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

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 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.

I'm not trying to skew at all.

I see many who rail against green energy on all sorts of basis, and as I've said, I understand that as many of those have or do rely on their livelihoods from O&G.

Are we being myopic though in just looking at one side of the equation? The orphan well fund does not have enough money into deal the existing, and with bankruptcies, the huge increase, of orphan wells. They only have $17 million in assets as of 2015. How far do you think that will go? I personally know of one reclamation site in the Brooks area that has had over $3 million spent on it over a 5+ year period, and it still could not get a certification.

Those are realities. O&G has provided a superior standard of living for many over the past half century, but it is not without costs, both hidden cost taxpayers have and will have to absorb, and unquestionably, environmental costs.

Just to reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am against any industry getting subsidies, as that is an issue that keeps coming up.

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by avb3

Linky not worky.

Works fine on my system but try this one

https://friendsofsciencecalgary.file...19-final-2.pdf

Originally Posted by avb3

[/B]
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.

If the reality is 30 years for solar panels what is the economical recycle program for these. The problem with the abandoned wind turbines outside of Palm Springs is significant as well. Everything comes with a price and not mentioning the future cost of replacement or removal of Green Equipment that is no longer working has to be considered as well. Do we just grind up the PV panels? Bury the carbon fibre turbine blades?

[Newview01]

[ak-71]

Nope another deflection is coming.
The whole issue is a very simple one - take away "social license" and it's just a lot of hot air for now. Just notice biased names like "green energy", back patting for wasteful nonsense projects or policies and you will see that the whole movement is just a grand extortion scheme.
If it was really competitive it could have had been named "bird swatting" energy, not "green" wind energy - people would have been standing in lines to be a part of it regardless of the name.
It has become a religion for many and a good source of profit for a few, and no reasoning works on these types of people.

BTW. I am way over my grammar capacity here, sorry

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

I'm not trying to skew at all.

I see many who rail against green energy on all sorts of basis, and as I've said, I understand that as many of those have or do rely on their livelihoods from O&G.

Are we being myopic though in just looking at one side of the equation? The orphan well fund does not have enough money into deal the existing, and with bankruptcies, the huge increase, of orphan wells. They only have $17 million in assets as of 2015. How far do you think that will go? I personally know of one reclamation site in the Brooks area that has had over $3 million spent on it over a 5+ year period, and it still could not get a certification.

Those are realities. O&G has provided a superior standard of living for many over the past half century, but it is not without costs, both hidden cost taxpayers have and will have to absorb, and unquestionably, environmental costs.

Just to reiterate for the umpteenth time, I am against any industry getting subsidies, as that is an issue that keeps coming up.

Do you know how the orphan well program even works? Who pays?

Me thinks not. And that this is but another change of topic deflection.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

[/B]

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.

What are you talking about? Be specific because this statement does not make sense.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 2 Tollers

Works fine on my system but try this one

https://friendsofsciencecalgary.file...19-final-2.pdf

Works now.

"Friends of Science" are the "Suzuki" of the carbon based extraction industry.

They refuse to present their perspectives in front of any scientific group. Their funding comes primarily from O&G companies. A full perspective is laid out here:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...nds_of_Science


Regardless, of whether it is Suzuki or Friends of Science, both spin things to their perspective. And both have some truths attached. I notice the report you point me to has very dated material in it, and on a quick read through, I noticed at least one glaring error.

It suggested that the Danish electrical exports were primarily to countries that had been getting their power from hydroelectric sources, and that the wind energy was replacing that.

Now, most of the Danish exports go to Germany. In Germany, at best 3.5% of their power is produced by hydro, and the vast majority of that is in the southern part in the Alps, near the borders of Switzerland and Austria. It is a blatant misleading statement in that paper. I have not referenced the rest, but that is not a good start.

