Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Recommended Posts

your preferred 'Daddy' had a decade... and didn't git-er-done... not a single new profiled pipeline under Harper. Clearly, Harper's preferred "enemies of the state" approach didn't work - won't work. Proper regulatory oversight... you know, towards "winning the hearts and minds" - wadda concept!

Indeedy. It seems the energy companies themselves are trying to set a much more conciliatory tone. Look at their newfound concern for the environment! They even believe in climate change now!

It’s time for a new conversation about building pipelines in this country – a conversation about how Canada can get full value for its oil production while also addressing environmental concerns, including climate change. This dialogue needs to take place with the type of constructive, interest-based, problem-solving approach that Canadians expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Indeedy. It seems the energy companies themselves are trying to set a much more conciliatory tone. Look at their newfound concern for the environment! They even believe in climate change now!

yabut, will the fake-skeptics here label them as "zealots... that they've found religion"? :lol:

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

your preferred 'Daddy' had a decade... and didn't git-er-done... not a single new profiled pipeline under Harper.

Yes...I saw you trot out this lame duck in your status update but of course it is another waldo failed fact. Not withstanding the fact that the Keystone Pipeline was approved and built in Harper's term but perhaps that one isn't high profile enough for you?

Keystone Pipeline[edit]

TransCanada Corporation proposed the project on February 9, 2005.[30] In October 2007, the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada asked the Canadian federal government to block regulatory approvals for the pipeline, with union president Dave Coles stating "the Keystone pipeline will exclusively serve US markets, create a permanent employment for very few Canadians, reduce our energy security, and hinder investment and job creation in the Canadian energy sector."[31]

The National Energy Board of Canada approved the construction of the Canadian section of the pipeline, including converting a portion of TransCanada's Canadian Mainline gas pipeline to crude oil pipeline, on September 21, 2007.[32] On March 17, 2008, the United States Department of State issued a Presidential Permit authorizing the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities at the United States and Canada border.[33]

On January 22, 2008, ConocoPhillips acquired a 50% stake in the project.[34] On June 17, 2009, TransCanada agreed that they would buy out ConocoPhillips' share in the project and revert to being the sole owner.[18] It took TransCanada more than two years to acquire all the necessary state and federal permits for the pipeline. Construction took another two years.[35] The pipeline, from Hardisty, Alberta, Canada, to Patoka, Illinois, United States, became operational in June 2010.[22]

I can only assume that your 'high profile' pipelines are:

- Keystone XL

- Energy East

- TransMountain

- Northern Gateway

Of course the no go on Keystone XL had nothing to do with Harper or any Canadian PM for that matter. Mr Obama decided to stop it and there really wasn't much we can do but wait for the next Republican president.

But...lets focus on the others which are within our borders. Lets also focus on your use of the word 'decade' which as you know means 10 years. Energy East submitted its formal application in October 2014 and TransMountain did its in Dec 2013. I know math/numbers plague you but this one is fairly simple as Harper's term ended in Oct 2015 which means he only had ONE to TWO years for these ones.....NOT 10.

As for Northern Gateway that project...that one project that was the full 10 years however it should also be noted that after tremendous legal battles, it was also approved in his term and the fate was virtually squashed in a single Trudeau-esque move.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

that's right... cause when anyone speaks to Keystone, it's always about anything but "tidewater"! :lol: And ya, KXL Phase 1 is hardly the profiled Keystone pipeline... is hardly a profiled pipeline within the domain of public awareness and understanding. But thanks for the freebee as it was TransCanada's own initial NEB submission that raised concerns of many U.S. lawmakers and citizens living in the U.S. Midwest states.

per TransCanada's own commissioned report for it's Canadian NEB hearing where it sought approval for the Canadian leg of the Keystone XL pipeline... an effective consortium working to manipulate U.S. Midwest consumer gas prices - to increase them!

as pertains to the U.S. Midwest (PADD II) market, from that TransCanada Canadian NEB application: Keystone XL Pipeline Section 52 Application; Section 3.4.3: Supply and Markets

3.4.3 Crude Pricing Impact

Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.

