# $60 / Barrel by year end



## Kirkhill (14 Jan 2016)

> “We’re heading toward a short supply situation unfortunately, “ said Harold Hamm, head of the US shale driller Continental Resources.
> “That’s going to get very concerning in the latter part of the year,” he told the Wall Street Journal. Mr Hamm said prices will this jump later this year to $60.





> Ms Croft said the market is likely to tighten in the second half of the year despite the return of Iran, arguing that there are very few spots in the world other than Libya able to crank up output quickly
> “We remain of the view that many of the bearish macro factors appear overblown. Current market conditions are setting the market up for a supply shortfall for the coming years, which is not accurately priced into the forward curve,” she said.





> The first signs of a thaw are emerging for the battered oil market after Russia signalled a sharp fall in exports this year, a move that may offset the long-feared surge of supply from Iran.
> The oil-pipeline monopoly Transneft said Russian companies are likely to cut crude shipments by 6.4pc over the course of 2016, based on applications submitted so far by Lukoil, Rosneft, Gazprom and other producers.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12100609/Glimmers-of-hope-for-oil-as-Russia-poised-to-slash-output.html

Events, dear boy. Events.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jan 2016)

Well, then, I'll enjoy my buck-a-litre gas (honestly can't remember the last time it was that low in these parts) as long as it lasts.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Jan 2016)

$60 would be nice for oil companies and cash starved governments looking for tax and royalty revenues, but I suspect that is the far right hand edge of the bell curve. OF course I am equally sceptical of the predictions that oil might dip to $20 or less as well (think of that as the left edge of the bell curve).

Regardless of what Russia does, the key factor is how Saudi Arabia feels the oil war against Iran and Iranian allies/proxies/enablers (Syria/Hezbollah/Russia) is going, with the secondary factor being how desperate Iran is to get some revenue flow to continue with their war aims.

The wild card is how well and how quickly American producers of unconventional oil plays can adapt. It wasn't too long ago that there were confident predictions that they would be driven out of business when oil dropped below $80, then $60, then $55......There is obviously a bottom somewhere, we just don't know where it is yet.


----------



## YZT580 (15 Jan 2016)

paid 81 yesterday.  you are getting hosed.


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jan 2016)

YZT580 said:
			
		

> paid 81 yesterday.  you are getting hosed.


We're used to getting hosed on gasoline prices in northern Ontario, but given the range o' prices across Ontario, $1/litre's LOOOOOOOxury in these parts ...


----------



## Nfld Sapper (15 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, then, I'll enjoy my buck-a-litre gas (honestly can't remember the last time it was that low in these parts) as long as it lasts.



Less than that here in NL, maximum price is 99.1 in St. John's.......but many sell for less thanks to COSTCO....


----------



## The Bread Guy (15 Jan 2016)

NFLD Sapper said:
			
		

> Less than that here in NL, maximum price is 99.1 in St. John's.......but many sell for less thanks to COSTCO....


That's still not bad for what a "far from the geographic centre and huge urban centres" provincial capital.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Jan 2016)

77.9 in the Peg. Subtract the 10.5 I get for loyalty, that makes for some sweet gas pricing.


----------



## cupper (15 Jan 2016)

I'm starting a pool to guess the date when oil is free. ;D

Seriously though, I can see it hitting $20, but it won't stay that low for long. I think that would be the tipping point. to bring the drop to a halt. Going back to $60 is a lot harder to envision though.

The Saudis have a vested interest in keeping Canadian crude out of the market, and even more importantly tamping down the expansion of the Balken Shale formations. They need to hold onto their market share, and keeping the price artificially low works in their favour, even if the economic sustainability calls that into question.

China's economic and industrial decline also is starting to take a bite out of the Saudi marketshare, and there doesn't seem to be any sign of that improving soon.


----------



## Brad Sallows (16 Jan 2016)

As long as commodity prices - oil especially - stay depressed, the federal government and provincial governments which claim to have answers to boosting economic growth will have an excellent opportunity to prove they "can" - or "can't".


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm starting a pool to guess the date when oil is free. ;D
> 
> Seriously though, I can see it hitting $20, but it won't stay that low for long. I think that would be the tipping point. to bring the drop to a halt. Going back to $60 is a lot harder to envision though.
> 
> ...



I am betting on volatility..... I don't think anybody has a grip on what is likely to happen.

And the same thing goes for Saudi, ISIS, Syria and Russia.  I don't think any heads are wearing their crowns easily just now.


----------



## larry Strong (16 Jan 2016)

I pay about a buck for 94 Octane in Red Deer.....



Larry


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jan 2016)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Well, then, I'll enjoy my buck-a-litre gas (honestly can't remember the last time it was that low in these parts) as long as it lasts.



48 cents a liter here in the US (1.83 per US gallon)


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Jan 2016)

TV: $0.48 USD which is more like $0.70 CAD!


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Jan 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm starting a pool to guess the date when oil is free. ;D



Oh, it will be free to Exxon and the likes, but you and I will still have to pay 0.95$ a litre to get it  :nod:.



			
				Chris Pook said:
			
		

> I am betting on volatility..... I don't think anybody has a grip on what is likely to happen.



Time perhaps for those who have not read it to get their hands on a copy of Jeff Rubin's _The End of Growth_.

About ten years ago (when oil was trading around $50 a barrel) Rubin was guest speaker at an oil company executives convention. He predicted to them that shortly, oil would trade at about $100, perhaps all the way up to $150. He was almost laughed out of the podium. Yet, within two years, his prediction had come true.

So what does he postulate in The End of Growth? He postulates that the way the oft predicted "end-of-cheap-oil" scenario will develop is not the ever increasing price of oil forecasted by most, but rather a series of wild swings between ever higher and ever lower oil prices, in more and more rapid fashion. In short, volatility of markets at ever more accelerated pace. 

He comes to this conclusion on the basis that, as oil prices get very high, ever more companies jump in to develop methods to get at the more difficult to exploit oil. When the prices go down, they don't want to lose their market so all start to dump oil in vast amounts in the market, all of them hoping to be able to survive the ride and come out the winners when the price goes up again. However, too many of them then go bankrupt at the low point and the resulting production drops below the demand and the price shoot up like crazy.

One figure missing in the information to determine if, or when, we enter this "swinging market" phase is the ultra -secretive figures on the state of Middle Eastern easy to pump oil. The Saudis absolutely refuse to talk reserves, except to  reassure people that they  have more than enough. But nobody knows for sure, and as the Saudis have developed a huge nanny state to keep their subjects happy, they need increasingly large amounts of cash to satisfy their budgetary needs. As a result, the temptation is always there for the Saudis to dump increasingly large amounts of oil in the market when prices swing down regardless of the amount of their reserves, just to keep good order inside the Kingdom.

All this to say: yes, oil markets will likely be volatile and wild for quite a few decades to come.

God (if there is such a woman) pray for Albertans.


----------



## YZT580 (16 Jan 2016)

cupper said:
			
		

> I'm starting a pool to guess the date when oil is free. ;D
> 
> Seriously though, I can see it hitting $20, but it won't stay that low for long. I think that would be the tipping point. to bring the drop to a halt. Going back to $60 is a lot harder to envision though.
> 
> The Saudis have a vested interest in keeping Canadian crude out of the market, and even more importantly tamping down the expansion of the Balken Shale formations. They need to hold onto their market share, and keeping the price artificially low works in their favour, even if the economic sustainability calls that into question.


The Saudis don't need to work at keeping our oil out of the market.  Between B.C. and Ontario actions regarding pipeline construction and usage, and Alberta's royalty taxes, Alberta crude won't see the marketplace any time soon.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Jan 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> TV: $0.48 USD which is more like *$0.70* CAD!


Which is about what it's at at the gas station just south of the border in these parts - and still a bargoon.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2016)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Oh, it will be free to Exxon and the likes, but you and I will still have to pay 0.95$ a litre to get it  :nod:.
> 
> Time perhaps for those who have not read it to get their hands on a copy of Jeff Rubin's _The End of Growth_.
> 
> ...



The one thing that money does not like is volatility.  It likes predictable supply and predictable demand.

Now, the one area where Rubin may fall flat is this:  If volatility becomes the norm then than in itself becomes predictable.

If the swings from ridiculously high to ridiculously low start occurring at ever shorter intervals then that too becomes manageable.  Storage capacity then becomes critical - and how quickly you can turn on and turn off the taps.

Refined products then need to held in mass quantities, and that would cost money, but it would be possible to make the business case in order to generate stability.   The oil market would become like the grain market, the fruit market or even the fish market - both of which are highly seasonal and highly variable.  

The variability is managed by storage capacity.

And some oil can be stored in the ground. It isn't going anywhere.  

One way to damp an oscillating signal is simply to shut off the energy supply.  While Alberta is involuntarily in that situation now - some other players, like Saudi, may come to the same conclusion soon.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2016)

While Alberta is involuntarily out of the market, the reserves are so large (estimates run to a trillion+ barrels of recoverable oil, depending on what assumptions you make about recovering bitumen), that the simple knowledge that this amount of oil is potentially available may serve as a damper on the system.

Consider that George W Bush simply announced the end of some restrictions to drilling on federal land and the oil market promptly tanked,despite the fact that not even a single drill had started turning. Potential US reserves were known and understood at that time to be considerable (and this was _before_ many of the technologies like fracking and shale oil recovery were mature), so the potential for this to enter the market was already being forward factored into the prices.

I suspect that the potential entry of Iranian oil will have a similar damping effect, and we might see other "dampers" such as the reestablishment of a functioning government in Venezuela or Chinese efforts to master the technology of fracking start to pay off. This will be amplified by the sure knowledge that as prices edge up into the $40 + range, US unconventional production starts to become profitable, and that oil will start entering the market again.

And, as Chris points out, there will be a huge incentive to begin storing oil to buffer the market swings. Creating caverns in salt domes is a well known technology which can be used to create truly monstrous underground reservoirs. Look for all kinds of formerly exotic technologies being commercialized to ride to the market swings.


----------



## Old Sweat (16 Jan 2016)

And hopefully we will not see a repetition of the late-70s early-80s "made in Canada" oil price. Partly in response to a plea from the Government of Ontario and probably mostly for ideological reasons, the Trudeau government set a price for Canadian oil well below the world price which insulated Ontario (and the rest of the country) from high oil prices while really p****** off Alberta. At the same time oil imported from offshore for Eastern Canadian markets was subsidized by the Feds to bring its market price down to the "made in Canada" price. Much of the economic and debt servicing difficulties of the 90s resulted from the massive deficits generated by this policy.

I hope and pray we do not start borrowing money to subsidize oil production, and maybe I just am looking for trouble where none exists.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Jan 2016)

I can't think of anything that is off the table just now - except perhaps the construction of Canadian pipelines.

And in the absence of those Alberta and Saskatchewan cannot contribute to damping volatility.

One of the best things that Canada could do for the global economy is to build its own pipelines and start shipping oil directly from tidewater.

And Christie Clark - she is missing the boat.  She could be generating more BC shipyard jobs simply by demanding that Ottawa beef up the Coast Guard's environmental response capabilities on the West Coast to get her her "world class spill response" capability - whatever that may mean.