If the reality is 30 years for solar panels what is the economical recycle program for these. The problem with the abandoned wind turbines outside of Palm Springs is significant as well. Everything comes with a price and not mentioning the future cost of replacement or removal of Green Equipment that is no longer working has to be considered as well. Do we just grind up the PV panels? Bury the carbon fibre turbine blades?

I can't speak for the PV panels, as I do see an issue with their disposal. At least they will not leach like abandoned oil wells, will they?

Carbon fiber certainly is not an issue. First of all, it is totally inert, and secondly, it can and is being recycled.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Do you know how the orphan well program even works? Who pays?

Me thinks not. And that this is but another change of topic deflection.

Actually, I am well aware of how it is funded, and how it works. And how it needed $30 million top up from the previous PC government. That was before the current rash of bankruptcies and newly abandoned wells.

I suppose your are going to tell me that $30 million was not a subsidy of any sort, right? You know, taxpayers' dollars. To the O&G industry. During good times.

Naaaa. ... taxpayers don't subsidize O&G, now do they?

[2 Tollers]

Originally Posted by avb3

I can't speak for the PV panels, as I do see an issue with their disposal. At least they will not leach like abandoned oil wells, will they?

Carbon fiber certainly is not an issue. First of all, it is totally inert, and secondly, it can and is being recycled.

Thanks - your reaction to the paper was interesting.

On disposal of PV panels will they leach and be able to be managed or be a waste that is strictly a glass land fill? I have a pretty good idea based on what happens with curtain wall that is disposed of today.

On carbon fiber this is a shedding substance that in some cases of use and contact has to be managed very carefully due to health concerns.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Actually, I am well aware of how it is funded, and how it works. And how it needed $30 million top up from the previous PC government. That was before the current rash of bankruptcies and newly abandoned wells.

I suppose your are going to tell me that $30 million was not a subsidy of any sort, right? You know, taxpayers' dollars. To the O&G industry. During good times.

Naaaa. ... taxpayers don't subsidize O&G, now do they?

So you don't realize about LLR and are only scouring the internet for anti oil.

Orphan well fund is 100% funded by industry. Companies whose liability exceeds assets must pay a bond.

A $30 million contribution for jobs was there choice at the time. Industry did not ask for it. It was not a top up. You clearly made that up. Look to their financials for proof.

Winds and solar demand it because without they fail. Then it is like a parasite that needs feeding for without it the entire green power industry collapses.


Again..subterfuge with no facts.

$30 MM a few years ago is meaningless to argue spending billions to support green power.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 2 Tollers

Thanks - your reaction to the paper was interesting.

On disposal of PV panels will they leach and be able to be managed or be a waste that is strictly a glass land fill? I have a pretty good idea based on what happens with curtain wall that is disposed of today.

On carbon fiber this is a shedding substance that in some cases of use and contact has to be managed very carefully due to health concerns.

I'm willing to learn on that. Can you point me in a good direction?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

I'm willing to learn on that. Can you point me in a good direction?

More learning for ya

Historical Summary of Funding
A Historical Summary of Funding for the OWA orphan activities is shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. Out of the over $223 million that has been collected since 1992 to fund orphan activities, over $184 million was contributed by the upstream oil and gas industry in Alberta or 83%.
In addition to industry contributions, Alberta Energy contributed over $30 million or 13%. First, in 2009 there was a one time grant funding of $30 million as part of the Government of Alberta's three part economic stimulus plan which was implemented after the fall of 2008. Second, there was a contribution of $50,000 to the OWA as support for additional work that was directed by the AER in 2012 under Directive 079 to help the government do abandoned well locating and testing in urban areas for wells which are licensed to defunct companies and are not designated as orphan. In addition, $9 million or 4% came from interest earned on funds held.


Who Pays For This?
The OWA operates under the direction of its members who include: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), The Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (EPAC), and the AER. Industry funds all of the costs incurred by the OWA, mostly through an Orphan Fund Levy. This levy is based on the abandonment and reclamation liabilities held by each company and it is collected annually by the AER and remitted to the OWA.

http://www.orphanwell.ca/pg_faq.html

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So you don't realize about LLR and are only scouring the internet for anti oil.