Access to the USGC via the Keystone XL Pipeline is expected to strengthen Canadian crude oil pricing in PADD II by removing this oversupply. This is expected to increase the price of heavy crude to the equivalent cost of imported crude. Similarly, if a surplus of light synthetic crude develops in PADD II, the Keystone XL Pipeline would provide an alternate market and therefore help to mitigate a price discount.


end result: the Keystone XL pipeline will be eliminating the glut of U.S. Midwest oil that, from an industry perspective, is keeping prices depressed in the United States..... can't imagine why U.S. lawmakers and Midwest citizens would have concerns over this. Which, of course, was the beginning of U.S. focused resistance and protesting against Keystone... KXL "at large".

it's quite telling that you would simply dismiss... outright dismiss... U.S. reaction to KXL (whatever phase) having anything to do with Harper, directly or indirectly!

and yes, most certainly, Harper had a decade to put in place a framework of regulatory approval that would gain the support of stake-holders... had a decade to attempt to cultivate agreement among interested and affected peoples and communities... had a decade to work to project that decision approvals would be trustworthy, open, transparent and science based. Instead, what transpired was an affront... an assault on anyone/anybody that might presume to raise questions, raise concerns, or protest over the lack of trust, the closed and non-transparent processing, the muzzling of scientists and the outright denial of science... notwithstanding the scurrilous antics like, "enemies of the state", "Ethical Oil", etc.. Yes, your favoured son Harper had a decade... and he didn't git-er-done!
.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And ya, KXL Phase 1 is hardly the profiled Keystone pipeline... is hardly a profiled pipeline within the domain of public awareness and understanding.

Yes...its clear that your only care when it comes to 'profile' is whether or not it makes the news and how this said news is seen by your buddies Di Caprio and Suzuki. Of course, the reality is that Keystone Phase 1 was a significant pipeline all done on Harper's time.

it's quite telling that you would simply dismiss... outright dismiss... U.S. reaction to KXL (whatever phase) having anything to do with Harper, directly or indirectly!

The truth is Obama was never going to pass this bill as he ran his 2008 campaign largely on climate change. Like I said....and something that you don't seem to get, once the next Republican government gets in, this pipeline will be approved. That is of course, if the US government doesn't cave under the TransCanada NAFTA lawsuit.

Ultimately I don't care why the US didn't accept the KXL as it has NOTHING to do with your failed 10 years to 'get er done' scam. No matter who was in office, Obama wasn't letting this one through especially after his predecessor allowed three phases of Keystone did get done....all of which under Harper.

Of course what's even more telling is that the final rejection of the pipeline came on November 6, 2015 after Harper was out of office. Its as if he was just waiting for some sort of naive, push over to take office....perhaps someone that was going to back out of allied responsibilities creating new strains on the US-CAN relationship! :D

Yes, your favoured son Harper had a decade... and he didn't git-er-done!

You still seem to be struggling with numbers which doesn't surprise me. The real work for the PM doesn't start until the pipeline application is ACTUALLY made. As shown, in Energy East and TransMountain those applications were only made OFFICIAL one to two years before Harper was done....NOT TEN.

Now...you aren't actually suggesting that the PM would be out soliciting on behalf of said projects when these projects haven't even been announced or official applications submitted. You do know the separation between government and private business.....do you not? Do you see ol' JT helping TransCanada with this NAFTA violation lawsuit? Last time I checked it was TransCanada vs the US government.

Of course the best part of all of this is that the longest part to this process is the review which according to your numbers Harper should have been able to take projects submitted in 2013 and 2014 and turn them around just like that. Yet...its you belly aching and moaning that the NEB doesn't do a good enough job in their review. So which is it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some Jesus big pipelines built inside Alberta in the last 10 years, mostly in the Fort Mac/Edmonton/Hardisty area. Mostly to serve present and future lines and a new refinery being built in the Heartland, but also for rail loading.

A bit of examination reveals why Obama actually canned Keystone XL. It had nothing to do with the environment or the nature of the oil. XL is essentially a duplicate of the northern part of Keystone, which was more or less completed last year. An important bit of Keystone was the connection of Cushing OK, to the Gulf. It relieves big pressure on storage at Cushing, and gives the US a crucial export capacity. At the same time, the US Congress repealed the 40 year ban on US oil exports. And that is what it was all about: the US has set itself up nicely to export, and does not need a million barrel per day or so of Canuck oil as competition. Note that several refineries in the Gulf built uprgaders years ago to handle Keystone bitumen. They won't get hurt though, because those refineries will just bring in heavy oil from Venezuela. Note also that Enbridge (remember them?) are working on a $5 billion project to expand handling and port facilities.