God I do hate modern rules and regulations - best practices, world class, good manufacturing practices, reasonable - and nary a suggestion as to how to define that.  At the same time, as noted previously, we have engineers demanding ever more clarity, to the point of absurdity, as noted previously, and producing less utilitarian products but masses an masses of paper that will never get read.

Sorry Old Sweat - bad morning.  I am frustrated by the lack of imagination shown on all fronts.  By the "can't do" attitude that seems to currently infest the universe.


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Jan 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> TV: $0.48 USD which is more like $0.70 CAD!


I get paid in USD, so IDGAF how much is it in pesos CAD.  [


----------



## cupper (16 Jan 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I get paid in USD, so IDGAF how much is it in pesos CAD.  [



I second that. And I only pay $1.75 / gal


----------



## Rifleman62 (16 Jan 2016)

Well it is nice to pay $30 for a tank of 17 US gallons @ $177.9 in Phoenix = $43 CDN. 

Beats the feeling of paying $65 in West Kelowna. Gas in WK is the lowest since moving there in Aug 08. Gas is always expensive, usually at least $1.25 to $1.45 + per liter. Gas Buddy today is $99.9 per liter.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Jan 2016)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I get paid in USD, so IDGAF how much is it in pesos CAD.  [



I see you're in VA.  I am down the road, in MD.  I'll buy you a drink anytime!

I get paid in USD as well.  But it's my salary converted into USD


----------



## cupper (16 Jan 2016)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Well it is nice to pay $30 for a tank of 17 US gallons @ $177.9 in Phoenix = $43 CDN.
> 
> Beats the feeling of paying $65 in West Kelowna. Gas in WK is the lowest since moving there in Aug 08. Gas is always expensive, usually at least $1.25 to $1.45 + per liter. Gas Buddy today is $99.9 per liter.



Yeah, same here. When I was home in NS at Christmas it was $50 to fill up the car (18 USG full). Don't think I've paid more than $35 to fill up in the US since we bought it in October.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Jan 2016)

More on the oil front:



> And yet, amid current low oil prices, the notion of collectively taking barrels off the market is a seductive one. After all, there’s not a single company in Calgary’s corporate towers that isn’t starving for a bit of extra cash flow these days. But such a price shock would only prolong and worsen the underlying supply imbalance. *Canada’s advantage in the global oil industry its technological savvy, not its geology or geography. Its best shot at emerging a winner is to cut costs and improve technologies faster than its competitors. *The ongoing international competition to price out costly producers will certainly hurt marginal oil sands players, but a temporary price spike would only mask *the oil sands’ greatest challenges: reducing its per-barrel production costs, building pipeline export capacity and achieving a “social license” to operate. *Despite the pain they are causing, low oil prices are forcing Canadian heavy oil producers to face that reality. The last thing anyone needs is more volatility.



http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2015/12/why-opec-wont-and-shouldnt-cut-production/

About that infrastructure - pipelines is infrastructure.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2016)

One analyst is predicting much lower prices, and gives the reasons we might expect that outcome:

http://www.marketwatch.com/(S(rnrsydaynixa5x55oiibxm45))/story/fund-manager-whos-been-right-on-oil-has-a-depressing-new-prediction-2016-01-15?pagenumber=2



> Fund manager who’s been right on oil has a depressing new prediction
> *T. Rowe Price New Era’s Shawn Driscoll says the price for a barrel of oil could drop into the teens*
> By Howard Gold, MarketWatch
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (18 Jan 2016)

Saw that article.

General tenor is "Why aren't they panicking?  They should be panicking?"

What does he expect them to do?  Their inventory is in the ground.  They turn off the taps.  Shut off the exploration.  Send everybody home.  Are they supposed to start demolishing plant?

All they can do now is to sit tight and hold on.  I am aware of people with cash that are expanding their holdings.

The only people that benefit from a panic are in the stock market - and a few governments betting on irrational acts.


----------



## vonGarvin (18 Jan 2016)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I see you're in VA.  I am down the road, in MD.  I'll buy you a drink anytime!
> 
> I get paid in USD as well.  *But it's my salary converted into USD*



Shhhh!  Don't mess with the dream!


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2016)

Further to the "Why aren't they panicking?" meme.



> Hedge funds and private equity groups armed with $60bn of ready cash are poised to snap up the assets of bankrupt US shale drillers, almost guaranteeing that America’s tight oil production will rebound as soon as prices start to recover.
> 
> Daniel Yergin, founder of IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates, said it is impossible for OPEC to knock out the US shale industry though a war of attrition even if large numbers of frackers fall by the wayside over coming months.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/12118594/Saudis-will-not-destroy-the-US-shale-industry.html

And there goes the Paris Carbon plan.

As for the Oilsands 



> Canada’s biggest oil sands producers, which *have stubbornly resisted halting output* even as the price of their crude hits record lows, are planning a higher-than-normal maintenance schedule this year. The move is seen temporarily curbing supply in the second and third quarters, which should lift crude prices in the region and give producers a respite from selling their barrels below cash costs.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/hefty-maintenance-schedule-looms-for-canada-oil-sands-producers/article28347541/


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2016)

I see Trudeau wants to give us a Billion of our money back to build infrastructure.

Generous.

In 2013 private investors pumped 32.7 Billion into our economy to develop the Oil Sands.
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/oilsands/791.asp

They are/were also willing to spend 7.9 Billion on building Northern Gateway, 5.4 Billion on Transmountain, 10 Billion on the XL expansion and 15.7 Billion on Energy East.  There is 39 Billion Dollars of investment.  39 Billion Dollars of Jobs.

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/transcanada-corp-ups-cost-of-energy-east-pipeline-by-almost-4-billion-and-makes-700-changes-to-route?__lsa=4604-3205
http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/keystone-xl-pipeline-transcanada-costs?__lsa=4604-3205
http://www.news1130.com/2016/01/22/state-of-play-a-look-at-the-status-of-pipeline-projects-in-canada/

No public money and at the end of the projects a revenue stream that benefits everybody currently receiving equalization payments and that worked in, or supplied the oil patch or supplied groceries to the families of the workers.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jan 2016)

The granola crunching, tree hugging, left wing flappers are blind to that sort of logic, I'm afraid.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2016)

It is an ongoing problem.  Parties campaign on "we'll create jobs".  You show them a bunch of job creation opportunities.  "Those are not the jobs we're looking for."


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> It is an ongoing problem.  Parties campaign on "we'll create jobs".  You show them a bunch of job creation opportunities.  "Those are not the jobs we're looking for."



The other side of the coin as so aptly said by Mike Rowe "...you're talking about shovel ready jobs for people who won't pick up a shovel..."


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Jan 2016)

So how does Trudeau get the pipeline past aboriginal title in BC, and various protests and legal challenges by various groups across the country..oh, and the US government.  I mean, Harper didn't get it done, so....


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2016)

Money fixes nearly all domestic objections.  Once the deals over turf are cut, the environmentalists - the only real purists in the mix - will be invited to shut up and mind their own business by the muscle belonging to the same people who currently are part of the "popular front", but just angling for their slices of the pie.

After Obama departs, his successor may not be particularly seized with obstructing a border-crossing pipeline.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Money fixes nearly all domestic objections.



I don't think you understand the change that has happened in the aboriginal community of late, especially with the decision in BC in 2014, pertaining to aboriginal title in non treaty areas.  You need aboriginal consent.  Trans Mountain can probably and will probably happen simply because a parallel line already exists (though I can see it failing as well).  Northern gateway was always dead as a result of aboriginal title.  Energy East is a wild card.  It may or may not happen.  KXL is probably dead, but who knows?


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> I don't think you understand the change that has happened in the aboriginal community of late, especially with the decision in BC in 2014, pertaining to aboriginal title in non treaty areas.  You need aboriginal consent.



Here's the problem with our courts. They're creating laws, not clarifying on legal basis. If its non-treaty land, First Nations should get 0 say as to what happens. They don't want us telling them how to spend their money, they don't get to run the country unless they get together and get MPs elected.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Here's the problem with our courts. They're creating laws, not clarifying on legal basis.



The Supreme Court is charged with interpreting the Constitution.  Their interpretation is far more meaningful than yours, and far more binding. 



> If its non-treaty land, First Nations should get 0 say as to what happens.



Non treaty land is land that was never surrendered by Indigenous people.  Technically, non aboriginal people are not even supposed to be there.  Of course, the courts are more realistic than that, recognizing the long inhabitance by non indigenous people.  Canadian and provincial law applies to non treaty land, but aboriginal consent, as of 2014, must be obtained for most projects through the region.



> They don't want us telling them how to spend their money, they don't get to run the country unless they get together and get MPs elected.



Like I said, I don't think you understand the actual duty of the Crown, agreed to in 1763.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jan 2016)

Non-treaty is an excuse to claim things now, that were forgotten about/not important. There are plenty of First Nations that are thriving in a modern economy, all while keeping their roots. Then there's the majority that want all the things that come with a modern urban center, delivered in random, austere locations. When they don't like something, they block a railroad, or a highway to get what they want. If I do that, I'll get arrested. They could ensure they get some well-paying jobs to work on those pipelines, but instead have been used by the anti-fossil fuel lobby to block any and all development. They are not bargaining in good faith.

This whole treaty garbage needs to be tossed out, and a new, relevant agreement needs to happen to replace the Indian Act. Until then, I'll tune out the majority who are entitled to their entitlements.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Jan 2016)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Non-treaty is an excuse to claim things now, that were forgotten about/not important.



Almost none of BC was subject to treaty negotiations.  At the time, it was thought of as unimportant.  Now, with the benefit of hind sight, it turns out it was more important than we thought.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Jan 2016)

>Northern gateway was always dead as a result of aboriginal title.

All aboriginal title does is identify some of the people in line to be paid.

We're stuck with the Royal Proclamation as the basis of continuing apartheid and feudalism (one class of hereditary rent-collectors, and one class of hereditary rent-payers) for now, but at some point it will become too absurd to sustain.  So, work within its constraints - make an offer.

Pity so few realize that a lift from the stone age into the modern age is worth more than all the land in the Americas.


----------



## jmt18325 (24 Jan 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >Northern gateway was always dead as a result of aboriginal title.
> 
> All aboriginal title does is identify some of the people in line to be paid.
> 
> ...



Payment isn't enough.  In these new cases, the bands have to agree.  It seems that money is no longer enough in all cases.

Look, I hate the status quo, and regularly argue against it in public fora.  Aboriginal people should be equal under the law.  Nothing less, and nothing more.  That doesn't mean that I don't recognize reality.  We all have to deal with it after all.


----------



## Old Sweat (24 Jan 2016)

And Donald Trump has his hand out too, as reported in this story in the Toronto Star reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.

Donald Trump demands ‘big chunk’ of Keystone XL profits for the U.S.

The Republican presidential front-runner declared that he is “not in love with the idea of taking Canadian oil.”




