Report: U.S. wind energy sector booming - jobs up 20% in 2 years in Texas

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Won't be back for a month, not sure if I will be going through Coutts or North Portal. Have not had much chance to go fishing at all this year, although at least got a new heavy duty Ugly Stick.

I've often stated that no source should get subsidies, including the stupid CCS program. The fact that O&G is getting any subsidies, including accelerated CCA rates, are those little things that most don't think of.

Read the economics article. There are basically NO oil and gas subsidies. Please acknowledge that fact.

Darn. Too bad you haven't gotten out. If you can flyfishing is awesome. Otherwise if you are offshore look at the Okuma Nomad travel rod matched with a Penn Battle II 8000 reel.

PM me when you get back! Safe travels.

[ak-71]

CO2 sequestration projects, for example, don't make no business sense at all, and thus would take some kind of incentives, which would not make them any more sane. Just them corporations buying a social license, but might warrant a post from avb3, in a "good" and "green" way

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by ak-71

CO2 sequestration projects, for example, don't make no business sense at all, and thus would take some kind of incentives, which would not make them any more sane. Just them corporations buying a social license, but might warrant a post from avb3, in a "good" and "green" way

Bingo. If you want to talk about subsidies to the oil companies, they don't get it for producing oil, but they sure do for CCS. Billions of taxpayer dollars being paid to Shell, etc to pump CO2 into the ground. What a joke! Scrubbing plant food out of the atmosphere that could be providing a better life for people AND scrubbing billions of taxpayer dollars out of general revenue that could be going to healthcare, paying down the debt, etc.

To it's credit, I believe the NDP are getting rid of these subsidies the last I heard.

[hillbillyreefer]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Bingo. If you want to talk about subsidies to the oil companies, they don't get it for producing oil, but they sure do for CCS. Billions of taxpayer dollars being paid to Shell, etc to pump CO2 into the ground. What a joke! Scrubbing plant food out of the atmosphere that could be providing a better life for people AND scrubbing billions of taxpayer dollars out of general revenue that could be going to healthcare, paying down the debt, etc.

To it's credit, I believe the NDP are getting rid of these subsidies the last I heard.

Too bad the money will be redirected into something equally as stupid, like windmills.

[Bushrat]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Read the economics article. There are basically NO oil and gas subsidies. Please acknowledge that fact.

Even if it were subsidized, the money used to subsidize them was generated from taxing what?...... Oil & Gas. In essence the gov't reaches into oil and gas's pocket takes money then gives it back then tells the world it is subsidizing the oil and gas industry.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by rugatika

Bingo. If you want to talk about subsidies to the oil companies, they don't get it for producing oil, but they sure do for CCS. Billions of taxpayer dollars being paid to Shell, etc to pump CO2 into the ground. What a joke! Scrubbing plant food out of the atmosphere that could be providing a better life for people AND scrubbing billions of taxpayer dollars out of general revenue that could be going to healthcare, paying down the debt, etc.

To it's credit, I believe the NDP are getting rid of these subsidies the last I heard.

Part of the reason for CCS is that it enhances oil production in deleting fields. Yeah, the oil companies benefit from it.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Part of the reason for CCS is that it enhances oil production in deleting fields. Yeah, the oil companies benefit from it.

So an actual recent professional economic evaluation done in oil hating Quebec says there is NOW no significant subsidies for oil and gas.

http://www.iedm.org/files/note0414_en.pdf

read the article.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So an actual recent professional economic evaluation done in oil hating Quebec says there is NOW no significant subsidies for oil and gas.

http://www.iedm.org/files/note0414_en.pdf

read the article.

So it states that as of 2015, there are "virtually no" subsidies.

Why did a 150 year old mature industry need ANY subsidies for all those years? Arguably, it allowed it to fight alternative energy sources with taxpayers money. If the O&G industry needed subsidies for 150 years, how long would it be right for alternatives to get subsidies to catch up?

Legitimate question, even though I object to any industry getting any breaks. Please advise why.