Politically, Obama tossed his Democrats a bone some renewable energy tax credits. The Republicans were cranky about no Keystone XL, now they are OK with the alternative of all-American pipelines, ports and oil exports to anywhere.

So everybody is happy except.... the Canadian trade balance. The Americans, and the rest of the oil selling world, must have a hearty quiet chuckle at just how utterly useless we are in looking after ourselves. We cannot even manage to export our own resources. In the meantime, they are locking up European and Asian contracts, while we sit around exploring our own colons and arguing with The Waldos.

Note that several refineries in

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if the process of extraction of oil from tar sands stays uneconomical?

The correct question is "What happens when the process of extraction of oil from tar sands stays uneconomical"? If it isn't today, it's just a matter of time. And the answer can be found in Saskatchewan, where a right-wing, free market leader is currently asking Ottawa for $156 million so he can pay workers to go and clean up abandoned wells.

Only in Alberta, the mess will be hellacious and likely last for centuries. Corporations will go under and there will be nobody left to sue. And there will be no tax base in Alberta that will be able to even make a dent in the disaster area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if the process of extraction of oil from tar sands stays uneconomical?

One of the main problems that Alberta has is they pay 'oilfield' rates. Basically when the first and second boom happened in the late 2000s, it drove up the costs for EVERYTHING by stupid amounts. Houses doubled in price, wages went up astronomically, materials and services became ridiculous. Because every 'rig pig' was making big bucks, it forced the public sector to be paid the highest in Canada which again is not sustainable if oil is not economical. The reality is that everything right now is still artificially inflated and I would believe that if the oil from tar sands remains uneconomical that a price reduction will happen until it becomes economical.

The price of oil right now is hovering around $30. Keep in mind that the price in the 90s was around $20. Even with inflation considered, the oil sands was making money.

Unfortunately for a price correction to take place, it will need to hit rock bottom before people agree to taking pay cuts that significant. I know a few guys that are unemployed from this situation and they're not willing to get any job because they feel they are 'worth' so much. I'm sure their idea of what they're worth will change when the bank comes calling for their house or cars.

Only in Alberta, the mess will be hellacious and likely last for centuries. Corporations will go under and there will be nobody left to sue. And there will be no tax base in Alberta that will be able to even make a dent in the disaster area.

Energy currently makes up 24.6% of the Alberta Economy compared to 36.1% in 1985. (http://www.albertacanada.com/business/overview/economic-results.aspx)

I hardly believe it will be the Armageddon that you are suggesting. There would be some hardships and some major readjustments as I stated above however it wouldn't be the end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One of the main problems that Alberta has is they pay 'oilfield' rates. Basically when the first and second boom happened in the late 2000s, it drove up the costs for EVERYTHING by stupid amounts. Houses doubled in price, wages went up astronomically, materials and services became ridiculous. Because every 'rig pig' was making big bucks, it forced the public sector to be paid the highest in Canada which again is not sustainable if oil is not economical. The reality is that everything right now is still artificially inflated and I would believe that if the oil from tar sands remains uneconomical that a price reduction will happen until it becomes economical.

The price of oil right now is hovering around $30. Keep in mind that the price in the 90s was around $20. Even with inflation considered, the oil sands was making money.

Classic boom-town economics driven by a short term gold rush mentality. If the government had the discipline to control the rate of rate of growth and focus on maximizing the return on each barrel of sludge produced, you would be in much less of a mess. But hey. The people get the government they deserve.

Unfortunately for a price correction to take place, it will need to hit rock bottom before people agree to taking pay cuts that significant. I know a few guys that are unemployed from this situation and they're not willing to get any job because they feel they are 'worth' so much. I'm sure their idea of what they're worth will change when the bank comes calling for their house or cars.

Translation: while the the poor got crushed during the boom (as what they got paid failed to keep up with rising costs), the middle class will get crushed during the bust. Don't worry, though. The rich will be just fine no matter what happens.

Energy currently makes up 24.6% of the Alberta Economy compared to 36.1% in 1985. (http://www.albertacanada.com/business/overview/economic-results.aspx)

I hardly believe it will be the Armageddon that you are suggesting. There would be some hardships and some major readjustments as I stated above however it wouldn't be the end.

So, my main point was that Alberta will be left with a big mess and in all likelihood Canada will need to step in to help clean it up. But I see hardly anyone gives 2 craps about the environment (and the rate of cancers being suffered by the local populations, particularly downstream natives) so let's talk money.