By: Daniel Dale Washington Bureau, Published on Sun Jan 24 2016

WASHINGTON, D.C.—Republican presidential front-runner Donald Trump says he would reject the Keystone XL pipeline if TransCanada Corp. didn’t give the U.S. a “big, big chunk of the profits, or even ownership rights.”
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.
“I want 25 per cent of the deal for the United States. They’re going to make a fortune,” he declared in Muscatine, Iowa on Sunday. On Saturday, he said he would ask for “25 per cent of the profits forever.”
Trump, campaigning as an economic nationalist, said he wants the pipeline approved. But he said TransCanada should not be allowed to send Canadian oil through American land—“through farmland and through cities and wherever the hell they’re going” — without paying a hefty price.
“When they do this pipeline, it’s going to be a very profitable thing and it’s really Canada oil coming down — so it’s not — I like Canada, I want these people to be happy, but I want the developers of the pipeline to give the United States a big, big chunk of the profits or even ownership rights, like I do in business. That’s what I do,” he said.
“I want a big piece of the deal. Otherwise I’m not going to approve it. They will give us a lot.”
Trump also declared that he is “not in love with the idea of taking Canadian oil.” He added, “I love Canada, by the way.”
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.
“Ted Cruz will approve the Keystone pipeline because it benefits Canada!” he said.
Trump did not explain how a profit-sharing deal might work. A TransCanada spokesman could not be reached on Sunday.
Trump’s Keystone remarks capped another weekend of bizarre and outlandish statements. On Saturday, he declared, “I could stand in the middle of 5th Ave. and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.”
On Sunday, he asked if a protester in a red turban was wearing “one of those hats.” It wasn’t clear if he thought the man might have been wearing a red Trump baseball cap.


----------



## jollyjacktar (24 Jan 2016)

jmt18325 said:
			
		

> Payment isn't enough.  In these new cases, the bands have to agree.  It seems that money is no longer enough in all cases.
> 
> Look, I hate the status quo, and regularly argue against it in public fora.  Aboriginal people should be equal under the law.  Nothing less, and nothing more.  That doesn't mean that I don't recognize reality.  We all have to deal with it after all.


Sure, then they can pay taxes like the rest of us.


----------



## PuckChaser (24 Jan 2016)

They can have 25% of the profits, as long as we get 25% of the profits from the refined product his refineries will sell afterwards.


----------



## Ostrozac (24 Jan 2016)

Arguing over the distribution network for oil that is currently almost worthless strikes me as a bit of a "bald men fighting over comb" situation. Eventually, oil prices will be high again, and then, and only then, will there be enough cabbage to spread around to deal with all the stakeholders.

No one is interested in building pipelines to ship oil so long as prices are this low. The profits aren't worth the costs, either the actual construction costs or the political costs. The oil may as well sit in the ground until prices are back at $100 a barrel. The oil's not going anywhere, and the world will probably need it in the 22nd century.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Jan 2016)

http://business.financialpost.com/fp-comment/aboriginal-land-will-be-expropriated

There is a reason we elect dictators pro tem.

There is a reason that the federal government has control over inter-provincial trade.

There is a reason why governments can expropriate land.

The limitation is strictly the next election.

And, if the upthread articles are to be believed oil won't stay this low for long.


----------



## daftandbarmy (24 Jan 2016)

Meanwhile, in Russia:

Russian Oil: Output Grows as Prospects Shrink

Plummeting prices and U.S.-led sanctions raise questions about Russian oil’s capacity to continue underwriting Putin’s global ambitions

IMILOR OIL FIELD, Russia—In the frosty swamplands of West Siberia, the drilling rigs of oil giant  OAO Lukoil  are helping raise Russia’s oil output to its highest levels since the breakup of the Soviet Union a quarter century ago.

But falling crude prices, U.S.-led sanctions and diminished oil exploration threaten Russia’s oil industry and raise questions about its capacity to continue underwriting President  Vladimir Putin’s ambitions at home and abroad. 

While recent increases in Russian oil output have helped cushion the sharp price fall, Mr. Putin is so squeezed for cash, his government postponed a planned reduction in oil-export duties this year. Executives say they fear the postponement could be extended, diverting money to Moscow that could be invested in new drilling and exploration to supplement aging oil fields. 

“We will have to limit our spending and that will lead to a fall in production,” Lukoil Chief Executive Vagit Alekperov said in an interview at the Russian company’s international headquarters in Vienna.

Russian officials acknowledged that the higher-than-planned taxes could lead to a decrease in investment and production, but said they were needed for the budget.

U.S. and European sanctions over the past 18 months also weigh on Russia’s future prospects by choking Western financing for exploring potential finds in the Arctic Ocean and for tapping Siberian shale formations.

Oil and natural gas revenues make up about half of Russia’s federal government revenue, and exports account for one-third of national output. Energy revenues are central to Mr. Putin’s power as he faces off with the West over Ukraine and the 2014 annexation of Crimea. He has deployed military forces in Syria’s war to back President  Bashar al-Assad.

Oil money extends Mr. Putin’s reach, allowing him the financial resources to issue cheap loans to favored leaders and pay for military adventures abroad.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-oil-output-grows-as-prospects-shrink-1453685744


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2016)

http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-why-montreal-says-no-to-the-energy-east-pipeline

Message to Messrs Coderre et al:

So glad you are enjoying the benefits of the reversal of 9B to supply the refinery in Montreal.

It is with regret that we note your refusal to permit the transport of oil and gas products across your province to your fellow Canadians in New Brunswick.  As a result we shall be forced to continue with the current plan and utilize the previously agreed means of transport across your region.  You might want to consider updating some of your investment, management and response plans.







  1910






  1898






 1904






 1876






 1916






 1893






  1854






A couple of thoughts during your deliberations.








> But Saskatchewan Premier Brad Wall noted that Quebec municipalities were benefiting from $10 billion in transfer payments as part of Canada’s equalization system. In the Canadian federation, equalization transfers money from the wealthiest provinces to so-called "have-not" provinces to ensure that all parts of the country have adequate resources for public services.
> 
> “For the better part of the last decade, the western Canadian energy sector and western Canadian taxpayers have supported a great portion of these transfer payments as well as the Canadian economy,” Wall wrote on Thursday on his Facebook page. “Is it too much to expect that these Quebec municipal leaders would respond to this reality with generous support for a pipeline that supports the very sector that has supported them?”



And Christie Clark - you are no better.






How do you get the royalties from your Northeastern fields? Through pipelines that run through Alberta as well as pipelines that Pembina and Kinder Morgan and Spectra have run over the mountains for best part of 60 years.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 Jan 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/columnists/opinion-why-montreal-says-no-to-the-energy-east-pipeline


Funnily enough, that's not _quite_ carved in stone  ;D


> Montreal Mayor Denis Coderre signalled Tuesday that he is open to changing his mind on the Energy East pipeline.
> 
> Following a 45-minute meeting with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Coderre told reporters that what he had retained from his meeting with his former Liberal caucus colleague was "this notion of being responsible" and of finding "a balance" between economic development and sustainable development.
> 
> ...


Not quite a blatant ...




... but time will tell ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jan 2016)

Maybe we can tempt the Cree "nations" with an energy and transportation corridor across the District of Ungava...

A few billion in pipeline, railway, highway and power line construction and ongoing maintainance should get a few people seeing things our way, and will be a productive spending on "infrastructure" to boot. Win win.


----------



## Kirkhill (26 Jan 2016)

> “Energy East must change its project and then we will see,



Accommodation Quebec style.


----------



## jollyjacktar (26 Jan 2016)

Thinking of Coderre reminds me of the lyrics of the Cindy Lauper song " and I see your true colours come shining through".  What a POS.

Rick Mercer has one of his better rants on this very same subject for tonight's show.  

Here it is http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/rick-mercer-s-energy-east-rant-1.3419698


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Jan 2016)

I wonder how much further capacity Iran can bring on and how much is existing under the table sales being converted into above table sales which might make it appear there is a larger supply.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Jan 2016)

> The question is whether even US shale can ever be big enough to compensate for the coming shortage of oil as global investment collapses. “There has been a $1.8 trillion reduction in spending planned for 2015 to 2020 compared to what was expected in 2014,” said Mr Yergin.
> 
> Yet oil demand is still growing briskly. The world economy will need 7m b/d more by 2020. Natural depletion on existing fields implies a loss of another 13m b/d by then.
> 
> Adding to the witches’ brew, global spare capacity is at wafer-thin levels - perhaps as low 1.5m b/d - as the Saudis, Russians, and others, produce at full tilt.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/12118594/Saudis-will-not-destroy-the-US-shale-industry.html



> Ms Croft said the market is likely to tighten in the second half of the year despite the return of Iran, arguing that there are very few spots in the world other than Libya able to crank up output quickly
> 
> “We remain of the view that many of the bearish macro factors appear overblown. Current market conditions are setting the market up for a supply shortfall for the coming years, which is not accurately priced into the forward curve,” she said.



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12100609/Glimmers-of-hope-for-oil-as-Russia-poised-to-slash-output.html


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Jan 2016)

So we weather the storm and go into a heavy maintenance cycle. We then have the ability to ramp up production once the profit margin rebounds. That being said, we should also be looking to build the infrastructure to get our oil to market. Something like Energy East perhaps?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Jan 2016)

Posted in another thread but I will repost here. If the predictions are even half accurate, the United States holds the high cards and can act as the swing producer in reaction to oil prices and demand. We know that US foundations have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to cripple the Canadian oil industry, but fast moving American producers reacting rapidly to market signals may be even worse for *us* in terms of establishing a national energy infrastructure. Who will want to invest (as Chris Pook noted) $39 billion in pipelines if the cost isn't going to be amortized through the price of the oil flowing through?

http://nextbigfuture.com/2016/01/technological-progress-in-big-data.html



> *Technological progress in big data analytics could create Shale 2.0 and bring US oil costs to $5-20 per barrel*
> 
> The Oil-price collapse was caused by the astonishing, unexpected growth in U.S. shale output, responsible for three-fourths of new global oil supply since 2008. And as lower prices roil operators and investors, the shale skeptics’ case may seem vindicated. But their history is false: the shale revolution, “Shale 1.0,” was sparked not by high prices—it began when prices were at today’s low levels—but by the invention of new technologies. Now, the skeptics’ forecasts are likely to be as flawed as their history.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Feb 2016)

> *BP expects to emerge from the oil market collapse by the end of 2016* even as the severe downturn in the oil market has left the energy giant nursing its worst annual loss in at least 20 years.
> 
> In 2015, the oil major posted an annual loss of $5.2bn, compared to the $8.1bn profit the oil major recorded in the previous year, and will be forced to slash thousands of jobs on top of those already announced.
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/12135351/BP-looks-ahead-to-60-oil-after-5.2bn-annual-loss.html


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2016)

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/as-politicians-gloat-about-climate-leadership-saudi-arabias-oil-is-dumped-in-canada?__lsa=226b-502a










> As politicians gloat about climate ‘leadership,’ Saudi Arabia’s oil is dumped in Canada
> 
> Claudia Cattaneo | February 9, 2016 | Last Updated: Feb 9 5:54 PM ET
> 
> ...



I am supposed to comment under the fair dealings section of the the copyright act.  I offer none.  The article stands on its own merits.


----------



## jollyjacktar (9 Feb 2016)

I'll bite.  As far as I'm concerned, buying SA oil isn't much better than buying Daesh oil.  That we're buying from those who would destroy us, because we're forced to by special interest groups who won't support an eastern pipeline, is disgusting.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Feb 2016)

The sell us oil.  We sell them LAVs.  So the cars in eastern Canada are fuelled by Saudi LAVs


----------



## cupper (9 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> The sell us oil.  We sell them LAVs.  So the cars in eastern Canada are fuelled by Saudi LAVs



I think I'd rather have the LAV on my commute.


