One of Canada's last big oil producers leaves

[Argus]

Thanks to Justin Trudeau, and his shallow, self-serving environmental bullshit. It wasn't the first, and it sure won't be the last. And the problem is most of his votes come from big urban areas where people haven't got a clue where the tax dollars that feed their troughs come from. All they know is they want more and more free stuff. Oh yes, and they hate oil - even though they use it every day. So the govenrment makes political points by making it harder and harder for resource companies to operate in Canada. Hey, it doesn't hurt Toronto or Vancouver or Montreal! So why not? It's not like anywhere else counts! And we'll just borrow more and more money to feed the troughs.

Disappointed as I am by this turn of events, I cannot blame Suttles. He and his board have a responsibility to invest shareholder capital where production can be delivered and sold at international prices. The day of the Newfield announcement, Canadian oil was selling at US$19.10 a barrel, while prices were US$63.10 in Texas. Canada’s captive-market discount gives away $200 million a day as a gift to American buyers.

The past few years have been a nightmare for the Canadian industry, where every light at the end of the tunnel has turned out to be train driven by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau barrelling at us from the opposite direction. His oil tanker ban in northern B.C. and his refusal to allow a pipeline in the Great Bear Rainforest killed Northern Gateway. And his introduction of a post-regulatory hearing requirement to consider “upstream emissions” forced TransCanada to abandon its nation-building Energy East Pipeline that would have replaced foreign oil. Meanwhile, hundreds of tankers carrying oil from Saudi Arabia and other countries make their way up the St. Lawrence without any such emissions reviews.

https://business.financialpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-a-great-national-energy-champion-is-leaving-canada-thanks-to-trudeau

[Nefarious Banana]

It's utterly amazing how a half-wit drama teacher can disembowel a country in three years.  Equally amazing is that the brain-dead electorate likes it  . . . .  This says more about the electorate than it says about the fucktard in Ottawa.  We're stupid, we deserve the half-wit fucktard.  Very sad . . .  

[Cannucklehead]

Currently, nearly all the oil produced in Western Canada goes to one market, the United States Midwest. However, there’s a limit to how much oil this market needs. For much of the last decade, Canada has been selling into the United States at a discount to the world price for similar oil products.

The simple truth is that Canada’s oil will fetch a better price if we give ourselves the option of shipping more of it via Trans Mountain’s Pacific tidewater terminal in Burrard Inlet. Canada will earn more on every barrel of oil that’s piped west compared to those sold to our existing customers in the United States Midwest market, a differential that exists regardless of the price of oil. The Project will allow Canadian oil to be delivered to international markets and, as a result, Canada will earn approximately $3.7 billion more per year.

Independent estimates conclude oil producer revenues will increase by $73.5 billion over 20 years of operations and Canada will earn $46.7 billion in additional taxes and royalties to federal and provincial governments.

 

Sad indeed.  Shakespeare level of tragedy.  

[Moonlight Graham]

I full expect Trudeau to pull all the stops to save Canadian jobs and investments on this one like SNV-Lavalin

[WestCanMan]

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

I full expect Trudeau to pull all the stops to save Canadian jobs and investments on this one like SNV-Lavalin

Trudeau has publicly stated that the Oil Sands will be phased out. $135 Billion in investments pulled out of Alberta in the first year of Trudeau's first term. He literally doesn't care at all about Alberta jobs, he wouldn't give Alberta the steam off of his crap.

Remember that when Alberta needed money, after giving $13 Billion into confederation this year, Trudeau gave them a loan lol. 

That's like if your parents give you their house and then you let them rent a room in the basement and make them do all the chores when they experience hard times.

I literally hate every single person who voted for Trudeau. 

 

[Moonlight Graham]

Canada has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world.  98% of it is in AB.  Sure let's keep all that money in the ground!

[Nefarious Banana]

There's a video called 'Over a Barrel' . . . . Vivian Krause.  Worth looking at.  Just don't know how to 'link' it here . . . . ?