So, energy is 24.6%. Let's look at the other big components of the economy. Construction is 10.7%. I wonder how much of that is directly or indirectly tied to the energy industry. Probably most of it. Finance and real estate is 13.5%. What's going to happen to real estate if the oil companies pack up and leave? Business and Commercial Services is 10.6%. Again, how much will be left when the oil companies leave? Transportation and utilities and manufacturing combined make up another 13%. They'll definitely be hit when the oil giants pack up.

What's left? Agriculture, a traditional bedrock industry in Alberta comes in at just 1.9%. And tourism (which would also be hurt by a declining oil industry) is at 4.4%.

With the amount of angst being generated by this downturn, what is it going to look like when the party is finally over?

The only question I have is this: if there is another boom, will Albertans be smart enough this time to leverage it instead of becoming dependent on it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There were some Jesus big pipelines built inside Alberta in the last 10 years, mostly in the Fort Mac/Edmonton/Hardisty area. Mostly to serve present and future lines and a new refinery being built in the Heartland, but also for rail loading.

so what! The focus in on exports and reaching that ever elusive "tidewater". There's a real lack of accountability when KXL Phase 1 is touted as a huge milestone pipeline development... yet the bulk of the Canadian portion was simply a conversion of existing pipeline from gas to oil... with its target U.S. Midwest states.

.

A bit of examination reveals why Obama actually canned Keystone XL. It had nothing to do with the environment or the nature of the oil. XL is essentially a duplicate of the northern part of Keystone, which was more or less completed last year. An important bit of Keystone was the connection of Cushing OK, to the Gulf. It relieves big pressure on storage at Cushing, and gives the US a crucial export capacity. At the same time, the US Congress repealed the 40 year ban on US oil exports. And that is what it was all about: the US has set itself up nicely to export, and does not need a million barrel per day or so of Canuck oil as competition. Note that several refineries in the Gulf built uprgaders years ago to handle Keystone bitumen. They won't get hurt though, because those refineries will just bring in heavy oil from Venezuela. Note also that Enbridge (remember them?) are working on a $5 billion project to expand handling and port facilities.

such odd dynamics... (some, certainly not the waldo, would suggest your revisionism here runs strong, runs deep)! If just, as you say, "essentially a duplicate", then why bother... well, other than more capacity, hey! Wait now, if as you state the U.S. has no need for... no want for a competitive alternate Phase 5 KXL pipeline then why have Republicans/right-wing media been beating the drum so forcefully for it? And you now suggest Republicans are ok with it... on board with stopping KXL... that there are no designs to resurrect it under President Trump? :lol: There's a real accountability gap here... as someone is quite adamant that a "regime change" to a Republican president will finally git-er-done!

and here I thought the U.S. releasing that export ban was all about the glut relative to fracking... and here I thought timing was such U.S. Gulf refineries had some time back already begun conversion in order to refine Venezuelan oil sands product.

do you have a personal position on GW/AGW/CC that would preclude you from accepting... even on some level... the legitimacy of the Obama admin position that "partially" rejected KXL as a, "reflection of the United States' determination to be a global leader in the fight against climate change"?

.

We cannot even manage to export our own resources. In the meantime, they are locking up European and Asian contracts, while we sit around exploring our own colons and arguing with The Waldos.

don't forget the Venezuelan's... China has provided big-time loans to Venezuela in order to do exactly that... pulling it away from the Gulf refineries. Don't worry... there's a new sheriff in town! I mean, c'mon... improving on the feeble Harper record won't be difficult at all.

.

Edited by waldo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic boom-town economics driven by a short term gold rush mentality. If the government had the discipline to control the rate of rate of growth and focus on maximizing the return on each barrel of sludge produced, you would be in much less of a mess. But hey. The people get the government they deserve.

Translation: while the the poor got crushed during the boom (as what they got paid failed to keep up with rising costs), the middle class will get crushed during the bust. Don't worry, though. The rich will be just fine no matter what happens.

The only question I have is this: if there is another boom, will Albertans be smart enough this time to leverage it instead of becoming dependent on it?

hey no worries! Even though all those prior Alberta governments talked a real good diversification game... even though the boom-bust cycle is ingrained in Alberta politics and economy... even though the much heralded "Heritage Trust Fund" has little to show for the decades of BigOil funneling out mega-profits, no worries! There's a new NDP government and it really looks like Albertan's have embraced it - ya, right... polls suggest a bit of disenchantment with yet another government talking up the need for diversification - wash, rinse, repeat!