----------



## a_majoor (10 Feb 2016)

While Canadians continue to hamstring each other, the US shale oil drillers learn to continue to be profitable even in today's environment. And the practice of "fracklogging" makes responding to these market swings faster than ever:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/02/04/lone-star-shale-producers-defy-opec/



> *Lone Star Shale Producers Defy OPEC*
> 
> For a state that prides itself on being “bigger” in every sense of the word, Texas is managing to handle smaller oil profit margins awfully well, as a number of producers in the state’s two shale basins are keeping output up despite plunging prices. Bloomberg reports:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Feb 2016)

More on how oilshale fracking has turned the international situation on its head. Interesting prediction on what price points will bring US shale production roaring back:

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/russias-big-worry-not-what-pentagon-thinks-what-shale-frackers-will-do-oil-prices-8487.html



> *Russia's Big Worry Is Not What the Pentagon Thinks but What Shale Frackers Will Do to Oil Prices *
> By Mark P. Mills,
> Forbes,  February 4, 2016
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Feb 2016)

Russia is closer to Europe which reduces cost. Putin would be well advised to streamline the oil & gas exploitation and export industry to compete and focus on the near markets.

I do like this though and might bring it up

_“If we choose to import oil from Saudi Arabia … shouldn’t we estimate the total GHG (greenhouse gas emission) impact of Saudi Arabian oil, which must include the military footprint of safeguarding that oil in the midst of a perpetual war zone?” asks Terry Etam in a column for the BOE Report, an industry online trade publication. “Could someone please show the calculation for how much GHG is emitted by a fighter jet launching air strikes to irritate neighbours, including the chaotic aftermath? What are the CO2 emissions of torched oil wells that will take months to put out? How much GHG is emitted by tanks blowing things up?”_


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2016)

An interesting commentary from Montreal in the Calgary sun.  It stands in counter-point to Denis Coderre's vapourings and validates OGBD's contention that Quebecer's are a whole lot more sympathetic to Oil. Western Canada and Pipelines than the mayor of Montreal.



> Anyone would be forgiven for thinking that Quebecers are all opposed to Western Canadian crude, and to the infrastructure required to carry it to Quebec and the Atlantic. After all, our duly elected representatives, both at the provincial level and at the municipal level, seem to be falling over each other lately to speak out against oil and pipelines.
> 
> The truth of the matter, though, according to a Leger poll commissioned by my organization, is that 59% of Quebecers think it is preferable for the oil imported from outside the province to come from Western Canada, versus a total of just 13% who think it preferable that we import it from other countries (and another 28% who either had no opinion or refused to answer).
> 
> ...



http://www.calgarysun.com/2016/02/15/quebecers-say-yes-pipelines-and-alberta-oil

Just as a reminder






The CTV headline on the night was "Election 2015: Quebec goes red"

Except for those parts that didnt't.

Montreal is not Quebec.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Feb 2016)

Except greater Montreal has a larger population than the maritime provinces combined.  Your map shows geography, not population.  It's like comparing Fort McMurray-Cold Lake to all of Edmonton and Calgary combined.

Or are you suggesting that parliament should allocate votes based on square kilometres instead of population?


----------



## Infanteer (16 Feb 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Or are you suggesting that parliament should allocate votes based on square kilometres instead of population?



That's called the Senate.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Feb 2016)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> That's called the Senate.



Canada: 9,984,670 sq km
PEI: 5,660 sq km (not counting Kanata.  Sorry, Mike Duffy)

PEI: 4 Senators

Therefore: 9,984,670 / 5,660 x 4 = 7056 Senators.

Not quite there yet...


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2016)

DAP - same thing applies to every province but PEI - the urban does not represent the rural.  And just like Calgary doesn't represent Edmonton, Montreal does not represent la Ville de Quebec.

To be honest I personally have very little time for the dwellers of Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.  Calgary and Edmonton I suppose get a pass because I still remember them when they were less than half the size they are today and reminded more of London, Ont as livable places.

And lets not go to the number of Senators.

The point is that Coderre, the beast of the day (he is not an isolated phenomenon) is playing for the cameras.  And that is a lousy way to define policy.  Unfortunately it seems to be the way of the world.

PS - the 1911 borders of Quebec and Ontario? Effectively they allocated to Montreal and Toronto their very own colonies.  And they treat them as such.


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> PS - the 1911 borders of Quebec and Ontario? Effectively they allocated to Montreal and Toronto their very own colonies.  And they treat them as such.


That.  Right.  There.
QFTT


----------



## dapaterson (16 Feb 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> DAP - same thing applies to every province but PEI - the urban does not represent the rural.  And just like Calgary doesn't represent Edmonton, Montreal does not represent la Ville de Quebec.
> 
> To be honest I personally have very little time for the dwellers of Montreal, Toronto or Vancouver.  Calgary and Edmonton I suppose get a pass because I still remember them when they were less than half the size they are today and reminded more of London, Ont as livable places.
> 
> ...



Well, the Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver metropolitain areas represent roughly 1/3 of Canada's population.  Yet have less power than any provincial government - so the farce that is the petty, squabbling, nepotistic and dying provinces of the Maritimes each have greater power than any of those cities.  So mayors are forced into other means to try to get their voices heard.

And surely you're not suggesting that some votes should be more than others?


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Feb 2016)

In my world Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver would be provinces in their own right.  Their needs are not the needs of Temiscamingue, Timmins and Trail.  And Canada is more that just three dots on the map.  It is all the territory that connects them and feeds them and buffers them.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Feb 2016)

https://gcaptain.com/iran-oil-embargo-first-tankers-depart-for-europe-since-sanctions-ended/?utm_source=gCaptain+Newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=40aaa35723-Mailchimp_RSS_CAMPAIGN&utm_term=0_f50174ef03-40aaa35723-139922301

Iran is trying to rebuild its oil production after sanctions were lifted in January, with plans to boost output and exports by 1 million barrels a day this year. Supply deals were signed with Totaland Hellenic Petroleum SA of Greece. Iran pumped 2.86 million barrels a day in January, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.

Iran is planning three initial shipments to Europe carrying 4 million barrels of oil with 2 million barrels going to Total and the rest to companies from Spain and Russia, Roknoddin Javadi, managing director of National Iranian Oil Co., said on Saturday, according to the Iranian oil ministry’s news service Shana.

Total, Spanish refiner Compania Espanola de Petroleos and Russia’s Lukoil PJSC all booked cargoes of Iranian crude to sail from Kharg Island to European ports, according to shipping reports compiled by Bloomberg earlier this month. The vessels included one very large crude carrier, a tanker capable of carrying 2 million barrels of crude, and two smaller Suezmax-sized vessels with capacity of about 1 million barrels each.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Feb 2016)

>And surely you're not suggesting that some votes should be more than others?

What would be best is for no-one's vote to have any impact more than about 100 km from where he lives.  Let the major municipalities run themselves, and have no say whatsoever about affairs in any other part of Canada.  Strip federal government down to purely sovereign functions.


----------



## CougarKing (31 Mar 2016)

Addressing the "worldwide oil glut" :

Associated Press via Yahoo News



> *Qatar says 12 countries confirmed for oil cap meeting*
> (Associated Press) | Updated April 1, 2016 - 12:00am
> 
> DOHA — Qatar's oil minister says 12 countries have agreed so far to participate in a meeting it's hosting next month to discuss a freeze in oil output levels.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Apr 2016)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >And surely you're not suggesting that some votes should be more than others?
> 
> What would be best is for no-one's vote to have any impact more than about 100 km from where he lives.  Let the major municipalities run themselves, and have no say whatsoever about affairs in any other part of Canada.  Strip federal government down to purely sovereign functions.



I think you just described the Liberal party with the elite running the "adult affairs"


----------



## Kirkhill (10 Apr 2016)

Funny thing about words - meaning whatever you want them to mean.

Pork is French for Pig - It is acceptable to eat pork but uncouth to eat pig.
Beef is French for Cow - It is acceptable to eat beef but uncouth to eat cow.

Democracy is Greek for Populism - It is acceptable to follow the will of the Demos but uncouth to follow the will of the Populi.

Democracy means that witches get burnt from time to time - regardless of the wishes of the "adults".


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2016)

Any price rebound signals will encourage a flood of new production from the US, not to mention cash starved states like Russia and Iran. The invisible hand will wrestle these guys to the ground:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/15/oils-price-collapse-is-quickly-draining-petrostate-coffers/



> *Oil’s Price Collapse Is Quickly Draining Petrostate Coffers*
> 
> The petrostates assembling in Doha to discuss a potential output freeze two days from now aren’t coming together in a show of solidarity or out of some sense of duty towards one another, but rather as an act of desperation. Bloomberg ran the numbers, and found that the oil price collapse has collectively cost the 18 countries involved in this meeting nearly one third of a trillion dollars:
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (19 Apr 2016)

Meanwhile, back in the USA:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/04/18/us-energy-consumption-nearly-eclipsed-by-surging-production/



> *HAIL SHALE*
> US Energy Consumption Nearly Eclipsed by Surging Production
> 
> 2015 was another big year for American energy, as for the sixth straight time the sum total of our production grew—and came quite close to equalling the amount of energy we consumed. The EIA reports:
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Apr 2016)

Saudi Targets



> *The Saudi price war has several targets. A top official hinted at the hierarchy a month ago, listing Iran, Russia, the Arctic, Canada’s oil sands, Venezuela’s Orinoco tar, ultra-deep water wells, US shale, and renewables, in that order.*



Saudi ability to prosecute the offensive



> *Saudi Arabia is not as rich as often supposed.* Per capita income is the same as in Greece.  *Standard & Poor’s has cut its credit rating twice to A-*, and for good reason. The Saudis never built up a proper sovereign wealth fund in good times. Their reserve coverage is two-thirds less than in Kuwait, or Abu Dhabi.



End game?



> *Goldman Sachs says the twin effect of rising demand and supply disruptions across the world is bringing the market back into balance, leading  to a “sustainable deficit” as soon as the third quarter*. The inflexion point could come sooner than almost anybody expects if a strike this week in Kuwait drags on as oil workers fight pay cuts. The outage is already costing 1.6m b/d.
> 
> Kuwait’s woes are the first taste of how difficult it will be for the petro-sheikhdoms to impose austerity measures or threaten the cradle-to-grave social contracts that keep a lid on dissent across the Gulf.



And Russia can't get access to the fracking technology due to sanctions.


Canada's best play?  Pipelines.







> Saudis are going for the kill but the oil market is turning anyway
> 
> Ambrose Evans-Pritchard 18 APRIL 2016 • 9:17PM
> 
> ...



http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/04/18/saudis-are-going-for-the-kill-but-the-oil-market-is-turning-anyw/


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> ...Canada's best play?  Pipelines.



East, West, or North; it remains to be seen which direction ends up being the '_least unacceptable_'.

op:


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2016)

From Mar 7 2016

http://business.financialpost.com/news/energy/canada-has-a-secret-weapon-in-the-war-to-crush-saudi-arabia-for-market-share-clean-oil?__lsa=0a9f-0229

Saudi needs an oil price of 95.80 USD/Barrel to keep the country running.

Alberta can limp by with prices in the 40 to 60 USD/Barrel range.

