Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[SeeGeeWhy]

https://www.saskatchewan.ca/governme...dular-reactors

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

Oilsands has already largely reduced emissions by 30% the last 2 decades, so reducing by another 40% would be pretty remarkable.

Is there any other oil producing jurisdiction on the planet that is anywhere near that level of reduction?

Start building IMSRs for process heat. 100% carbon free steam for SAGD, Steam Methane Reformation at hydrogenation, mine froth plant process steam, and cogeneration of course. Get into fertilizer production big time. So much petrochemical spin off possibilities.

Provincial Announcement on SMRs

[Mr.Coffee]

Nm

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

https://www.saskatchewan.ca/governme...dular-reactors

Start building IMSRs for process heat. 100% carbon free steam for SAGD, Steam Methane Reformation at hydrogenation, mine froth plant process steam, and cogeneration of course. Get into fertilizer production big time. So much petrochemical spin off possibilities.

Provincial Announcement on SMRs

I was thinking this as well. Could be a potential game changer and would allow for large developments without necessarily increasing emissions.

Fertilizer production is critical right now. I wonder how Sask is handling it.

The other thing is we need more interprovincial power selling. For some reason Manitoba is slow to sell power into Sask, but quick to sell to the US. I get the returns might be better because of exchange rates, but its sucks for helping Sask grow their needs.

Blows your mind how shortsighted our politicians are.
These days I'm amazed if they can find the pisser in the morning.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was thinking this as well. Could be a potential game changer and would allow for large developments without necessarily increasing emissions.

Fertilizer production is critical right now. I wonder how Sask is handling it.

The other thing is we need more interprovincial power selling. For some reason Manitoba is slow to sell power into Sask, but quick to sell to the US. I get the returns might be better because of exchange rates, but its sucks for helping Sask grow their needs.

Blows your mind how shortsighted our politicians are.
These days I'm amazed if they can find the pisser in the morning.

We need a national energy program. [ducks]

[Geraldsh]

Originally Posted by edslunch

We need a national energy program. [ducks]

NO….we need better politicians.

[Lubicon]

Originally Posted by Azure

I was thinking this as well. Could be a potential game changer and would allow for large developments without necessarily increasing emissions.

Fertilizer production is critical right now. I wonder how Sask is handling it.

The other thing is we need more interprovincial power selling. For some reason Manitoba is slow to sell power into Sask, but quick to sell to the US. I get the returns might be better because of exchange rates, but its sucks for helping Sask grow their needs.

Blows your mind how shortsighted our politicians are.
These days I'm amazed if they can find the pisser in the morning.

This. You can't expect Manitoba taxpayers to subsidize Saskatchewan when they can sell power to the US at higher prices.

[Tron_fdc]

It likely has a lot to do with line capacity and demand. Way more demand state side than in Sasky, and there's likely more line capacity going south because of it. Manitoba and Saskatchewan could build out capacity, but I doubt it's worth the cost.

[Tron_fdc]

Interesting article I read the other day.

https://energynow.ca/2022/03/oil-and...try-in-canada/

"The highest expenditure by province occurred in Alberta, where companies in all sectors spent nearly $3.4 billion on environmental protection in 2019. This represents almost 40 per cent of spending across the country, which Statistics Canada says is because of the prominence of the oil and gas industry. Next highest was businesses in Ontario, which spent approximately $2 billion on environmental protection in 2019. "

I'm willing to bet that number goes WAY up in 2022 with the increase in $/bbl.

I'm trying to find what the Feds spend each year, but it's somewhere in that range.

[Azure]

Enter Churchill, Man., as the possible solution to Canada’s energy export problems. Situated on Hudson Bay, it has a significant port that already has an oil-handling system. The Bay is sufficiently deep for large cargo vessels and has the potential to be a gateway to world markets.

Offering a safe and dependable route, Churchill could supply our allies in both the Indo-Pacific and Europe through Arctic routes. There are challenges, of course, ranging from building pipeline infrastructure and railroads through muskeg and melting permafrost, to contending with winter ice. But none of the challenges is insurmountable with modern engineering and environmental expertise.

Ice melts are earlier, meaning that Hudson Bay is ice-free for most of the year. During those months in which there is ice, the ice is not as thick as in the Arctic proper, making it easier for icebreakers to create year-round paths.

In terms of infrastructure, new railways and pipelines would be needed, as would roads, telecommunications infrastructure, a new terminal with an underwater pipeline (mono buoys) and emergency services infrastructure.