[betsy]

Enana leaving Canada (and changing its  name).

Other companies will be talking about this, and it may spur them to leave as well.  It will serve as a warn to others from investing here.

It surely is not worth any companies while to invest and linger in Canada - what with all regulations (and the lawsuits that usually follow)!

 

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by betsy

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canada has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world.  98% of it is in AB.  Sure let's keep all that money in the ground!

Along with all that CO2.

[Moonlight Graham]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Along with all that CO2.

Canada accounts for 1.6% of the world's total GHG emissions.  Of that 1.6%, the oil sands make up 10% of Canada's total, meaning the oil sands make up only 0.16% of total global GHG emissions. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/publications/18731

If the entire oil sands were shut down it would barely make a dent in reducing global GHG.  We need to stop burning fossil fuels globally.

[Argus]

13 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canada has the 3rd largest oil reserves in the world.  98% of it is in AB.  Sure let's keep all that money in the ground!

We don't need that money. All we have to do is borrow more!

[Argus]

6 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canada accounts for 1.6% of the world's total GHG emissions.  Of that 1.6%, the oil sands make up 10% of Canada's total, meaning the oil sands make up only 0.16% of total global GHG emissions. https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/energy/publications/18731

If the entire oil sands were shut down it would barely make a dent in reducing global GHG.  We need to stop burning fossil fuels globally.

It would make NO dent at all since world emissions rose 3% last year. That's the equivalent of almost 19 more oil sands projects pumping out CO2 emissions, but nobody cares about that. Nobody is trying to lead boycotts of those countries which have increased their emissions, mainly due to increasing use of coal. No one even criticizes them. Instead, here in North America, the climate crowd seems to have taken the position that killing the oil sands is the make or break project for solving global warming.

[eyeball]

1 hour ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Canada accounts for 1.6% of the world's total GHG emissions. 

Yes but . .

Quote

"The amount of CO2 locked up in Alberta tar sands is enormous," notes mechanical engineer John Abraham of the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota, another signer of the Keystone protest letter from scientists. "If we burn all the tar sand oil, the temperature rise, just from burning that tar sand, will be half of what we've already seen"—an estimated additional nearly 0.4 degree C from Alberta alone.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming/

You remind me of people who defend Canada's asbestos industry. China probably has people describing their fentanyl industry in similarly benign tones.

 

Edited November 1, 2019 by eyeball

[Moonlight Graham]

8 hours ago, eyeball said:

Yes but . .

"The amount of CO2 locked up in Alberta tar sands is enormous," notes mechanical engineer John Abraham of the University of Saint Thomas in Minnesota, another signer of the Keystone protest letter from scientists. "If we burn all the tar sand oil, the temperature rise, just from burning that tar sand, will be half of what we've already seen"—an estimated additional nearly 0.4 degree C from Alberta alone. "

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tar-sands-and-keystone-xl-pipeline-impact-on-global-warming/

When tar sand oil gets refined into gasoline and it's burned it produces the EXACT SAME amount of CO2 as gas derived from conventional oil.  Virtually all of the difference in GHG by oil types is in the extraction/production and refining processes.

Also, there's a crazy amount of oil in the oil sands.  I'm certainly not proposing to extract and burn all of it.  That would take a very, very, very long time.  We'll all be driving electric vehicles waaaay before then.  But i am ok with extracting it for the next decade or 2.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

You remind me of people who defend Canada's asbestos industry. China probably has people describing their fentanyl industry in similarly benign tones.

A little bit of asbestos can kill people via cancer.  Fentanyl is killing addicts en masse.  The tar sands make up 0.16 of global GHG emissions.  Not nearly the same by any stretch of the imagination.  Show me the dead victims killed directly by the tar sands.

Edited November 2, 2019 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest]

9 hours ago, eyeball said:

You remind me of people who defend Canada's asbestos industry.