Operating Cost in Saudi 11.35 USD/Barrel
Operating Cost in the oilsands  18.45 USD/Barrel in 2015

Operating Costs in the oilsands dropping below 12.00 USD/Barrel at some sites.

CNRL quoting costs of 9.59 USD/Barrel and 6.75 USD/Barrel

Similar changes are being seen in Shale Oil apparently.

And this doesn't include the fact that Canada grows trees and grain with the CO2 it produces, trees that grow on top of recovered oilsands mines.  Not so many trees in Saudi or the Gulf.


----------



## Cloud Cover (20 Apr 2016)

They can paint trees on all the LAV's we sell them. Hate to say it, but if KSA falls into financial crisis, Iran will do its best to worsen the wounds. Nothing would make Tehran happier than Riyadh in turmoil, perhaps even combined with fighting an insurgency of growing proportions the ruling family will destabilize. What goes around, comes around....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Apr 2016)

The Saudi's might try to stir up the Balchs against their Persian masters in return


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2016)

Husky predicting operating costs of $7/Barrel at Lloydminster extraction site .




> Operating costs at Husky’s new thermal project in Saskatchewan are among the lowest in the industry, according to the Calgary-based company.
> 
> Husky announced today its new 10,000-bbls/day Edam East Lloyd Thermal Project in Saskatchewan is expected to average about $7 per barrel, including energy, in the last quarter of 2015.



http://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016/04/husky-thermal-oil-project-operating-costs-at-8-dollars-per-barrel/


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Apr 2016)

Wow, I didn't think KSA's production costs were so high...ouch! ;D

...or that oil sands was getting so low! :nod:


----------



## dapaterson (20 Apr 2016)

Regardless of the production cost and the cost per barrel, and regardless of the Alberta government, there will be little to no fiscal discipline.  It's the Alberta Advantage.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2016)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Regardless of the production cost and the cost per barrel, and regardless of the Alberta government, there will be little to no fiscal discipline.  It's the Alberta Advantage.



Not to worry.  We always seem to be able to find some spare change to send your way.


----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Apr 2016)

From my contact in the patch, without the pipelines to get the shit out, it's more or less a moot point.


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Apr 2016)

They're still shipping by rail JJT - and that cost goes down as the price of diesel goes down.

Having said that pipelines are cheaper.  And hybrid solutions are possible - build pipelines where they are allowed and jump the gaps with rail.  For example more rail cars going through Burnaby and Montreal.


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Having said that pipelines are cheaper.  And hybrid solutions are possible - build pipelines where they are allowed and jump the gaps with rail.  For example *more rail cars going through Burnaby and Montreal*.



...but apparently that's okay, because it's higher probability and greater consequence if things go wrong.   Oh, wait....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Apr 2016)

We have a smaller version of the same issue here in Vancouver, YVR fuel delivery 

http://www.vancouverairportfuel.ca/project-need-benefits

meanwhile those that oppose all http://www.vaporbc.com/


----------



## Good2Golf (21 Apr 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> ...meanwhile those that oppose all http://www.vaporbc.com/



  Heretics!  Pipelines are evil!

Dolphins carrying fuel in saddle bags is safer and more sustainable, so long as the dolphins don't push the bags with their snout, there shouldn't be any impact to wildlife...perhaps Orcas for greater capacity?

[/sarccasm]


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2016)

So, to summarize the Vancouver environmentalist community's position:

They want a pipeline from the Chevron refinery to Vancouver Airport to supply fuel to the planes they need to jet off to conferences and snow-boarding but they don't want a pipeline to supply fuel to the refinery.

I guess the fuel from the refinery comes the same way that meat gets to the grocery store


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Apr 2016)

It's hard for them to see clearly through the haze of pot smoke.

I suggested at one point instead of pipelines we build a dedicated track and line it with tank cars all connected to each other from refinery to terminal. How about instead of "pipeline" a underground railway built into a artificial tunnel to contain any potential spills.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Apr 2016)

Related thought Colin.

At the Canada-US border where the XL pipelines were to join - insert a 1 mile circular loop of track.  Fill in Canada.  Empty in the US.
Problem solved.  No restrictions on shipping oil across the border by rail.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (21 Apr 2016)

yep and I also have previously suggested to others in government the pipeline/rail idea. Seem thinking out of the box is frowned upon....


----------



## a_majoor (21 Apr 2016)

Out of the box thinking is only allowed if it provides opportuneities for graft and corruption.


----------



## cupper (21 Apr 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> How about instead of "pipeline" a underground railway built into a artificial tunnel to contain any potential spills.



You know, that idea might just fly... 

Wait... 

Oh, I see what you did there.  ;D


----------



## jmt18325 (21 Apr 2016)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> Related thought Colin.
> 
> At the Canada-US border where the XL pipelines were to join - insert a 1 mile circular loop of track.  Fill in Canada.  Empty in the US.
> Problem solved.  No restrictions on shipping oil across the border by rail.



I've often thought the same thing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Apr 2016)

Fill and pave the bottom lands through the Burnaby lakes corridor; move airport there.   Very close to marine terminal.  Problem solved.


----------



## Kirkhill (27 May 2016)

Pro-choice party.
Separating the Liberal Senators from the Liberal Party.
Ejecting sitting MPs without process because of accusations by members of competing parties.
Imposing closure on the debate on Air Canada employment.
Attempting to rewrite the rules of debate in the House of Commons unilaterally.
Taking into his own hands the management of the House of Commons.
Imposing a new constitution on the Liberal Party itself that would increase central authority and decrease local input.
Denying the Liberal Party debate on the elements of the assisted dying bill.
Stacking the committee to impose changes to the electoral process.

I look forward to seeing how the consensus on the pipelines is managed.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2016)

The invisible hand once again wrestles all competition to the ground:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/06/13/resilient-shale-producers-get-their-second-wind/



> FRACK BABY FRACK
> *Resilient Shale Producers Get Their Second Wind*
> 
> Oil prices creeped above $50 per barrel recently, and already we’re seeing encouraging signs in the American shale industry. Fracking shale rock is a relatively expensive process, so when crude prices tumbled from a high of more than $110 per barrel two years ago to a nadir of under $28 per barrel this past January, America’s oil output correspondingly flagged as companies were forced to halt production, awaiting an uptick in the market. Thanks to supply disruptions abroad that have helped to ease the glut that precipitated oil’s price collapse, the market has somewhat rebounded, and as the FT reports U.S. companies are taking advantage:
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jun 2016)

I suspect that they will be very careful about costs, during the boom, money flowed pretty easily and a lot of waste speaking to people I ran into.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jul 2016)

Some frackers are ready to take on the Saudis on a direct cost basis. Starving our enemies and ensuring North American energy security are both goals which can be achieved with this one tool:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/07/30/shale-ready-to-tango-with-the-saudis/



> *Shale Ready to Tango with the Saudis*
> 
> When oil prices first started falling two summers back, market observers turned their attention to OPEC to see if the cartel would constrain production to stop the slide. But Saudi Arabia strong-armed its fellow petrostates into staying put, reasoning that market share was more important than robust prices, and so oil fell down below $30 per barrel earlier this year before rebounding into the $40s where it remains today. Riyadh’s reasoning was based on the assumption that bargain prices would hurt upstart non-OPEC producers (read: American shale firms) more than it would hurt the big petrostates, and its strategy of inaction has been somewhat successful: U.S. oil production is down roughly one million barrels per day from a year ago.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 Aug 2016)

Mind you, Saudi has cheap production rates for oil, but high social cost expectations per barrel and can only run on cheap oil for so long and that time is much shorter when involved in a war.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Aug 2016)

$50 and four months to go.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/08/18/oil-prices-break-back-above-50-a-barrel/


----------



## a_majoor (12 Sep 2016)

Of course the  markets are much like politics, they are influenced by "events, dear boy, events":

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-12/opec-flips-forecast-to-predict-rebound-in-rival-supply-next-year-iszxarku



> *OPEC Flips Forecast to Predict Rebound in Rival Supply Next Year*
> Grant Smith
> September 12, 2016 — 6:45 AM EDT
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (12 Sep 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Of course the  markets are much like politics, they are influenced by "events, dear boy, events":
> 
> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-12/opec-flips-forecast-to-predict-rebound-in-rival-supply-next-year-iszxarku



That's not going to help the Saudi's and their falling economy then.

http://army.ca/forums/threads/117134/post-1453832.html#msg1453832


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Sep 2016)

Saudi will have even more to worry about if the Houthi rebels can sack/capture Najran.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/yemeni-rebels-pose-a-rising-threat-in-southern-saudi-arabia/2016/02/23/ab8f0eaa-d1e4-11e5-90d3-34c2c42653ac_story.html


----------



## a_majoor (7 Oct 2016)

And more good news, a major new find in Alaska:

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/new-alaskan-oil-discovery-boost-alaska.html



> *New Alaskan oil discovery boost Alaska oil reserves by nearly double and should begin production by 2022*
> 
> New oil discovery nearly doubles the oil reserves of Alaska.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Oct 2016)

But, but, but, Climate change! Super tankers full of Oil! Pipelines!

Oh wait- the outrage only applies to Canadian Oil...  :


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Oct 2016)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> But, but, but, Climate change! Super tankers full of Oil! Pipelines!
> 
> Oh wait- the outrage only applies to Canadian Oil...  :



Funny that, almost as if it was the intended effect?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Oct 2016)

Come on, Colin. You would to be a conspiracy theorist to think that...


----------



## Kirkhill (11 Oct 2016)

And everybody knows that only crazy people believe in conspiracies.

https://www.justice.gov/usam/criminal-resource-manual-109-rico-charges


----------



## Lightguns (12 Oct 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And more good news, a major new find in Alaska:
> 
> http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/new-alaskan-oil-discovery-boost-alaska.html



Imagine that, more tanker traffic in the Queen Charlottes!  The horror!


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Oct 2016)

Nope long ways off. The original voluntary tanker moratorium was merely an agreement for tankers to remain far enough off the West Coast that a rescue tug can get to them before they drift ashore. The promised ban has not appeared yet and is aimed at crude oil, so a partly refined product tanker would be excluded by the current wording. Meanwhile the Environmental agency is asking Pacific Future Energy about it's export plan. http://www.ceaa.gc.ca/050/details-eng.cfm?evaluation=80127


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2016)

Meanwhile OPEC is having trouble deciding how to carry out its planed reduction in output:

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-10-12/even-more-opec-confusion-unclear-who-cuts-first-if-anyone-production-hits-new-record



> *Even More OPEC Confusion: Unclear Who Cuts First, If Anyone, As Production Hits New Record High*
> by Tyler Durden
> Oct 12, 2016 9:37 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2016)

You know the neat thing about watching the world these days?

"That could never happen".

It is no longer used with any sense of certainty, or even irony.

Interesting place to be when planning for tomorrow.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Oct 2016)

Not to forget the "tapped reserve" Wells drilled and capped in anticipation of fracking later. OPEC is a dying artifact of another era. They just don't realize yet.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 Oct 2016)

However another side effect of the current situation http://www.alaskahighwaynews.ca/regional-news/overdue-tax-notices-on-bankrupt-oil-wells-confuse-landowners-1.2359181


----------



## Kirkhill (13 Oct 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Not to forget the "tapped reserve" Wells drilled and capped in anticipation of fracking later. OPEC is a dying artifact of another era. They just don't realize yet.