Orphan well fund is 100% funded by industry. Companies whose liability exceeds assets must pay a bond.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Now, are you going to tell me that there are not millions, if not more in unfunded liabilities. Bankrupt companies can not post bonds, and most of those that had to post were juniors. It's not just the juniors in trouble. Just because it is funded by industry does not mean it is adequately funded. You know, just like the CPP system, which you and I fund, yet we all know the taxpayer needs to subsidize it. Because it was not adequately funded.

Same as the orphan well program.

Let's not forget that company like Murphy and Husky are having real problems, and they never have had to post bonds. At a rate of dealing with only 43 sites a year, and that means spending almost all of their intake for the year, how well is it really funded? Read their own report if you think I am making this up... I'm not.

A $30 million contribution for jobs was there choice at the time. Industry did not ask for it. It was not a top up. You clearly made that up. Look to their financials for proof.

Why don't we do that

http://www.orphanwell.ca/OWA%202014-...pt%20Final.pdf

From that report:

In addition to industry contributions, Alberta Energy contributed over $30 million or 13%. First, in 2009
there was a one time grant funding of $30 million as part of the Government of Alberta's three part
economic stimulus plan that was implemented after the fall of 2008. Second, there was a contribution of
$50,000 to the OWA as support for additional work that was directed by the AER in 2012 under Directive
079 to conduct abandoned well locating and testing in urban areas on behalf of the government for wells
that are licensed to defunct companies and are not designated as orphan. In addition, $9.5 million came
from interest earned on funds held.

No, I did not make up that $30 million dollars came from taxpayer's dollars to top up the orphan well fund. Further more, that $30 million was paid to help with the backlog at the time. Obviously they have a backlog again. Where do you think the extra money needed is going to come from? The orphan well pixie?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

More learning for ya

Historical Summary of Funding
A Historical Summary of Funding for the OWA orphan activities is shown in Figure 1 and Table 1. Out of the over $223 million that has been collected since 1992 to fund orphan activities, over $184 million was contributed by the upstream oil and gas industry in Alberta or 83%.
In addition to industry contributions, Alberta Energy contributed over $30 million or 13%. First, in 2009 there was a one time grant funding of $30 million as part of the Government of Alberta's three part economic stimulus plan which was implemented after the fall of 2008. Second, there was a contribution of $50,000 to the OWA as support for additional work that was directed by the AER in 2012 under Directive 079 to help the government do abandoned well locating and testing in urban areas for wells which are licensed to defunct companies and are not designated as orphan. In addition, $9 million or 4% came from interest earned on funds held.


Who Pays For This?
The OWA operates under the direction of its members who include: the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP), The Explorers and Producers Association of Canada (EPAC), and the AER. Industry funds all of the costs incurred by the OWA, mostly through an Orphan Fund Levy. This levy is based on the abandonment and reclamation liabilities held by each company and it is collected annually by the AER and remitted to the OWA.

Boy do you get sidetracked easily. My question had to do with leaching from PV, not the orphan well fund. And as you will note, I posted much the same you did, except I cited it. For accuracy, you know.

I usually do that type of thing.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Yes, I'm aware of that. Now, are you going to tell me that there are not millions, if not more in unfunded liabilities. Bankrupt companies can not post bonds, and most of those that had to post were juniors. It's not just the juniors in trouble. Just because it is funded by industry does not mean it is adequately funded. You know, just like the CPP system, which you and I fund, yet we all know the taxpayer needs to subsidize it. Because it was not adequately funded.

Same as the orphan well program.

Let's not forget that company like Murphy and Husky are having real problems, and they never have had to post bonds. At a rate of dealing with only 43 sites a year, and that means spending almost all of their intake for the year, how well is it really funded? Read their own report if you think I am making this up... I'm not.


