ReeferMadness Posted February 10, 2016 Report Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) Conservatives like Saskatchewan's Brad Well normally hate subsidizing industry - except when it comes to the oil industry. This guy, who pretends to be about the free market, is actually a king of government subsidies - as long as they're for a dirty extraction industry. When the Alberta NDP government initiated an oil royalty review, he undermined them by appealing to the oil industry to move to his province. Now, he is asking Ottawa for $156 million to clean up the messes left behind by oil companies abandoning wells. So, not only is Mr Wall against ensuring that oil companies pay the people a fair price for the oil they extract, he actually wants to spend public money cleaning up after them. And the mess is not a surprise to Mr Wall and his "Saskatchewan Party". Four years ago, Saskatchewan Auditor General Bonnie Lysyk warned the government of the growing mess being created by an industry that loves profit but isn't always around to clean up when the party's over. No wonder Canada is a world leader when it comes to polluting industries. We pay them to pollute. Edited February 10, 2016 by ReeferMadness Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted February 10, 2016 Report Posted February 10, 2016 (edited) So, not only is Mr Wall against ensuring that oil companies pay the people a fair price for the oil they extract, he actually wants to spend public money cleaning up after them.Your linked article suggests that Wall is looking for excuses/funding to keep people working. Nothing in the article suggests that these wells are hazards that need to be "cleaned up" so it is not clear why you think this is a subsidy rather than a make work project. Note that oil well usually don't 'run out'. They just become too expensive to operate at current prices. So it is rational to leave equipment in place even if it is not operating because it could be cheaper to refurbish old equipment than to start from scratch. So it is not clear to me why Wall thinks the "clean up" is necessary. Edited February 10, 2016 by TimG Quote
ReeferMadness Posted February 11, 2016 Author Report Posted February 11, 2016 Your linked article suggests that Wall is looking for excuses/funding to keep people working. Nothing in the article suggests that these wells are hazards that need to be "cleaned up" so it is not clear why you think this is a subsidy rather than a make work project. This was flagged by the auditor general who noted that the clean-up hadn't been completed. Auditors general aren't known for setting environmental standards so it's reasonable to assume she was only reflecting that fact that the clean-up hadn't been done to the environmental standards set by the province. Are you arguing that under Premier Wall, Saskatchewan's environmental standards are too high? Note that oil well usually don't 'run out'. They just become too expensive to operate at current prices. So it is rational to leave equipment in place even if it is not operating because it could be cheaper to refurbish old equipment than to start from scratch. So it is not clear to me why Wall thinks the "clean up" is necessary. So, I guess you're saying that Premier Wall is just wasting federal money. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
TimG Posted February 11, 2016 Report Posted February 11, 2016 This was flagged by the auditor general who noted that the clean-up hadn't been completed.If these wells are truly abandoned then I agree the companies who ran them should be on the hook for decommissioning them. If the companies when bankrupt they cost of clean up should be a liability against the assets of the company. Quote
cannuck Posted February 17, 2016 Report Posted February 17, 2016 I have to admit, I was shocked to learn that in SK, oil companies do not have to do what is normal in WY - bond wells they operate against P&A costs. Alberta has the LLR programme, but it seems we have no such provision here. Quote
ReeferMadness Posted February 17, 2016 Author Report Posted February 17, 2016 I have to admit, I was shocked to learn that in SK, oil companies do not have to do what is normal in WY - bond wells they operate against P&A costs. Alberta has the LLR programme, but it seems we have no such provision here. The LLR program is a pathetic joke. Instead of requiring companies that are making most of the money off of the well (ie when the well is young) put aside money for remediation, they wait until the well is barely producing and then they demand that whatever pathetic company owns it starts to put up money for remediation. All the LLR is going to succeed in doing is putting marginal companies out of business a little early and turning the wells over to the province. Quote Unlimited economic growth has the marvelous quality of stilling discontent while preserving privilege, a fact that has not gone unnoticed among liberal economists. - Noam Chomsky It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it. - Upton Sinclair
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.