[hillbillyreefer]

It seems to me that taxpayers spending $71million to recover $18billion in revenue is about as good an investment as possible. Allow me to post the conclusion for you, it will make it more difficult for you to skew things.

An analysis of oil industry subsidies leads us to conclude that these amount to approximately $211 million this year. The gradual elimination of the two largest programs starting in 2011-2012, however, means that only some $71 million will remain as of 2016, which is a tiny amount relative to the size of the industry. In sum, the Canadian oil industry therefore receives very little in the way of subsidies.
All of these subsidies represent
a relatively small amount of money considering that in recent years, governments have collected $18 billion a year on average in taxes and royalties from oil and natural gas activities.
Contrary to renewable energy production, which could not survive without government help, the industry that develops oil and gas resources is highly profitable and has paid on average $18 billion a year in taxes and royalties to different governments across Canada for each of the past three years.
A more economically viable approach would be to reduce these subsidy programs as much as possible, or eliminate them altogether, since they only serve to impoverish consum- ers and taxpayers. On the one hand, the oil industry does not need to be subsidized. And on the other, the transition to renewable energy should be done on the basis of the increas- ing productivity and competitiveness of these types of energy, not by artificially supporting them with billions of dollars of subsidies, an approach that is being called into question around the world.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by avb3

So it states that as of 2015, there are "virtually no" subsidies.

Why did a 150 year old mature industry need ANY subsidies for all those years? Arguably, it allowed it to fight alternative energy sources with taxpayers money. If the O&G industry needed subsidies for 150 years, how long would it be right for alternatives to get subsidies to catch up?

Legitimate question, even though I object to any industry getting any breaks. Please advise why.

You are missing the point. O&G can thrive without, alternatives cannot survive without. The government offers many subsidies we can question.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

So it states that as of 2015, there are "virtually no" subsidies.

Why did a 150 year old mature industry need ANY subsidies for all those years? Arguably, it allowed it to fight alternative energy sources with taxpayers money. If the O&G industry needed subsidies for 150 years, how long would it be right for alternatives to get subsidies to catch up?

Legitimate question, even though I object to any industry getting any breaks. Please advise why.

Ok. So you acknowledge there are no subsidies for oil companies. The other information shows massive subsidies for wind and especially solar.

Past subsidies in oil and gas consisted of:

1. R&D. Research tax breaks to encourage innovation to increase recovery of oil and gas which directly benefits Albertans.

2. Capital spending incentives. Governments know that while royalties are great the big money is in increased taxes from direct and indirect industries resulting from increased capital. To encourage spending on less than favourable endeavours the tax breaks helped create jobs. These jobs needed just a small bump to make them work. Solar and wind take massive amounts of cash to generate jobs that don't create sustainability. Oil jobs fluctuate due to oil prices. Wind and solar are just plain money pits.

If you read the numbers again...there is no argument possible to say subsidies helped oil, coal and gas over solar and wind. The subsidies are massive for wind and solar and were minor for coal, gas and oil.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Newview01

You are missing the point. O&G can thrive without, alternatives cannot survive without. The government offers many subsidies we can question.

He knows he lost that one. Dont be mean and make him say it cause I don't think he will.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Ok. So you acknowledge there are no subsidies for oil companies. The other information shows massive subsidies for wind and especially solar.

Past subsidies in oil and gas consisted of:

1. R&D. Research tax breaks to encourage innovation to increase recovery of oil and gas which directly benefits Albertans.

2. Capital spending incentives. Governments know that while royalties are great the big money is in increased taxes from direct and indirect industries resulting from increased capital. To encourage spending on less than favourable endeavours the tax breaks helped create jobs. These jobs needed just a small bump to make them work. Solar and wind take massive amounts of cash to generate jobs that don't create sustainability. Oil jobs fluctuate due to oil prices. Wind and solar are just plain money pits.

If you read the numbers again...there is no argument possible to say subsidies helped oil, coal and gas over solar and wind. The subsidies are massive for wind and solar and were minor for coal, gas and oil.