Only if every other country was producing asbestos too.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Also, there's a crazy amount of oil in the oil sands.  I'm certainly not proposing to extract and burn all of it.  That would take a very, very, very long time.  We'll all be driving electric vehicles waaaay before then.  But i am ok with extracting it for the next decade or 2.

Scientists say fusion is maybe 15 years away. Once we have that all the electrical power in the western world is going to change over to fusion. The cost of power will drop, not rise. And with increasing battery power people will go electric. We're just not there yet.

Technological development is the only thing which is going to impact global warming. Idiot politicians and the regressive left certainly won't have any affect.

[marcus]

On 11/1/2019 at 8:25 PM, bcsapper said:

Only if every other country was producing asbestos too.

So you would want Canada to continue to use asbestos if other countries were?

Why this follower mentality, instead of a leader mentality?

Canada, under a Conservative government, took lead in major environmental steps in the late 80s. It was Canada that kickstarted the push to reduce aerosol use, which ended up fixing the ozone layer. A success story that is not talked about.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, marcus said:

So you would want Canada to continue to use asbestos if other countries were?

Why this follower mentality, instead of a leader mentality?

Canada, under a Conservative government, took lead in major environmental steps in the late 80s. It was Canada that kickstarted the push to reduce aerosol use, which ended up fixing the ozone layer. A success story that is not talked about.

There wouldn't be much point in stopping if the shortfall would be made up immediately by another producer.  With weaker environmental regulations governing the production, I might add.

If you want to make this about asbestos, deliberately avoiding my point, go ahead.

If you think Canada should go it alone against climate change, absorbing all the effects of ceasing to produce resources that account for over 10% of our GDP, with all the concomitant effects on the economy and employment, without having any effect whatsoever on climate change, I would just have to disagree.

[marcus]

12 minutes ago, bcsapper said:

There wouldn't be much point in stopping if the shortfall would be made up immediately by another producer.  With weaker environmental regulations governing the production, I might add.

If you want to make this about asbestos, deliberately avoiding my point, go ahead.

If you think Canada should go it alone against climate change, absorbing all the effects of ceasing to produce resources that account for over 10% of our GDP, with all the concomitant effects on the economy and employment, without having any effect whatsoever on climate change, I would just have to disagree.

Canada would not be doing it alone. There are many European countries who are taking major steps in curbing their fossil fuel footprints and they are way ahead of Canada. Change doesn't happen suddenly and if you want to see change happen, then you should take the step, instead of waiting for everyone to do it first.

 

[Guest]

35 minutes ago, marcus said:

Canada would not be doing it alone. There are many European countries who are taking major steps in curbing their fossil fuel footprints and they are way ahead of Canada. Change doesn't happen suddenly and if you want to see change happen, then you should take the step, instead of waiting for everyone to do it first.

 

You take the step.  Turn off your heat and toss the car keys away. ( I don't mean it.  It wouldn't help)

Change doesn't happen at all, without getting the really big guys to sign on.  Even the Paris Accord gave China and India until 2030 (IIRC) to get going on reductions.  The last time I looked China had about 300 coal fired power plants planned for various areas of the world.  Even Germany still gets much of its power from coal, and (again, IIRC) recently cut down a forest of CO2 eating trees to mine some more. 

But people have been trying, as you say.  And given all that, the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere continues to rise.  All the windmills and solar panels haven't really made a dent in it.  (They might have slowed the rate of the rise)

So given all that, I don't think we are stopping climate change any time soon.  Really, we're not.

I would be happy to cooperate with other countries in making the effort, but that cooperation is not going to happen.  We can't even cooperate enough to stop killing each other half the time.

 

Edit>  You piqued my curiosity a bit so I went and looked up the European effort.  This is from a page I found:

https://climateanalytics.org/briefings/eu-coal-phase-out/

Continued use of coal for power generation is not compatible with sharply reducing emissions and the EU needs to develop a strategy to phase out coal at a faster rate than it is currently doing. According to modelling completed by Climate Analytics, the EU will exceed its Paris Agreement-compatible emissions budget for coal based electricity generation by 85% in 2050 if all existing coal-fired power plants continue operating to the end of their full life span. If currently announced and planned plants are built in the coming years, this number will rise to almost 100%.

