Yup. I’m pretty sure I’m the ultimate authority on hypocrisy and literal
interpretation vs subjective opinion. Thought that it was commonly
understood, but I should put it in a Wikipedia page to avoid any future
confusion. Thanks for pointing that out!
Everyone keeps saying they are from Alberta and Saskatchewan. I’m from
Saskatchewan and, to be honest, I didn’t fully comprehend how awful the NEP
(petrocanada) was to the west until I did some research. There is a huge
mistrust, rightfully so, of federal mandates in Alberta. They do not
typically have any benefit west of “central Canada”. On that note I believe
any “crown” oil and gas Corp should be provincial and not federal, ala
Saskenergy. Any federal energy plan should be lead by the people who it
directly affects. Not by those who simply want to put there successes on
the backs of those who toil away. I criticised Alberta for not saving, and
then I realized why save when the feds can just walk in and take what
you’ve worked for at any moment? Why not fight them, regardless of any
merit, every step of the way? Also, in terms of GHGs, policy etc. The
current provincial government has been a full step ahead of everything and
anything the feds have put out. Not only that but the scientific data they
have used is more accurate and relevant.
It is great to believe in Canada, but Canada is a country of individuals.
Provinces have individual needs—if the country is willing to give Quebec a
nation within Canada how much is it to simply ask for respect?
2 Likes
There is not intention of being impolite. You are demanding a ACM and white
answer. I had not heard much concrete about acid precipitation west of
Ontario, I have heard more now. I have not said trust regulators without
question either, rather to critically evaluate the position of those who
are putting the information out. The regulatory bodies in Alberta are some
of the best in north America. That does not mean they are perfect. It is
not so black and white. Laws, police and prisons do not guarantee that no
one will commit an illegal act. In fact illegal acts are commited everyday
by every person out of ignorance. This does not excuse it, but there is a
responsibility to both disseminate information and interpret it shared by
people and corp. We are getting off topic tho. My primary concern is with
federal propaganda and the opinion that the wild west is damaging Canada
purely for selfish reasons, when this province, and Sask, and BC, have
given and given and continued to give. While we watch the east take, and
take and blame, and demand. Even with the NDP here there appears to be
little effort for a bipartisan Canadian solution. Just Ontario’s way or the
highway. There is a particularly offensive interview where he outright
says he feels the west is ignorant and no federal leader should be from
there, going on to cite Quebecois PM—ironically almost all run out or
nearly run out of office due to corruption. I am proud to call myself
Canadian, but I do not hold any allegiance to Ottawa. When we have been in
a foxhole taking fire the only ones who have helped are the maritimes.
Ontario and Quebec just seem to be like a spoiled kid asking for a handout.
The Notley government is fantastic in comparison to the bumbling wypipo neo-capitalist Wall gov here in Saskatchewan. (Wall’s trying to sell off provincially owned public services, like Sasktel). I left Alberta in 2014 and have not been back since.
Consider this, though: the Trump-lite government of Harper, which lasted a decade, was primarily propped up by voters in the west. You know, the Harper who destroyed research libraries? The Harper who jettisoned environmental protections and hinted at selling national lands? The Harper who blew billions on nonfunctional jets? The Harper who all bilut banned Muslim immigration? That guy. Yeah.
I won’t say Western voters are dumb. But the older wypipo generation is some of the most racist, anti-intellectuals I have had the dishonor to speak with.
2 Likes
I did not read the article, but if they reclassified some of their holdings from PUD (proven undeveloped) to Probable or Possible, that would lower their net worth.
1 Like
The clarification I hear from the CBC on the radio this morning was that this has to do with the accounting practice in the United States that reserves must be classified based on a historical price rather than a forecast price. This is a difference between the US and Canada in how the value of reserves are calculated.
2 Likes
That is a lot of chaff compared to what I asked. Here is what I got out of it: you are going to keep saying things – now adding how Alberta regulatory bodies are the best – and you are not interested in giving anything to back them up, only dismiss anything that suggests otherwise. Because the whole point, what you have decided is the real topic here, is the heavy axe you are grinding against Ontario and anyone from there.
Well, you have fun with that. As for me, someone who asks me to look critically at actual sources but expects me to buy their whole narrative without supporting the least detail, is someone who is not interested in an honest discussion. There is a lot more propaganda around the oil industry than just what the Canadian government says. It’s not anything I’m interested in, so if that’s your offering, I’m sorry for bothering you.
4 Likes
Just because you want it to happen, doesn’t mean that it will. I agree though, that the best way to drive renewables is through high oil prices, but this has bad knock-off effects. Including potentially kickstarting the tar sands again, and hurting rural and suburban poor who rely on low gas prices to drive their car long distances to get to work.
A great long-term way to bring down ghg emissions is through higher prices, but we need to be careful to help those most hurt by the price increase.
1 Like
Enter: Carbon Tax.
Exactly. But there needs to be some serious discussion as where the proceeds of the carbon tax go to. Does it go towards subsidizing renewables, cutting of some other tax, or subsidies/tax cuts specifically geared towards people most affected by the carbon tax?