Why don't we do that

http://www.orphanwell.ca/OWA%202014-...pt%20Final.pdf

From that report:



No, I did not make up that $30 million dollars came from taxpayer's dollars to top up the orphan well fund. Further more, that $30 million was paid to help with the backlog at the time. Obviously they have a backlog again. Where do you think the extra money needed is going to come from? The orphan well pixie?

Geez you are just reading and guessing.

If you have more assets than liabilities you are not at risk.

Your attempts at fear mongering may work in global warming debates on some but when you make stuff up you will be caught.

The $30 million was make work. If they need more money they extract from industry.

Who will pay for the dismantling of all the wind turbines once they stop working and fall apart? Do they have an abandonment levy?

No. They can't afford any money for anything without a massive handout.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Boy do you get sidetracked easily. My question had to do with leaching from PV, not the orphan well fund. And as you will note, I posted much the same you did, except I cited it. For accuracy, you know.

I usually do that type of thing.

Now you just need to understand it. And stop making things up. There was no top up. It was job stimulus.

Back to your incentives. Oil and gas and coal. Effectively $0

Wind $30 MWh
Solar. $280 MWh

Massive facts. Must distract. Must ignore. Must change subject. Must find molehill to blow up to a mountain.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Geez you are just reading and guessing.

If you have more assets than liabilities you are not at risk.

Your attempts at fear mongering may work in global warming debates on some but when you make stuff up you will be caught.

The $30 million was make work. If they need more money they extract from industry.

Who will pay for the dismantling of all the wind turbines once they stop working and fall apart? Do they have an abandonment levy?

No. They can't afford any money for anything without a massive handout.

Sundance, do you even understand what the term "unfunded liabilities" means?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

Now you just need to understand it. And stop making things up. There was no top up. It was job stimulus.

Nice shorestory. Except it was clearly given to "help clear up the backlog".

Back to your incentives. Oil and gas and coal. Effectively $0

Wind $30 MWh
Solar. $280 MWh

Massive facts. Must distract. Must ignore. Must change subject. Must find molehill to blow up to a mountain.

You're the one who suggested I didn't understand the orphan well deal in Alberta, when I fully understand it. And understand that it is not doing nor is it capable of doing what it is suppose to be. 700 plus wells, and they do what, 43-45 a year? And spend all the money taken in doing that?

[avb3]

Getting back to the canard that Germany is increasing coal energy production... nope, it ain't happening.

Quit swallowing the propaganda.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge...-idUSKCN0XU1R1

Reuters doesn't attempt to make the news, unlike Heritage Foundation site like wattsupwiththat or the industry funded "Friends" of Science Calgary group.

[The Elkster]

Decommissioning liability is just another red herring. Total liabilities pending can and do amount to billions and it still pales in comparison to the NET profits (after any so called subsidies) that gov't and the people have reaped via O&G profitability over decades right up until today. If you factor in total profits at equivalent energy rates and total costs including all liabilities decommissioning/replacement and full taxes equal to what oil pays the economics for "green" really go out the window so I wouldn't go there. LOL

Reality is that in an apples to apples unadulterated comparison its not even close! Sure that could change but there is nothing in the current technology that will change that. Its going to take some major breakthroughs. We're more likely to have breakthroughs in efficiency and energy conservation than a paradigm shift in energy generation. That is certainly the only way wind will every make up a meaningful portion of energy generation. Just too many limitations that are beyond man's control...see weather and geography for it to grow beyond a niche supply. Demand has to come down big time for it to be relevant in any way.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

Decommissioning liability is just another red herring. Total liabilities pending can and do amount to billions and it still pales in comparison to the NET profits (after any so called subsidies) that gov't and the people have reaped via O&G profitability over decades right up until today. If you factor in total profits at equivalent energy rates and total costs including all liabilities decommissioning/replacement and full taxes equal to what oil pays the economics for "green" really go out the window so I wouldn't go there. LOL

Reality is that in an apples to apples unadulterated comparison its not even close! Sure that could change but there is nothing in the current technology that will change that. Its going to take some major breakthroughs. We're more likely to have breakthroughs in efficiency and energy conservation than a paradigm shift in energy generation. That is certainly the only way wind will every make up a meaningful portion of energy generation. Just too many limitations that are beyond man's control...see weather and geography for it to grow beyond a niche supply. Demand has to come down big time for it to be relevant in any way.