Agreed.  

It is hard to forget where you left stuff like oil, gas and coal.  And it is harder to forget how to get it into service cheaply once you have been squeezed by the market to really efficient production systems.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2016)

And for all the hand wringers who believe oil is the end of the world, a new technology can convert CO2 dissolved in water into ethanol. While it is overrated as fuel when derived from corn and other agricultural plants (it takes far more energy to grow the stuff and distill it than you get from burning it in an engine), this might make it cheap enough to consider as a fuel or fuel additive.

Of course, you could also place it in oak barrels and store it for a period of 8-12 years prior to using it......

http://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/10/carbon-nanospikes-can-convert-co2-into.html



> *Carbon nanospikes can convert CO2 into Ethaol with a 63% yield and a room temperature reaction*
> 
> Scientists at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory have developed an electrochemical process that uses tiny spikes of carbon and copper to turn carbon dioxide, a greenhouse gas, into ethanol. Their finding, which involves nanofabrication and catalysis science, was serendipitous.
> 
> ...



Variations of this technique could also be used to do variations of the F-T process and convert hydrocarbon precursors into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Dec 2016)

I'm not sure if the timeline is realistic, but these upcoming technologies could be black swan events which upend the oil industry and kick the pillar out from under 8% of our GDP. The nature of many of these new technologies is far more decentralized (no more blocking pipelines or electrical power line corridors), but will also upend many political and economic factors and change the power relationships between producers and consumers as well, with unpredictable consequences for the national and global economies:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-12-21/oil-seen-at-100-by-end-2018-in-lottery-ticket-options-trade



> *Big Utility Sees Pathway to $10 Oil*
> by Francois De Beaupuy
> December 20, 2016 at 06:35:23 EST
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Dec 2016)

Hmm to much hype and not enough action in the battery world. Not to mention it has it's own share of resource bottlenecks. Batteries are the tech holding back much of the alternative energy. Currently the only 3 ways to store massive amounts of energy awaiting conversion is Hydro, Oil and Gas (including coal) and Nuclear.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2016)

For electrical energy storage I'd probably put chips down on super capacitors myself. But you are correct, storage of energy is the real issue rather than the low cost production. Without viable storage, solar electric and wind are going to remain niche providers.

Like I said, the article makes some very optimistic timeline predictions, but there is a lot of disruptive technology coming down the road, so people should start thinking about how this is going to affect them.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Dec 2016)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> For electrical energy storage I'd probably put chips down on super capacitors myself. But you are correct, storage of energy is the real issue rather than the low cost production. Without viable storage, solar electric and wind are going to remain niche providers.



^ this.

Yes, you take a bit of a hit on internal losses, but not as much as years past.  Also, the re-fill cost from a zero-charge state will, IMO, more than be made up by the much higher power storage density ration of capacitors compared to chemical storage (batteries), even advanced lithium-film batteries.

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2016)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Hmm to much hype and not enough action in the battery world. Not to mention it has it's own share of resource bottlenecks. Batteries are the tech holding back much of the alternative energy. Currently the only 3 ways to store massive amounts of energy awaiting conversion is Hydro, Oil and Gas (including coal) and Nuclear.



I'll throw one more into the mix - thermal energy.

Either hot water / steam, molten salts (sodium or potassium) or just plain geothermal (hot rocks or hot wells).  All of those are well understood, near term technologies with minimal environmental impacts.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 Dec 2016)

My bad, BC Hydro explored geo-thermal up near Pemberton in the 80's but it went no where. Iceland can afford to go to Hydrogen fueled vehicles because of their abundant geo-thermal energy.


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Dec 2016)

I was thinking of using old wells as heat sinks - if we are going to use intermittent energy, like wind or solar, or even run of river hydro, as well as low grade heat, then "pump" that energy into a hole a few thousand feet down under pressure so that you have long-term storage of high grade heat.   You can then recover the heat using geothermal principles.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Dec 2016)

I did a whole bunch of approvals on geothermal loops in lakes and got to talk to the people about their design choices. The big issue about this type of geothermal is the upfront costs vs savings. For a single household, it rarely makes sense. But it is a good idea when scaled up to office building and where electricity costs are high. So in the North where much of the electricity is produced by generators, then it really makes sense to reduce demand side by using these methods. Further south where you have abundant hydro, it really is not that economical.


----------



## Kirkhill (23 Dec 2016)

http://www.chenahotsprings.com/geothermal-power/

https://askjaenergy.com/category/geothermal-power/page/3/

I was thinking more along the lines of central utility than individual household







And as for affordable: what has that got to do with anything? We are out to save the planet and protect phoney baloney jobs........

But if I am going to be stuck with whirlygigs chopping up little birdies and hiring thousands of squeegee kids to keep solar panels clean then I might as well try to make them as efficient as possible.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2017)

West Texas Intermediate Crude is at $54.92 as 2017 opens; that's up from <$30.00 in the spring of 2016.


----------



## Scott (3 Jan 2017)

And the postings asking for entry level positions in the drilling and service industry are going gangbusters. Certainly some good news.


----------



## Kirkhill (3 Jan 2017)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> West Texas Intermediate Crude is at $54.92 as 2017 opens; that's up from <$30.00 in the spring of 2016.



92%.   

84% if you are talking about the difference between what was and what might have been.

Not bad for a poor scholar.   [

And as Scott says, heading in the right direction.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2017)

OPEC's attempts to raise prices has backfired as many predicted: American shale oil frackers are back in the game:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/03/10/oil-prices-stumble-as-american-shale-rebounds/



> *Oil Prices Stumble as American Shale Rebounds*
> 
> Oil took a major dip this week as fears of a global oversupply resurfaced, despite petrostate production cuts. The FT reports:
> 
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (11 Mar 2017)

The Saudis will drive down their production to keep oil prices inflated at least until Aramco goes public....


Matthew.


----------



## a_majoor (30 May 2017)

wo articles from "The American Interest" on what is now being called "Cost recalibration". The new realities of oil production and pricing will change a lot fo long held assumptions, and not just about energy:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/05/18/shale-isnt-opecs-only-problem/



> *Shale Isn’t OPEC’s Only Problem*
> 
> When OPEC meets in Vienna next week to discuss an extension of the production cut agreement it brokered with eleven other non-cartel petrostates, America’s shale producers won’t be the only suppliers on its mind: a number of other non-OPEC nations are also notching production increases that, taken together, are counterbalancing the petrostate effort to reduce the global oversupply of crude. The WSJ reports:
> 
> ...



and

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/05/17/the-new-oil-reality/



> *The New Oil Reality *
> Walter Russell Mead
> 
> The global oil market is so different today as compared to what it was three years ago that it’s borderline unrecognizable. These changes are being hammered out in a battle between petrostate producers on the one side pushing for a rebalancing of supply and demand by cutting their own output, and a group of upstarts on the other, led by U.S. shale companies, that want to fight to bring the costs of production down permanently from their previously high ($100+ per barrel) levels. No one is more qualified to put this in its proper context than the famed oil historian Daniel Yergin, and in a recent piece for the WSJ he traces what he calls a “cost recalibration” that’s affecting producers not only in America’s shale formations, but outside of the United States as well. He writes for the WSJ:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (26 Jun 2017)

Inexpensive oil has other follow on effect, such as an expansion of the petrochemical industry:

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/268418/



> PLASTICS: The Shale Revolution’s Staggering Impact in Just One Word.
> 
> That boom in drilling has expanded the output of oil and gas in the U.S. more than 57% in the past decade, lowering prices for the primary ingredients Dow Chemical Co. uses to make tiny plastic pellets. Some of the pellets are exported to Brazil, where they are reshaped into the plastic pouches filled with puréed fruits and vegetables.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Jun 2017)

A twofer today. The effects of shale oil have been immense on their own, but the downstream effects and forcing industry to modernize and squeeze out costs in more conventional oil plays is also impressive:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/06/26/release-the-kraken/



> "PEAK" OIL?
> *Release the Kraken*
> 
> North Sea oil and gas production has been waning for years now, leading to major energy security concerns for the United Kingdom. But as fields mature and companies face down the technically difficult and extraordinarily expensive task of decommissioning inactive offshore rigs, bright spots still remain for production in the region. The latest comes to us courtesy of the FT, which reports on the Kraken, a new field that has come online just in time to save the British oil company Enquest from insolvency:
> ...



and:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/06/27/even-shales-secondary-effects-staggering/



> KNOCK-ON
> *Even Shale’s Secondary Effects Are Staggering*
> 
> Hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well drilling have given American companies access to vast new reserves of oil and gas, and have dramatically increased the production of hydrocarbons here in the United States. Since 2010, the U.S. has added roughly 5 million barrels of oil per day, and natural gas production is up roughly 33 percent over that same time period.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2017)

The big problem for Canada is the NIMBY,  "Greens" and others are working against the exploitation of our oil wealth, driving up prices for consumers (and especially the poor) and depriving Canada and Canadians of massive amounts of income. The Americans will benefit the most from the metro-revolution, and we can see our economy lifted somewhat by the growth of the US economy, but that also puts us more firmly in the American orbit and at the whims of any US Administration:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/07/02/north-america-making-opec-irrelevant/



> THE NORTH AMERICAN ENERGY BOOM
> *North America Is Making OPEC Irrelevant*
> 
> A coalition of OPEC members and other petrostates agreed to reduce its collective production by 1.8 million barrels per day through next March, but surging North American crude production is threatening to effectively cancel out those cuts. As the FT reports, oil output in Canada’s oil sands is set to jump as projects funded well before the decline in crude prices come online over the next year and half:
> ...



and if you want a non fossil fuel alternative to keep your green crews:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/07/03/growing-better-biodiesel/



> ALGAE WHIZ
> *Growing a Better Biodiesel*
> 
> It’s been a good week for biofuels—one of the first ones in recent memory—as fresh off the heels of ExxonMobil’s announcement of an algae-based biofuel breakthrough, researchers in Chile have reported their own progress in extracting biodiesel from microalgae. Reuters reports:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jul 2017)

The long term price seems to have stabilized at @ $50/bbl, and it is hurting many or our potential enemies. We need to work on advancing the benefits of cheap energy to as many Canadians as possible to reap the benefits both individually and was a nation:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/07/22/cheap-crude-hell-oils-old-guard/



> *PETROSTATES IN PERIL*
> Cheap Crude Is Hell for Oil’s Old Guard
> 
> We live in a new oil reality. Production is surging around the world, and supplies are coming from a number of new places (read: from outside of the oil cartel OPEC). Crucially, the price of a barrel of oil today is less than half of what it was three years ago, and $50 seems to be the new market equilibrium for crude. North America, and in particular the United States, has emerged as the biggest winner in this global transition, but this new reality has produced a large number of losers, too. Petrostates—countries whose regimes have grown fat on oil revenues—have adapted poorly to changing market conditions, and as Bloomberg reports the future looks dim for this category of producers:
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (23 Aug 2017)

Some factors which may change the game yet again. The upside for President Trump is this will make oil shale and fracking even more valuable, and provide thousands of new American jobs as US production rushes to meet the demand. Equilibrium may still be between $50-60 USD/bbl, but we will see:

https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/22/two-october-surprises-could-boost-oil-prices-analyst-says.html



> *Two October surprises could boost oil prices above $50*
> Oil prices will remain stuck around $50 a barrel unless the market gets an "October surprise," one analyst says.
> Venezuela's state oil giant is barreling toward a debt default as soon as October.
> President Donald Trump could snap sanctions back on Iran's oil industry.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2017)

However, free markets come to the rescue yet again:

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2017/08/23/mexicos-most-promising-shale-region-is-open-for-business/



> *Mexico’s Most Promising Shale Region Is Open for Business*
> JAMIE HORGAN
> 
> Don’t look now, but Mexico is hoping that its recent energy reforms will turn the shale boom from a uniquely American phenomenon into a uniquely North American one. This summer, Mexico opened up onshore blocks of its Burgos basin region, just south of Texas.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 Aug 2017)

Not sure they have enough water in many regions and the corruption and gangs will make working there very scary.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Aug 2017)

The internal problems of Mexico are Mexico's to solve.