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hey no worries! Even though all those prior Alberta governments talked a real good diversification game... even though the boom-bust cycle is ingrained in Alberta politics and economy... even though the much heralded "Heritage Trust Fund" has little to show for the decades of BigOil funneling out mega-profits, no worries! There's a new NDP government and it really looks like Albertan's have embraced it - ya, right... polls suggest a bit of disenchantment with yet another government talking up the need for diversification - wash, rinse, repeat!

.

Alberta hasn't had a leader worthy of the position since Peter Lougheed. They're deep in denial and still drifting along the same path set by Klein. Don't worry, be happy and let the price of black gold fix whatever ineptitude or corruption goes on in the province.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting note is that the Saskatchewan Poundmaker reservation is suing the feds (so Harper legacy) for not drilling and pumping enough oil from their land. Wonder if it will come out that they oppssed the development or were begging to be raped of their resources all these years.

Oil will be low for many years. Cash in while you can. New Brunswick maybe looking at bankruptcy soon, guess they should have diversified more. The econony will cool down in Alberta, less taxes will be collected, less revenue for government, more taxes for individuals to support the ever increasing government spending demanded by the same taxpayers.

People living in Alberta during the boom will move back to their home provinces and put more burden on the employment situation. Ontario we can hope will assume its position as economic driver of Canada but i doubt it, we are already going down the road of a major recession and the small tick up in manufacturing going to US destinations will dry up. Ontario has a big environmental mess to clean up itself. People talk of oil sands but when looking at the other areas considered environmental disasters you only have to look to southern Ontario and Lake Ontario. But we can hope manufacturing their rises to its desired level.... and the resulting pollution.

I dont think a pipeline will be needed anywhere for many years, not till the next boom cycle. Till then people will need to come up with their own ways to earn a paycheque. If the coming recession is as big as expected everyone will wish they had some work in the oil sector.

As for Obama, he made a gesture for keeping the global warming crowd happy. The wheels have pretty much fallen off the bus of that taxation scheme so it is just the governments all too eager to steal billions of dollars from the taxpayers (NDP and Liberals here in Canada) to keep lying to their citizens. The earth is cooling and will bottom out around 2035 in the cooling trend completing another 60 year cycle. Antartica having the most ice ever recorded as does ice reforming in the Arctic doesnt match the AGW religions cornerstone of the polar regions being the areas hit hardest by warming temps.

Edited by 69cat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Phase 3 is split into A and B. They are titled Phase 1, 2, and 3 withe XL being 4.

Roger. I count that as 5, with four of them done.

I expect that the next big build in he US will be a version of Keystone XL, to bring oil out of North Dakota shale to both Illinois and Cushing. They don't want or need the competition from Canadian oil, and the upgraders for heavy oil now built in Texas at their refineries (a few years ago ) and intended to take Canadian heavy oil will be fed from Venezuela and Mexico.

The USA has quietly prepared quite nicely for the future oil market. For the present too actually. We have done less than nothing. And will continue that pattern, while arguing over nothing. Its what we have become, unfortunately.

Edited by overthere

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
don't forget the Venezuelan's... China has provided big-time loans to Venezuela in order to do exactly that... pulling it away from the Gulf refineries. Don't worry... there's a new sheriff in town! I mean, c'mon... improving on the feeble Harper record won't be difficult at all.

Oh, I haven't forgotten the Venezuelans. They are one of the winners in this chain of events. The oil companies spent billions to build upgraders at their Texas refineries to handle Canadian heavy oil expected through Keystone XL. But no matter, now they will just upgrade tankers full of Venezuelan heavy oil. Mexico is also a customer, since they too now are in export mode.

USA taken care of itself. Check.

Venezuela. Check.

Australia. Check.

Russia. Check

and so on.

Big loser in this play? Canada. Primary cause for being big loser?. Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What happens if the process of extraction of oil from tar sands stays uneconomical?

The existing projects have at least 50 year business cycles, meaning they were costed to survive ups and downs in the markets.