Virtually no subsidies means there are still some even now. Why? You didn't answer why the O&G industry still need ANY subsidies or tax incentives after being a mature industry for well over 100 years of being so?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Virtually no subsidies means there are still some even now. Why? You didn't answer why the O&G industry still need ANY subsidies or tax incentives after being a mature industry for well over 100 years of being so?

Hanging onto an empty plate on this one.

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by avb3

Virtually no subsidies means there are still some even now. Why? You didn't answer why the O&G industry still need ANY subsidies or tax incentives after being a mature industry for well over 100 years of being so?

He actually answered it right here.

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

1. R&D. Research tax breaks to encourage innovation to increase recovery of oil and gas which directly benefits Albertans.

2. Capital spending incentives. Governments know that while royalties are great the big money is in increased taxes from direct and indirect industries resulting from increased capital. To encourage spending on less than favourable endeavours the tax breaks helped create jobs. These jobs needed just a small bump to make them work. Solar and wind take massive amounts of cash to generate jobs that don't create sustainability. Oil jobs fluctuate due to oil prices. Wind and solar are just plain money pits.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by avb3

Virtually no subsidies means there are still some even now. Why? You didn't answer why the O&G industry still need ANY subsidies or tax incentives after being a mature industry for well over 100 years of being so?

And you are still missing the point. Please. Stop.

The idea behind green energy is farcical at best, as man made carbon pollution at the worst has a negligible affect on the environment. The toxic chemicals involved with R&D and production of green technologies are far more destructive than a massive coal fired or natural gas burning power plant. The difference - third world countries usually play host to the most toxic of manufacturing facilities and most of the developed countries don't care about them.

Climate change and carbon pollution rhetoric has become such a religion, and you avb3 seem to be one of the evangelists promoting it.

[avb3]

Looks like renewables will provide more jobs worldwide than O&G. I know people want to ignore that change is coming, but it is.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/20/solar-oil-jobs-indeed/

[avb3]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

He actually answered it right here.

So if those same subsidies/tax breaks were applied to renewables, would that be a bad thing, but when applied to O&G it's a good thing? If the logic is that a 150 year old mature industry gets breaks, why is it illogical that a much, much newer group of industries also get breaks?

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by avb3

Looks like renewables will provide more jobs worldwide than O&G. I know people want to ignore that change is coming, but it is.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/20/solar-oil-jobs-indeed/

We know that change is not always for the better..

[ak-71]

Originally Posted by avb3

So if those same subsidies/tax breaks were applied to renewables, would that be a bad thing, but when applied to O&G it's a good thing? If the logic is that a 150 year old mature industry gets breaks, why is it illogical that a much, much newer group of industries also get breaks?

As long as they pay the same in terms of royalties, other fees per unit of energy, and invest in stupid imposed projects, like, wind generating, for example, to compensate for decreased range in pollen distribution as a result of wind harvesting, or what ever next generation of alarmists will start milking wind energy for - then I guess it would be fair

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

So if those same subsidies/tax breaks were applied to renewables, would that be a bad thing, but when applied to O&G it's a good thing? If the logic is that a 150 year old mature industry gets breaks, why is it illogical that a much, much newer group of industries also get breaks?

If you gave renewables the same past level of subsidies no one would be able to afford it.

Plus this is a 114 year old industry in Alberta.

Oil industry does not get subsidies now. If they got the same level of subsidies renewables got...wow...that would be a massive amount of money.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Virtually no subsidies means there are still some even now. Why? You didn't answer why the O&G industry still need ANY subsidies or tax incentives after being a mature industry for well over 100 years of being so?

Desperation post. You lost this argument. You didn't read the post even. Best you change the subject. Smoke and mirrors is your friend.

[58thecat]

Originally Posted by fishead

Ya a micro-grid in AB when it is -30, wind is obviously not blowing at this point and the sun is gone for the day.
For god sakes man think about it, I am not saying we cant do things better than we are but get your head out of the Fricken clouds and deal in reality. As for jobs in this industry they are minimal and low paying as the profit margin for said renewables is low and relies on Government subsides
In some climates this might be doable if you don't mind having your lights go off on a regular basis. I think most Albertans are used to a level of reliability when it comes to Electricity.
If this is such a good idea create your own micro-grid let us know how it works out for you.