On a larger scale, the increasing amount of oil being produced will keep prices low, which is a boon to poor people everywhere, provide cheap energy to power the Trump Administration's economic policies and put the hurt on enemies who derive a great deal of their income from petrodollars.

So overall, I think this is a net win for the West.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Aug 2017)

This is so far out of left field the initial reaction is WTF? But the person making this prediction apparently knows what he is talking about.....

https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidblackmon/2017/08/17/gilmer-we-should-view-the-permian-basin-as-a-permanent-resource/#43c615af56ff



> *Gilmer: We Should View The Permian Basin As A Permanent Resource*
> David Blackmon , CONTRIBUTOR
> 
> Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Aug 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The internal problems of Mexico are Mexico's to solve.
> 
> On a larger scale, the increasing amount of oil being produced will keep prices low, which is a boon to poor people everywhere, provide cheap energy to power the Trump Administration's economic policies and put the hurt on enemies who derive a great deal of their income from petrodollars.
> 
> So overall, I think this is a net win for the West.



Kicking OPEC in the stones is just pure icing on a cake for us. I forsee a energy potential glut, with a variety of energy choices for Provinces, cities and municipalities to use. The problem might be that because of this glut, you won't be able to raise enough capital to usefully use it. On the westcoast, there are only 2 refineries, the biggest is scheduled to have a shutdown for a major upgrade next year, which means almost all the fuel for the lower westcoast must now come in by barge, tanker truck from Alberta or the US, so I foresee prices here in the $1.60 per litre range. There is no desire to build more refining capacity because the big companies have hita "sweet spot" where any drop in production capacity creates a benefit by driving up the price. Also the west coast refinery is limited by feedstock availability as the existing Kindermorgan pipeline is oversubscribed. Countries may have to step up to build certain energy oriented infrastructure and then lease them to companies to run to ensure that strategic commodities are available in times of crisis.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Sep 2017)

Sadly, the deliberate throttling of infrastructure over the decades is the sticking point for truly bringing energy prices down. I wonder if there are emerging technologies which would allow for the creation of modular or even "mini" refineries which can be established near the oil fields? Decentralizing the system also makes it more robust and anti-fragile.


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Sep 2017)

It would also reduce the NIMBY pipeline opposers who love driving their SUV but think stopping a pipeline will save the environment.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (6 Sep 2017)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sadly, the deliberate throttling of infrastructure over the decades is the sticking point for truly bringing energy prices down. I wonder if there are emerging technologies which would allow for the creation of modular or even "mini" refineries which can be established near the oil fields? Decentralizing the system also makes it more robust and anti-fragile.



I am not really sure that is possible. A frac tower is the size it is because of the physics involved. In a refinery, there are a lot of volatile compounds running around under high pressure. It takes a fair bit of effort to keep the whole thing from exploding. That part- keeping it from exploding- is expensive. If you make a refinery too small, it is difficult to pay back your sunk costs.


----------



## Kirkhill (6 Sep 2017)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I am not really sure that is possible. A frac tower is the size it is because of the physics involved. In a refinery, there are a lot of volatile compounds running around under high pressure. It takes a fair bit of effort to keep the whole thing from exploding. That part- keeping it from exploding- is expensive. If you make a refinery too small, it is difficult to pay back your sunk costs.



 :cheers:


----------



## jollyjacktar (7 Sep 2017)

This might be a game changer for Alberta.  I hope so, they and the rest of us need a break.



> Balls of bitumen: Calgary breakthrough will make oil pipelines unnecessary, researcher claims
> 
> Engineer says his team's spill-resistant pellets of heavy oil can be safely transported by rail
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2017)

Saw the same story on NextBixFuture. I can only wonder about how the "usual suspects" will react to this development.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Dec 2017)

Good news for consumers, but probably bad news for the Canadian oil sector:

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-The-Oil-Glut-Set-To-Return.html



> Is The Oil Glut Set To Return?
> By Nick Cunningham - Dec 14, 2017, 5:00 PM CST
> 
> For the second month in a row, the IEA has poured cold water onto the oil market, publishing an analysis that suggests 2018 could hold some bearish surprises for crude.
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Dec 2017)

Bigger issue for Canadian producers (and drillers) is the pipeline shortage created by JT and pals.  Canadian oil is currently selling at at $26 discount to WTI because we don't have the pipeline capacity to get the oil we do produce to markets.

Unforgivable.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (16 Dec 2017)

Yes, the lack of pipeline is an issue (partial - even with all the pipeline we want, there would still be a discount on Albertan crude in the market because, while pipeline are cheaper than trains, there is still a much greater transportation cost than Texas light faces), however, let's not then destroy the argument by blaming JT for Canada not having these pipelines today. They take years and years and years to build and bring in line and JT has only been in power of the last two years.

The fault (if any) lies as much, if not more, with the politicians of all stripes that preceded him and did not act at a time where they could have acted.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Dec 2017)

I agree JT is not responsible for past foot dragging, but what he has done is encouraged an impossible process that actually obstructs construction far more than at any time in our past.  While one Parliament can try to undo what the previous has done, by 2027 when the liberals are booted out (I'm resigned to a 3 term government for them), it will be far too late.  (Unless there is some sort of constitutional shock, like Alberta and Saskatchewan pulling the confederation plug.)

With the  Regulatory hurdles, payoffs now enshrined as practice, provincial bickering,  court rulings  etc why would any producer want to spend money here?


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Dec 2017)

JT and pals are most assuredly to be blamed.

There were several key projects in final phases of approvals and they sabotaged most of them to appease their environmentalist base.

See 'Energy East' as Exhibit A.


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Dec 2017)

All of those projects were ingredients of the regulatory soup before he was elected. He just turned up the heat. Not excusing him, but things were hardly sailing along under Harper.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Dec 2017)

Agreed, they all suck to one extent or another.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (16 Dec 2017)

On-Topic from Financial Post today...

Some pretty damning snippets in here.

I would quote them, but on smartphone.

http://business.financialpost.com/opinion/for-trudeau-albertas-oil-emissions-deserve-scrutiny-and-restriction-but-not-bombardiers


----------



## Cloud Cover (16 Dec 2017)

Good one! That's 129 billion of economic activity and GNP gone....brilliant people, eh?


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Dec 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> On-Topic from Financial Post today...
> 
> Some pretty damning snippets in here.
> 
> ...



I think he's too much like his dad in that he's not a fan of the West and won't be doing them any favours he doesn't have to.


----------



## devil39 (16 Dec 2017)

Cdn Blackshirt said:
			
		

> On-Topic from Financial Post today...
> 
> Some pretty damning snippets in here.
> 
> ...



I'm pretty much convinced that Alberta has no place in this current version of Canada.


----------



## Kirkhill (16 Dec 2017)

One other group I would like to accuse: those that supported the activists and the social justice warriors to bring down their enemies with no plan on how to control them once they themselves took the reins.

We have a forum for resolving societal issues.  It is called parliament.  Sovereign and Supreme.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Dec 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> One other group I would like to accuse: those that supported the activists and the social justice warriors to bring down their enemies with no plan on how to control them once they themselves took the reins.
> 
> We have a forum for resolving societal issues.  It is called parliament.  Sovereign and Supreme.



Oh, you mean the Wankers, l mean Liberals... :nod:


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (17 Dec 2017)

If It were me, I'd try to get the environment wankers onboard by splitting the corporate income tax for all resource companies into two pieces.

Part 1: Standard Federal Remission
Part 2: Environmental Tax to be allocated at Federal Level to all sorts of Canadian Environmental projects from Clean Air to Clean Water to reforestation to expanding National Parks.

The piece is that they need to understand the pain if those resource industries suffer.

If.they don't have skin I. the game there is no hope they will be reasonable.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (17 Dec 2017)

Chris Pook said:
			
		

> We have a forum for resolving societal issues.  It is called parliament.  Sovereign and Supreme.



Good plan. I approve. But how do we get one of those ?


----------



## MilEME09 (17 Dec 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Good plan. I approve. But how do we get one of those ?



It involves a process called an election where we vote for people who will work towards the will of the people and what is best for the country, and put that above personal interests. It's a mythical system though, a unicorn so to speak.


----------



## Inspir (17 Dec 2017)

As opposed to the current practice of kakistocracy.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Dec 2017)

More like Catastrophe.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Dec 2017)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> Good plan. I approve. But how do we get one of those ?



Follow the advice of Dick the Butcher to Jack Cade - and have done with their execrable "Constitution"   ;D


----------



## Cloud Cover (17 Dec 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> I'm pretty much convinced that Alberta has no place in this current version of Canada.



I don’t live there anymore, but I agree that province is the recipient of far too much ill will from points east and West. I have close family in Saskatchewan, and there’s nothing more they want to do than get the frig out from under Ottawa. 
I think Alberta, Sask, parts of B.C., ( ie not vancooky or the lower mainland) and the Territories would make a decent and prosperous country.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Dec 2017)

I don't live there anymore either and l remember all too well the NEP under Fuddle Duddle Sr. and his Toad, Lalonde. The East has always been the one's driving the car, yes.  I understand the discontent.  I have been in Atlantic Canada since l left the West and things are no better there.

That being said, l remember the WCC, Western Canada Concept, separatists of the early 80s.  They, and their modern day equals in the West and Quebec disgust me as much as they did then.

Rene Levesque and those that followed would have been on trial, if l had my way.  I'm a Canadian first and l don't want to see this country broken up.  I and men of my family have been to too many shitty places and some died for this country so that it survives intact and free.  Fuck your separatist talk.  [rant off]


----------



## devil39 (17 Dec 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> I don't live there anymore either and l remember all too well the NEP under Fuddle Duddle Sr. and his Toad, Lalonde. The East has always been the one's driving the car, yes.  I understand the discontent.  I have been in Atlantic Canada since l left the West and things are no better there.
> 
> That being said, l remember the WCC, Western Canada Concept, separatists of the early 80s.  They, and their modern day equals in the West and Quebec disgust me as much as they did then.
> 
> Rene Levesque and those that followed would have been on trial, if l had my way.  I'm a Canadian first and l don't want to see this country broken up.  I and men of my family have been to too many shitty places and some died for this country so that it survives intact and free.  frig your separatist talk.  [rant off]



Canada needs to work for all Canadians.  Free passage of goods across provincial borders, roads, railways and pipelines should all be part of that.  I'm a born and raised Albertan, and currently reside here after 33 years service in the CAF.  Alberta is at a significant disadvantage under this current Federal Government.  Our economic viability should not be determined by the whim of the Federal Government and their changing the rules about "upstream" and "downstream" impacts of our oil industry.  