Granted it's from 2016.

Edited November 4, 2019 by bcsapper

[Guest]

Here's another site that came up when I was looking.  (I've seen it before.  Maybe on here.  Apologies if I'm double posting on someone)

Check out the map.  All those black and red folk have to get down to our brown level before it makes any sense to even give it a shot.

https://climateactiontracker.org/

Go Morocco, eh?

[jacee]

On 10/31/2019 at 9:00 PM, Nefarious Banana said:

It's utterly amazing how a half-wit drama teacher can disembowel a country in three years.  Equally amazing is that the brain-dead electorate likes it  . . . .  This says more about the electorate than it says about the fucktard in Ottawa.  We're stupid, we deserve the half-wit fucktard.  Very sad . . .  

Interesting how climate change suddenly becomes the sole  creation of one "half-wit drama teacher".  Lol 

Like no Conservative has ever been aware of decades of science and warnings that the fossil fuel industry is a serious problem for humanity.

No ... 'Trudeau did it'. Lol 

There certainly is something to be said for education and literacy. Working on drilling rigs since 15 years of age clearly doesn't help create an informed electorate.

The Wexiteers would have a hard time running their own country.

[jacee]

On 10/31/2019 at 9:08 PM, Cannucklehead said:

Currently, nearly all the oil produced in Western Canada goes to one market, the United States Midwest. However, there’s a limit to how much oil this market needs. For much of the last decade, Canada has been selling into the United States at a discount to the world price for similar oil products.

The simple truth is that Canada’s oil will fetch a better price if we give ourselves the option of shipping more of it via Trans Mountain’s Pacific tidewater terminal in Burrard Inlet. Canada will earn more on every barrel of oil that’s piped west compared to those sold to our existing customers in the United States Midwest market, a differential that exists regardless of the price of oil. The Project will allow Canadian oil to be delivered to international markets and, as a result, Canada will earn approximately $3.7 billion more per year.

Independent estimates conclude oil producer revenues will increase by $73.5 billion over 20 years of operations and Canada will earn $46.7 billion in additional taxes and royalties to federal and provincial governments.

 

Sad indeed.  Shakespeare level of tragedy.  

You think it's just about money?  Lol 

[jacee]

On 10/31/2019 at 10:02 PM, WestCanMan said:

Trudeau has publicly stated that the Oil Sands will be phased out. $135 Billion in investments pulled out of Alberta in the first year of Trudeau's first term. He literally doesn't care at all about Alberta jobs, he wouldn't give Alberta the steam off of his crap.

Remember that when Alberta needed money, after giving $13 Billion into confederation this year, Trudeau gave them a loan lol. 

That's like if your parents give you their house and then you let them rent a room in the basement and make them do all the chores when they experience hard times.

I literally hate every single person who voted for Trudeau. 

 

WestCanMan,

We all care about the oil workers and what's going to happen to them now that the fossil fuel industries have to wind down. Transition plans have to be made and supported provincially and federally. 

Unfortunately, that can't happen unless the Alberta government accepts the reality, and educates and informs the workers.

Denial and blaming and misplaced anger are preventing that progress. And that's what will hurt workers more than anything.  

Alberta's business and government leaders are going to have to suck this up and figure out a realistic and useful way forward. 

Oppositional defiance in the face of new realities isn't leadership: It's just delusional suicidal (and some homicidal) ranting. 

Jason Kenney has made himself irrelevant and even dangerous to Alberta by failing to have a viable vision for the future and, instead, just fanning the flames of hatred against 'the East' and Trudeau. That's just pure and dangerous stupidity.

Nobody did this to Alberta.

The world is changing.

Hatred and violence won't change it back.

Edited November 4, 2019 by jacee