If a carbon tax doesn’t hurt, then it will be ineffective, but if it does hurt then many people won’t like it and actively vote against it, unless there is some way to mitigate.
1 Like
Per capita is very misleading if we us a per capita useage and extraction
model—balancing source of energy with use and choice there is a significant
shift. I feel this is a more representative model as our infrastructure is
such that coal and oil and gas are more readily useable and would be used
throughout Canada regardless of source (in fact a vast majority of oil and
gas used in Canada is from outside refineries) . That is actually the same
reference I was referring to for On and Quebec. Of note 2014 was the
highest and 2015, due to economics, would show a significant downturn for
Alberta. I don’t know that Fort Mac has ever NOT been part of the
conversation. Actually I think it leads the narrative, and in a lot of
respects rightfully so. But the broad "we need to shut down the oil sands"
attitude is ill conceived. I agree that we are in climate change. First and
for most I believe this is a result of liberal ecological stances ( not the
liberal party) which views the earth from an anthropocentric perspective
and that our biggest concern is the 8 billion people whose appetite to
consume is only increasing with further industrialization. Personally, I
believe we already have part of the solution with nuclear based power.
Practically, it is in the majority’s best interest for a marginal paradigm
shift that is not limited to energy. Anthropogenic global warming dates far
before the oil sands were even a thing, there is a more ecologically
efficient way to extract the oil. If we are talking a shut down on VOCs
(Ontario massive carcinogenic) GHGs and all emissions tho let’s develop a
multifaceted and ubiquitous approach. Let’s recognize the ecological
savings of pipeline vs rail. Let’s acknowledge that population density
itself—like the sprawling Toronto has a massive ecological impact on
creating microclimes, obliterating natural water tables and life by
hydroelectric diversion and use, as well as creating the wests
environmental issues by creating the demand—without which the supply
remains untouched.
By coal I do not only mean production—but let’s be aware of the fact that
coal produce a vast amount more radioactive waste that is airborne vs
nuclear generation-which is mostly containable. Extraction of coal isn’t
exactly head and shoulders different than oil sands, albeit less water is
used.
Okay - but you entered this thread railing against Cory for having the conversation. You’ve tried to instead redirect the discussion to anything and everything else, including coal, acid rain, and British colonialism. You also seem bent on making this an east-vs-west fight, trying to stoke fears that Pierre Elliot Trudeau is going to rise from the grave and steal our wallets, which seems strange to me given that, as far as I can tell, there is more federal/provincial cooperation on this front than maybe ever before.
You deflect discussion about the environmental impact of the oil industry by citing lists of other things that harm the environment, as though that somehow negates anything that is being said in the article or in the comments here. You seem to acknowledge man-made climate change in one breath, but then moments later try to shift the blame away from resource extraction.
You’ve also made several sweeping claims in the thread without backing them up with any data, even when challenged directly to do so, and the goalposts of your arguments keep shifting. You dismiss the conversation about the economic and social viability of the oil sands by labeling it as an ill-conceived “we need to shut down the oil sands” attitude, as though we are only talking about an all-or-nothing boarding up of Fort McMurray, and without actually engaging on the points raised in the article.
I have no idea whether your motives are genuine or not, but I think it is worth asking why it is so important to you that we have every conversation except the one about the possibility that the oil sands are not a long-term solution to our energy needs. I think I will take my lead from @chenille, and say that if this is what you have to offer the conversation, I’m sorry for bothering you too.
6 Likes
That’s fair chenille you get what you want. If you want to lambaste Alberta
and it’s regulatory bodies go ahead. Seems to be a strongly held opinion
for you. You are asking for proof.
As a Canuckistani myself, I welcome any chance that Big Oil’s boot might ease off from our collective neck
1 Like
Yeah, I mean I gather that Oil companies are largely valued based on Proven reserves- I guess my question really is, would an oil co temporarily re-designate reserves when they can absorb the hit (as opposed to absorbing the operating losses from keeping a particular field in operation) and then re-designating it proven at a later time when oil prices might allow the continued profitable extraction?
Again, I haven’t read it directly, so I don’t know, but it could very well be that they’re making money from their increasing investment in renewable energies and so wanted to offset that for tax time.
I found some hints here- apparently this move was telegraphed by the last quarterly report.
“Exxon warned last quarter it would have to revise the amount of unproduced resources it holds if oil prices remained low through the end of the year”
Maybe the Alberta was just the low hanging fruit?
1 Like
If it’s the most expensive acreage to construct wells that are capable of getting the oil and or natural gas out of the ground, then yes definitely. Directional wells cost more to drill than vertical wells, as an obvious example.
That said, predictions are all over the place. The articles says oil trader Vitol predicts the peak to come in 2027 to 2028. As I mention in another post Royal Dutch Shell sees the peak coming in 5 to 15 years. Meanwhile the International Energy Agency sees oil growth slowing down but no peak.
If any of the earlier predictions are true, then the price of oil could do down enough that the Alberta oil sands is no longer profitable and the industry moves to other sources. It’s basically a bet for or against increased fuel efficiency, growing number of hybrids and electric vehicles.