Marsha, Marsha, Marsha....snickers anyone

[HyperMOA]

Originally Posted by avb3

So if those same subsidies/tax breaks were applied to renewables, would that be a bad thing, but when applied to O&G it's a good thing? If the logic is that a 150 year old mature industry gets breaks, why is it illogical that a much, much newer group of industries also get breaks?

I think that is completely fair, BUT the amount invested must have the same or close to the same ROI as the oil industry. Any subsidy is repaid in tax dollars alone within months. Also, by promoting these industries it creates another income source for the government, not a liability needing to be supported to the end of its lifecycle.

[The Elkster]

The subsidy argument for O&G is pretty dang dumb. How much NET income does oil and gas provide to gov't coffers all the way through the value chain Vs green energy. O&G amounts to massive dollars. Meanwhile green energy is a NET money sink. That is the long and the short of it like it or not. If O&G tax/royalty revenue evaporated (we're seeing the resultant deficits now with low prices) and the tax burden was shifted to green energy (something has to replace that gov't income) then what would the economics of todays green energy look like?

ABV you are just totally skewing what people are saying. Few if any are against green energy. They are simply considering all the facts for and against green energy not just cherry picking based on biased wishful thinking. When a viable solution comes along I will be its biggest cheerleader. Until then I'll support more dollars for research and less of scaling up of non-viable alternatives. And by non-viable I mean something that takes massive effort yet is only in a position to replace a tiny % of total global energy demand.

[TROLLER]

Originally Posted by Supergrit

Have to start some were maybe 20 years from now it will be economical. People laughed at gas powerd cars at one time ( gas powered cars will never be faster then a horse)

Laughing now is the right thing. Just ask Germany who have spent 1 Trillion dollars to finally discover (SHOCK) that it is not sustainable and are looking into Nuc power again.

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by avb3

Looks like renewables will provide more jobs worldwide than O&G. I know people want to ignore that change is coming, but it is.

http://fortune.com/2016/04/20/solar-oil-jobs-indeed/

There is always another report out there to show another view point.

https://wm-s.glb.shawcable.net/servi...=164881&part=2

Typically the green jobs we are seeing are short term transitory (install and move on) and not long term maintaining and operating. --- and --- yes we have a fair amount of green energy installed.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 2 Tollers

There is always another report out there to show another view point.

https://wm-s.glb.shawcable.net/servi...=164881&part=2

Typically the green jobs we are seeing are short term transitory (install and move on) and not long term maintaining and operating. --- and --- yes we have a fair amount of green energy installed.

Linky not worky.

Screenshot 2016-05-02 at 3.20.55 PM.jpg

[avb3]

Originally Posted by TROLLER

Laughing now is the right thing. Just ask Germany who have spent 1 Trillion dollars to finally discover (SHOCK) that it is not sustainable and are looking into Nuc power again.

Do you have a link for that? All information I have is that Germany will go nuclear free by 2021, and are not changing that.

Germany's nuclear phase-out has come off more successfully than many expected - Rainer Baake, state secretary at Germany's Ministry for Economic Affairs and Energy, expressed his satisfaction with the first few years of the phase-out.

"We have the highest security of [energy] supply in Europe, export more electricity than ever, and have very low wholesale prices on the energy market," Baake told DW.
Electricity that was generated through nuclear fission has been replaced through a dynamic addition of wind, solar and biomass capacity.
In 2014, renewable sources accounted for a landmark 28 percent of Germany's electricity.

Source:

http://www.dw.com/en/how-far-along-i...out/a-18547065

[avb3]

Originally Posted by HyperMOA

I think that is completely fair, BUT the amount invested must have the same or close to the same ROI as the oil industry. Any subsidy is repaid in tax dollars alone within months. Also, by promoting these industries it creates another income source for the government, not a liability needing to be supported to the end of its lifecycle.

There is not enough money in the orphan well fund to deal with all the abandoned wells that exist.

Let's not forget that little reality coming at us.