So you agree that there are significant unfunded liabilities involved?

It sounds great that we had the economic boom that has supplied a good living for many Albertan's for the last 50-60 years, but if there is an environmental liability that takes taxpayers dollars to eventually address, this is OK?

I think that is what you are saying. Correct me if I misunderstood.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

Getting back to the canard that Germany is increasing coal energy production... nope, it ain't happening.

Quit swallowing the propaganda.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-ge...-idUSKCN0XU1R1

Reuters doesn't attempt to make the news, unlike Heritage Foundation site like wattsupwiththat or the industry funded "Friends" of Science Calgary group.

2050 is a long ways away.

Quit swallowing the propaganda. Promising to reduce coal use sometime in the future is akin to Liberals promising to get rid of the GST, or limit deficits to 10billion dollars.

Coal use in Germany is increasing. Fact.
https://carboncounter.wordpress.com/...-coal-burning/
http://www.theguardian.com/environme...a-green-future

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

So you agree that there are significant unfunded liabilities involved?

It sounds great that we had the economic boom that has supplied a good living for many Albertan's for the last 50-60 years, but if there is an environmental liability that takes taxpayers dollars to eventually address, this is OK?

I think that is what you are saying. Correct me if I misunderstood.

There are no unfunded liabilities. The system is self funded. If they need more money they go back to the system. Quit making stuff up.

If a company does not have enough value in their assets to cover their liability they pay a bond to cover the risk. Very onerous.

Name these phantom liabilities that the industry is not covering in the orphan well program. Remember...orphan wells are those in which there is no successor company.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

There are no unfunded liabilities. The system is self funded. If they need more money they go back to the system. Quit making stuff up.

If a company does not have enough value in their assets to cover their liability they pay a bond to cover the risk. Very onerous.

Name these phantom liabilities that the industry is not covering in the orphan well program. Remember...orphan wells are those in which there is no successor company.

So you deny that there are 700 orphaned wells, and climbing, and that only ~43 a year are being reclaimed, AND they are currently spending all the money that comes in each year?

I referenced their F/S for you and linked them.

Your canard about the bonds applied to mostly the juniors, and you should be aware of that. Murphy Oil never had to provide a bond, and they currently have a ton of problems. What happens if they go bankrupt?

Husky is not doing that well either currently, right?

So tell me how those 700 wells and climbing are going to be cleaned up when:

A] B/S shows that only one year's (~43 wells) assets are in the bank?
B] P/L shows that all money taken is spent each year?

Proof? Read the F/S.

Where is the money coming from for all those other wells? Any suggestion outside of taxpayers? Show us the proof... I'm showing you directly from the organization you referenced.

Here are the excerpts.

orphan bs.jpg

orphan pl.jpg

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

So you deny that there are 700 orphaned wells, and climbing, and that only ~43 a year are being reclaimed, AND they are currently spending all the money that comes in each year?

I referenced their F/S for you and linked them.

Your canard about the bonds applied to mostly the juniors, and you should be aware of that. Murphy Oil never had to provide a bond, and they currently have a ton of problems. What happens if they go bankrupt?

Husky is not doing that well either currently, right?

So tell me how those 700 wells and climbing are going to be cleaned up when:

A] B/S shows that only one year's (~43 wells) assets are in the bank?
B] P/L shows that all money taken is spent each year?