If the majority of Canadians believe that Alberta's economy can be destroyed by the Federal Governments changing rules, and if the majority of Canadians believe that Saudi and Venezuelan oil is preferable to Alberta oil, then perhaps Alberta needs a different governmental system than the current Confederation?

We all have histories of service.  My service, and that of my family, was not about empowering the Federal Government to blatantly act against the interests of any Province.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Dec 2017)

I was born and raised in Alberta too.  My family helped settled the province, my Great Grandfather was one of the original 300 NWMP.  

I don't always like the government of the day, that includes todays lot.  I didn't vote for them but they're what we have.  I get to have my say again in 2019.  

Just about every province is at some sort of disadvantage at one time or another.  Life sucks and it isn't fair.

My service and the service and sacrifice of those ancestors who's names are recorded in the books of Remembrance in the Peace Tower were so that we have a country today, from coast to coast.  If you don't feel like remaining part of this country...  well, it's a big world out there.  I'm sure you can fit in somewhere.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Dec 2017)

devil39 said:
			
		

> Canada needs to work for all Canadians.  Free passage of goods across provincial borders, roads, railways and pipelines should all be part of that.  I'm a born and raised Albertan, and currently reside here after 33 years service in the CAF.  Alberta is at a significant disadvantage under this current Federal Government.  Our economic viability should not be determined by the whim of the Federal Government and their changing the rules about "upstream" and "downstream" impacts of our oil industry.
> 
> If the majority of Canadians believe that Alberta's economy can be destroyed by the Federal Governments changing rules, and if the majority of Canadians believe that Saudi and Venezuelan oil is preferable to Alberta oil, then perhaps Alberta needs a different governmental system than the current Confederation?
> 
> We all have histories of service.  My service, and that of my family, was not about empowering the Federal Government to blatantly act against the interests of any Province.



I don't think is that the majority of Canadians think the underlined.  I think its that the majority of Canadians are complacent and distracted by superficial things, and most truly don't care what goes on beyond their small geographical foot print and social circle.


----------



## devil39 (17 Dec 2017)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> Just about every province is at some sort of disadvantage at one time or another.  Life sucks and it isn't fair.



When the Federal Government tells Ontario they can't transport cars to BC, or that BC can't transport lumber to Saskatchewan, or that NS can't transport lobster to Ontario, then I will believe we are all equally disadvantaged.  

What is the downstream environmental impact of the (dwindling) Ontario auto sector?


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Jan 2018)

Agility Forex <support@agilityforex.com>



> Another relationship that has gone off the rails is the Canadian dollar/West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil correlation.  Normally, when oil prices rise, the Canadian dollar rises as well.  The relationship decoupled between September and mid-December and decoupled again at the start of the new year.  Part of the reason for the discrepancy is that Canada’s major crude export, Western Canada Select, is a heavier oil that WTI, which requires additional refining.  Recently, increased supply and pipeline constraints have led to a $31.99 Canadian dollar discount to the price of WTI. The price differential was just CAD 15.05 in July 2017.  Even though oil prices have risen, the benefit to Canada is reduced.



Right now WTI is $63.57 USD - ($31.99 x $1.2532) $40.01 = $23.56


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jan 2018)

Gas will be going up here in BC as the primary refinery shuts down for about 8 weeks to do a major upgrade, we have to bring in product from Washington State and Alberta to service Lower BC. There is a small refinery serving Northern BC in Prince George.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jan 2018)

This differential in industry and pricing is going to cost Canada hundreds of billions of dollars, not just in direct revenues (look at the difference between the price of WTI and Western Canada Select), but also the follow on costs from depressed support industries and downstream (such as petrochemicals, fertilizers, pharmaceuticals and so on). As the subhead on Instapundit says:



> Trudeau is Canada’s Obama, but can you even talk about or imagine someone being “Canada’s Trump?”



http://business.financialpost.com/commodities/energy/u-s-oil-boom-creating-jobs-and-curbing-emissions-in-contrast-to-restrained-canadian-energy-policy



> *Canada stuck on sidelines as U.S. oil boom creates jobs, curbs emissions*
> Claudia Cattaneo: The U.S. oil sector is booming, while our oil and gas sector is looking forward to another year of uncertainty, low prices and increasing tax burdens
> January 12, 2018
> 7:45 AM EST
> ...


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (14 Jan 2018)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Agility Forex <support@agilityforex.com>
> 
> Right now WTI is $63.57 USD - ($31.99 x $1.2532) $40.01 = $23.56



Now do the math of the impact on the Alberta Economy....

Differential ($23.56/bbl) x Approximate Production per Day (4,000,000 bbls/day) x Days per Year (365) = $34.4 Billion/year.

If I was CAPP, I would be organizing very big and very loud demonstrations in Calgary and Edmonton of unemployed peoples with a lot of signs, because the one thing JT and the boys don't like is the impression he's not nice.  The fact the Provincial Government isn't raising bloody hell over their loss of their cut in royalties and income taxes shows their mind-numbing incompetence.  Again, the premier needs to start holding video conferences set up to be easily linked to FaceBook & Twitter Feeds, and cover off on the "Things we'd like to do, but we can't because the Federal Government of Justin Trudeau has blocked pipeline development."  Talk about the provinces inability to increase education spending, healthcare spending and programs for the poor.  Make it HIS fault.  It's the only way this gets remedied.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jan 2018)

For a pipeline to be online now, it would have had to start construction 4-5 years ago.  Plus, the quality of oil from the oilsands will always result in a lower price.  And finally, Alberta has a long history of resource price swings and related swings in the provincial economy.  "Please God, give us another oil boom, we promise not to piss it away this time."

Successive Alberta governments have mismanaged the economy.  The Feds (regardless of who is in power) rarely help, but that's bi-partisan neglect.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jan 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> For a pipeline to be online now, it would have had to start construction 4-5 years ago.  Plus, the quality of oil from the oilsands will always result in a lower price.  And finally, Alberta has a long history of resource price swings and related swings in the provincial economy.  "Please God, give us another oil boom, we promise not to piss it away this time."
> 
> Successive Alberta governments have mismanaged the economy.  The Feds (regardless of who is in power) rarely help, but that's bi-partisan neglect.



So what is your point- don't try to build pipelines because they are always 4-5 years in the future, not now?

There was a proposal to build a pipeline to the east coast to free eastern Canada of having to import oil from Saudi Arabia, Nigeria Venezuala. Quebec, aided and abetted by the Federal Liberals, killed that.

There was a proposal to send oil out through Churchill. The Manitoba Govt killed that.

Enbridge to Kitimat was killed by the this current Federal Government.

Kinder Morgan to the West Coast is going nowhere, fast.

What is Alberta and Saskatchewan to think? That the game is rigged and cannot be won?

The funny part is- all of Canada is losing, not just two oil producing provinces in the west. Surely to God, tax revenues of that could do no end of good financing infrastructure and social programs.

I suppose, in the end, it is easier just to borrow the money, than it is to earn it...


----------



## dapaterson (14 Jan 2018)

My point is that there is no virtue at any level of government at any time in this whole mess.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 Jan 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> My point is that there is no virtue at any level of government at any time in this whole mess.



Fair enough.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Jan 2018)

$1.41 a litre here right now


----------



## Colin Parkinson (31 Jan 2018)

The reality of the only large westcoast refinery being shut down is hitting here, with gas at $1.50. Sigh stupid radio announcers saying "Oh my god what's up with that?" I guess they only regurgitate what is spoon fed to them.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Jan 2018)

Just across the border in Blaine, WA, its $0.96 Cdn per lt.


----------



## PuckChaser (31 Jan 2018)

I hope the oil companies hammer BC with abnormally high gas prices as punishment for pipeline opposition. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


----------



## Cdn Blackshirt (31 Jan 2018)

Alberta & Saskatchewan should call for a tourism boycott of all residents.

Hit them in the wallet....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (1 Feb 2018)

Actually it's the Prairie folk that come to BC and buy up the lake front properties and we get to hear about it in my office.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Feb 2018)

The Okanagan Valley is full of AB licence plates especially in the Summer.


----------



## Rifleman62 (1 Feb 2018)

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/us-oil-production-hits-10-million-barrels-per-day-for-first-time-since-1970/article/2647696
*
US oil production hits 10 million barrels per day for first time since 1970* - 31 Jan 18


And Canada is doing what?


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2018)

Saying no to pipelines that could bring the lower-quality Canadian crude to refineries to thereafter ship to attracted buyers? ???

G2G


----------



## jollyjacktar (1 Feb 2018)

But we have nice socks, so it's ok.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Feb 2018)

In response to B.C. proposing new rules to restrict oilsands exports in fresh setback for Trans Mountain pipeline. the PM on CBC.


----------



## Rifleman62 (2 Feb 2018)

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Whats-Behind-Canadas-Oil-Driller-Exodus.html

*What's Behind Canada's Oil Driller Exodus?* - Tsvetana Paraskova - Jan 31, 2018

Canadian drillers are moving rigs south to the U.S. to seize more profitable opportunities. But it’s not just the bright prospects of the Permian that is attracting Canadian companies—moving south of the border has more to do with favorable tax rates and more takeaway capacity and market access opportunities than there is in Canada.

Last week, Calgary-based AKITA Drilling said it would be expanding in the Permian and has contracted a rig with a major U.S. operator that has a significant presence in the Permian. AKITA Drilling has redeployed the rig from the Western Canadian natural gas basin, where it faced limited opportunities to work, the company said.

Another Calgary-based firm, Trinidad Drilling, said on Monday that it would be moving eight rigs to the Permian to meet increased customer demand, redeploying idle rigs from its existing global operations with weaker demand, including Canada. 

Trinidad Drilling’s CEO Brent Conway told The Canadian Press in an interview that he would rather avoid the move if he could find profitable drilling work in Canada. The rigs moved to the U.S. would be crewed by U.S. workers, as Canadian crews likely won’t move with the rigs, the manager added.

“What’s happening in the U.S.? They’re lowering taxes, they’re building pipelines and they’re starting to export oil,” Conway told The Canadian Press, adding that in Canada, taxes have been raised, pipelines are not getting built, and there isn’t much regulatory certainty.

His sentiment is shared by AKITA’s chief executive Karl Ruud, who said that the U.S. offers more attractive prospects with more favorable tax rates and regulatory system.

Last November, the Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors (CAODC) said in its 2018 Drilling Forecast that it expected Canadian wells drilled this year to number 6,138, up by just 107 from 2017.

“One of the Canadian oil and gas industry’s biggest hurdles continues to be lack of market access and regulatory stability,” CAODC said.

“Market access and a predictable regulatory environment are the most significant factors in creating an environment that will allow our industry to deliver stronger results in the coming years,” CAODC President Mark Scholz said back then.

Speaking to The Canadian Press, Scholz said on Tuesday that the lack of market access continued to be one of the biggest obstacles to Canadian producers to get their barrels to market at higher prices. Western Canadian Select (WCS) is currently trailing WTI prices by a discount of more than $30 a barrel.


----------