The financial and geo-political returns coming from private/public partnership justify a significant investment. This could represent a nation-building project that would bring together the energy-exporting provinces alongside Manitoba, First Nations communities (such as the communities that are already heavily invested in the Arctic Gateway group), and the federal government, all toward serving the needs of our international allies. The sensitivities in British Columbia and Quebec would be respected, thus reducing the risks of delays or blowback.

And, all this of this would revive the economy of Northern Manitoba and neighbouring provinces by creating good, long-term jobs and raising the quality of life for Northerners who are all too often forgotten by our political leaders.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pet...box=1648722773

[Table 5]

So for those who know about the technicalities/feasibilities of energy transportation, how realistic is going through Hudson Bay? It always seemed liked the most obvious long-term solution to get around the Quebec/BC issues (or atleast Quebec, as obviously it doesn't get the energy west towards Asia) but I assume there's a reason why it's already not a bigger gateway. Does it just come down to the ice issues not making it feasible?

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Table 5

So for those who know about the technicalities/feasibilities of energy transportation, how realistic is going through Hudson Bay? It always seemed liked the most obvious long-term solution to get around the Quebec/BC issues (or atleast Quebec, as obviously it doesn't get the energy west towards Asia) but I assume there's a reason why it's already not a bigger gateway. Does it just come down to the ice issues not making it feasible?

I too would be interested in knowing about this.

[Azure]

I am wondering the same thing. The muskeg and permafrost is going to present a big problem. But you're way more likely to get Alberta, Sask & Manitoba to agree to building the infrastructure.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Azure

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/pet...box=1648722773

The Port of Churchill being touted as Alberta's saviour and Canada's solution to energy exportation again? I guess this means Kenney doesn't like his chances with the leadership review. I wonder which lucky duck iChurchill's CEO will be illegally financing to take swipes at Brian Jean and now Danielle Smith this time. Since they know they'll just fire anyone investigating into it they might as well just have Callaway announce his leadership bid again.

Kidding. Probably. Maybe. I don't know.

[PeteMoss]

Originally Posted by Azure

I am wondering the same thing. The muskeg and permafrost is going to present a big problem. But you're way more likely to get Alberta, Sask & Manitoba to agree to building the infrastructure.

Would you not just encounter the same issues there going through indigenous land?

[TheIronMaiden]

Originally Posted by PeteMoss

Would you not just encounter the same issues there going through indigenous land?

Emotionally yes, but not legally. B.C does not have comprehensive treaties, and as such First Nations still have a legal claim to land title and mineral rights. In AB, SK and Man Indigenous land title has been extinguished. As such they don't have the same legal mechanisms. That said, there will always be resistance, and rightfully so. The Fed and Private companies are historically bad faith actors.

[Tron_fdc]

I have a hard time believing the residents of Churchill, as well as the local/international environmental groups would let this one happen. IIRC the Feds also went so far as to block the sale of the rail line to an oil company a few years back. It's hard to say if the geo political situation has change the appetite any, but I doubt it.

I also seem to recall something about the bay not being deep enough for super tankers (or too much ice in winter?) and needing some kind of shuttle system.

Not impossible, but there's a LOT going against it.

[Flacker]

Originally Posted by Tron_fdc

I have a hard time believing the residents of Churchill, as well as the local/international environmental groups would let this one happen. IIRC the Feds also went so far as to block the sale of the rail line to an oil company a few years back. It's hard to say if the geo political situation has change the appetite any, but I doubt it.

I also seem to recall something about the bay not being deep enough for super tankers (or too much ice in winter?) and needing some kind of shuttle system.

Not impossible, but there's a LOT going against it.

I would argue that Churchill's primary industry right now is eco-tourism, I think the chances of this ever happening are pretty remote.

[OptimalTates]

Originally Posted by Flacker

I would argue that Churchill's primary industry right now is eco-tourism, I think the chances of this ever happening are pretty remote.

That's probably more narrow-sighted than those who would like Alberta to only focus on O&G. At least O&G will be around for a couple generations; polar bears not so much.

[Cappy]

Originally Posted by OptimalTates

That's probably more narrow-sighted than those who would like Alberta to only focus on O&G. At least O&G will be around for a couple generations; polar bears not so much.

Embracing one industry that will destroy their main industry. seems pretty narrow-sighted.

Churchill is a town of 1,000 people. Any movement towards oil and gas would essentially require an influx of people to take those jobs. There is little benefit to a Churchillian citizen outside of more tax revenue*

*Not profit

[BlackArcher101]

If the west coast was too sensitive for ports/O&G projects, you can be damned sure Hudson Bay will be too.