Proof? Read the F/S.

Where is the money coming from for all those other wells? Any suggestion outside of taxpayers? Show us the proof... I'm showing you directly from the organization you referenced.

Here are the excerpts.

Attachment 121195

Attachment 121196

Change subject again. Ok. Large companies have very large asset bases and and fund their liabilities no problem. If they slipped in their LLR rating that would be a problem.

As for the last two years we have seen a peak due to bankruptcies. The fund is abandoning wells and it works well. The new wells will be dealt with as seen over past years. They load level work to save money. Plus abandonment costs have fallen. For you to make wild guess as to how they operate belies the true intent of your posts but to slag oil and gas either directly, indirectly or passive aggressively.

That isn't the case so why fear mongering? Just trying to distract from massive wind and solar subsidies.

Look. I like the idea of cheap, free and true pollution free power.

I just hate wasting money. Right now outside pilots wind and solar are a wasted capital program.

[The Elkster]

Originally Posted by avb3

So you agree that there are significant unfunded liabilities involved?

It sounds great that we had the economic boom that has supplied a good living for many Albertan's for the last 50-60 years, but if there is an environmental liability that takes taxpayers dollars to eventually address, this is OK?

I think that is what you are saying. Correct me if I misunderstood.

The gov't aka taxpayers have been sucking on the O&G teet for decades that those so called liabilities have been around. The AB gov't (forget additional massive federal taxes) is in the hole 7 Billions this year on account of lost oil revenue but are still making some revenue. That means in better times they have been reaping maybe 10 billion PER YEAR. how many hundreds of billions in the past few decades when factored in todays dollars. If at the end of the day they are left to clean up a few billion in unfunded liabilities yes I think that is more than fair. Also keeping in mind most of the cleanup monies would go to AB companies and AB people paying AB taxes. 30-50% of any liability cost will go right back to the gov't/the taxpayer. But realistically as is already the case most costs will be pushed back to O&G companies in better times and the taxpayer will continue to net benefit significantly from O&G.

Now lets talk about green energy and the environmental liabilities. About the only thing green about green energy is a cut to CO2 which will have arguable benefits. If any of the so called green energy was scaled up to a level where it is contributing any meaningful amount of global energy demand the environmental liability would be massive, The metal and other materials for millions/billions of windmills has to come from somewhere and be smelted somewhere? Same issue with solar construction if massively scaled up. How about that Lithium mining? How about all them burned out batteries? These aren't trivial issues. How about the detrimental physical implications of massive wind farms and a massive increase in hydro dams?

ABV you need to start seeing the mountain through you climate hysteria induced fog. Way to much selective cherry picking. There is no panacea. Not even close. About the only way we are going to see any significant net environmental improvement is if the global population drops precipitously. Reality bites!

[Bushrat]

Are we ready for the environmental cost that the shift from fossil to alternative will cost. I believe we are prematurely making a rash decision to use unrefined innefficient technology that will be obsolete and need replaced in very short time and applying it with limited knowledge. We may very well be totally wasting enormous precious natural resources and taxpayer resources needed to even begin to convert and in a short time find out we have jumped the gun by investing in inefficient 'green wash' technology in a knee jerk reaction that in a decade will prove to be an obsolete, inefficient, broken down waste of resources that was rashly put in place because of fear mongering unwarranted climate change panic orchestrated by those with a vested interest in laundering taxpayers money and funneling it into their pockets. I don't believe alternative technology is even close to advanced enough for a long lasting resource and financially efficient meaningful change. A much more pragmatic and thoughtful shift is needed. At this time we only know enough to be dangerous to both humanity and the environment, the panic is over blown, the sky isn't falling yet, this is not the time to throw precious resources on the fire when we need to throw it into research to insure we don't go into the new world of energy technology investing in long term fixtures that are mostly obsolete before we start.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by The Elkster

The gov't aka taxpayers have been sucking on the O&G teet for decades that those so called liabilities have been around. The AB gov't (forget additional massive federal taxes) is in the hole 7 Billions this year on account of lost oil revenue but are still making some revenue. That means in better times they have been reaping maybe 10 billion PER YEAR. how many hundreds of billions in the past few decades when factored in todays dollars. If at the end of the day they are left to clean up a few billion in unfunded liabilities yes I think that is more than fair.