Note that two of the biggest operations (Suncor and Syncrude) have been around since the 60s and 70s, and have seen all this before- there have been very extended periods of $12 to $25 barrel oil before.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read that theses oil and gas companies started to invest in "green projects" because they new oil was going to take a hit some time down the road. So watch to see more green industries pop up while oil is losing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Classic boom-town economics driven by a short term gold rush mentality. If the government had the discipline to control the rate of rate of growth and focus on maximizing the return on each barrel of sludge produced, you would be in much less of a mess. But hey. The people get the government they deserve.

It certainly seems like a mess when you've been riding high for so long. However are we really? As of January 2016 Alberta's unemployment is at 7.4% which is 0.2% above the national average. We're still below every Atlantic province and Quebec. Of course, just wait until the remaining migrant workers return from Alberta to their home provinces and drive their numbers even more. Things are certainly bad in Alberta....in relation to how GOOD they have been.

Of course looking only at the unemployment metric may be misleading. In these same January 2016 numbers, Alberta leads the country in both Participation % and Employment Rate at 72.7 and 67.3 respectively. The national average for these two metrics are 65.9 and 61.2 which shows we are well above the average. Now...you live in BC...right? The unemployment rate there is below the national average however so are your participation and employment rates.

The fact is that things will probably get worse for Alberta but at this point I still think its bringing Alberta back to normal....back to national standards which isn't a bad thing. If that is what you consider a mess....then I guess Canada is a mess!

Translation: while the the poor got crushed during the boom (as what they got paid failed to keep up with rising costs), the middle class will get crushed during the bust. Don't worry, though. The rich will be just fine no matter what happens.

Guys coming out of high school were being paid $40-50 per hour to push a broom on some drilling sites. If you wanted to live away from home and work on these sites you could make great money. Even if you didn't, Tim Hortons was still paying ~$16 per hour to start compared to ~$10 per hour elsewhere. The middle class guys....they were making great money when the boom was happening and if they didn't save for the bust, well....that's on them. The rich....yes.....they will probably be fine however a lot of the cuts made so far have been the top cheese guys so not sure how they're doing right now per se.

So, my main point was that Alberta will be left with a big mess and in all likelihood Canada will need to step in to help clean it up. But I see hardly anyone gives 2 craps about the environment (and the rate of cancers being suffered by the local populations, particularly downstream natives) so let's talk money.

Yes...lets talk money. Like the 70-80% of the AFCN that live 'downstream' from the oil sands who are employed by said oil sands. I particularly liked their last big stand where they brought Neil Young in to fight their cause based on 'environmental' concerns when in the end, all they wanted was more money. I think you're right....hardly anyone cares about the environment when money is involved.

So, energy is 24.6%. Let's look at the other big components of the economy. Construction is 10.7%. I wonder how much of that is directly or indirectly tied to the energy industry. Probably most of it. Finance and real estate is 13.5%. What's going to happen to real estate if the oil companies pack up and leave? Business and Commercial Services is 10.6%. Again, how much will be left when the oil companies leave? Transportation and utilities and manufacturing combined make up another 13%. They'll definitely be hit when the oil giants pack up.

Good point. I agree that other sectors benefit from the energy sector but exactly how much. I would certainly be interested in seeing that. Unlike you, I don't see oil going away all together nor do I see the oil sands withering away to nothing and I think its also a good point to note that the manufacturing industries that were brought into service the oil industry are also bringing in work from outside that sector and outside our province.

But for fun....lets look at GDP. Assuming the % by sector have not changed from 2013 to 2014, we can look at the following link for easy info (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Canadian_provinces_and_territories_by_gross_domestic_product). Alberta's GDP in 2014 was about $375B...if you got rid of the 24.6% (92.25B) in the energy sector and say 10% of the remaining GDP due to oil related losses then you'd have a resulting GDP of $254B which is still higher than BC. Even if you got rid of 25% of the related GDP (instead of 10%) you would still be at a GDP per capita of ~$51,000 which is similar to BC and Ontario. Of course, these numbers are very speculative as the percentage could go higher but one fact for sure is the GDP from the energy sector will never be zero.

Here are some tidbits that help show this:

- Alberta is Canada’s leading producer of petrochemicals.

- In 2011, Alberta’s petrochemical and chemical industry produced products valued at over $13.5 billion.

- Alberta’s petrochemical industry primarily produces ethylene, polyethylene, ethylene glycol, linear alpha olefins and acetic acid destined for markets in Asia and North America.

