected, it tells me that the scientist was actually acting out of malice.