- In the 2011/2012 fiscal year, Alberta’s net non-renewable resource revenues totalled $11.636 billion.

http://www.energy.alberta.ca/org/pdfs/Alberta_Energy_Overview.pdf

Bottom line is that Albert is an anomaly which is why for the longest time it wasn't included in the equalization formula. The boom bust cycles certainly exist but that doesn't mean that Alberta becomes a wasteland when the busts happen. It just goes through a period of reorganization back to 'normal'.

The only question I have is this: if there is another boom, will Albertans be smart enough this time to leverage it instead of becoming dependent on it?

That depends on what you consider smart. Based on your past posts I would assume that complete socialism would be the only method, so by that standard I would say no...Alberta will not be smart enough. But by the current standard I would like to think that common sense would come into play. We have to start using national averages or payscales of similar provinces when dealing with our public sector with the understanding of a sliding scale bonus to compensate for booms. No government in this country would turn its back on the huge economic resource that oil will bring but it would be nice to have some sore of long range plan knowing that it will be boom and bust.

I would like to see one change and that's investment into a high speed train between Edmonton and Calgary. This would allow the two cities to possibly compete as one with the likes of Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal as locations not just for oil related headquarters but also other sectors. The fact is alone, the two cities will always be fighting for scraps due to location and sheer size. Money from future booms could be directed towards this. Just a thought....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect that the next big build in he US will be a version of Keystone XL, to bring oil out of North Dakota shale to both Illinois and Cushing. They don't want or need the competition from Canadian oil, and the upgraders for heavy oil now built in Texas at their refineries (a few years ago ) and intended to take Canadian heavy oil will be fed from Venezuela and Mexico.

Its always tough to say what the Republicans will do especially since they may not actually get into the White House again this term. However, every Republican candidate has gone on record as saying they will immediately support the build which is reflective of the past votes in Congress and the Sentate.

Trump is the only guy showing hesitancy as he is using this issue as a 'Canadian' issue as it works well into his battle with Cruz.

All of Trump’s Republican rivals say they would immediately approve the pipeline from the Alberta oil sands, which President Barack Obama rejected in November. Trump, who bills himself as a master negotiator, now says he would require TransCanada to fork over billions.
Trump once favoured rapid Keystone approval. He appears to be launching an effort to use the project as fuel for his attempt to challenge the patriotism and the eligibility of top competitor Ted Cruz, the Texas senator who was born in Calgary and held dual citizenship until 2014.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2016/01/24/donald-trump-demands-big-chunk-of-keystone-xl-profits-for-the-us.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Its always tough to say what the Republicans will do especially since they may not actually get into the White House again this term. However, every Republican candidate has gone on record as saying they will immediately support the build which is reflective of the past votes in Congress and the Sentate.

Sorry. I was unclear. I think either party will build a new pipeline on a simialr path as Keystone XL, minus the Canadian component. They can fill it with Bakken oil. The upgrader capacity in Texas can be used up by Venezuelan oil. It is not an environmental issue. Everybody gets what they need at little potlcial cost Except Canada.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry. I was unclear. I think either party will build a new pipeline on a simialr path as Keystone XL, minus the Canadian component. They can fill it with Bakken oil. The upgrader capacity in Texas can be used up by Venezuelan oil. It is not an environmental issue. Everybody gets what they need at little potlcial cost Except Canada.

No. I understood what you meant and I don't agree. The article I posted talks about the Keystone XL specifically with Trump going into depth talking about how he wants to get more money out of it. The Canadian side of it is front and center since Cruz was born in Calgary.

You might be right in the long run since they can fill their capacities within or from Venezuela however the 'political' position at this point is Canadian oil.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US is laughing at all the Canadians complaining about environmental impacts of oil. It has been a heck of good media snow job to convince the world how bad the "tar" sands are. Let the Canadians take themselves out as a major supplier on the world market. Oh well, we have a bunch of suckers here so it is to be expected.

Oil will come back in time, but likely not to peak levels we have seen for many years. Enough to stay steady, employ base levels of people and pay taxes. Without a pipeline we will simply be limited by what the US will buy and so ultimately dictating to Canada what we can produce.

We can all hope that we will eventually get a pipeline built but it wont be till people figure out that employment does not come from the government. Until then there will be many Canadians running around and cheering the fact the boom is finally over. Never realizing oil is a commodity and is in demand when the economy is booming, a bust in oil means there will be a lot of people in this country looking to build a pipeline simply to have some work - whether or not a drop of oil ever flows through it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...