You seem to forget two things. First of all, the resource extract are a depleting resource that belong to the people of Alberta. No sucking of the O&G teat, Alberta has had very competitive royalty and tax rates, which every review has indicated. Some think they should be higher, but that is a philosophical and political argument. Reality is that the system has worked for all Albertans.

Who has benefited from that activity? Certainly employees and Albertans, but most of all, the O&G companies. Why in the name of whatever you think might be holy should Albertans now have to pick up the liability when the major benefit was O&G. Why should O&G get that free ride and subsidy?

Also keeping in mind most of the cleanup monies would go to AB companies and AB people paying AB taxes. 30-50% of any liability cost will go right back to the gov't/the taxpayer. But realistically as is already the case most costs will be pushed back to O&G companies in better times and the taxpayer will continue to net benefit significantly from O&G.

You're assuming that a sea change is not occurring in energy production. Conventional reserves are rapidly declining; how much more should O&G by paying? As indicated, we just went through a royalty review, and it ain't changing. As production, especially conventional declines, and more and more wells get shut in, how many do you think are going to be abandoned? When you see companies like Murphy and Husky having problems, this is no longer just a junior issue. Reality.

Now lets talk about green energy and the environmental liabilities. About the only thing green about green energy is a cut to CO2 which will have arguable benefits. If any of the so called green energy was scaled up to a level where it is contributing any meaningful amount of global energy demand the environmental liability would be massive, The metal and other materials for millions/billions of windmills has to come from somewhere and be smelted somewhere? Same issue with solar construction if massively scaled up. How about that Lithium mining? How about all them burned out batteries? These aren't trivial issues. How about the detrimental physical implications of massive wind farms and a massive increase in hydro dams?

You don't think that pipelines, and other metal infrastructure used in O&G production cycle are not being smelted? Really? And the chemicals used in O&G are labelled hazardous for a reason, and we are pumping it into our water tables. Not the wisest choice, I would suggest. Never mind using good water for SAGD. We know that water is a limiting resource, and when you can start watering cattle with oil, and have humans drink it, let us know. Just look at what has happened to the lakes in the Cold Lake area... it's been a disaster, and one that groups like the AFGA expressed concern about 20 some and more years ago.

ABV you need to start seeing the mountain through you climate hysteria induced fog. Way to much selective cherry picking. There is no panacea. Not even close. About the only way we are going to see any significant net environmental improvement is if the global population drops precipitously. Reality bites!

I've expressed this before; I used to be a climate change denier, like many on this board. I then looked at the real science, actually had a chance day long meeting with a real climatologist about 12 years ago, did a lot of reading of not blogs, but science journals and slowly, reluctantly, I changed my mind. Maybe it helps that I am not employed by the O&G industry, and am not bound to it for my livelihood. I suspect that influences many on this board who will not look at the real science, but think that Andrew Watts and the Heritage Foundation are the best and most accurate sources of information.

Change is happening a lot quicker than I expected. The impacts of climate change are real (come to Miami where spring tides flood it every month now, and mangroves are moving north), and the change in energy production is changing much quicker than one would have thought. We need to embrace that as part of the mix, as oil will always be needed for at least some applications.

[rugatika]

Originally Posted by avb3

I've expressed this before; I used to be a climate change denier, like many on this board. I then looked at the real science, actually had a chance day long meeting with a real climatologist about 12 years ago, did a lot of reading of not blogs, but science journals and slowly, reluctantly, I changed my mind. Maybe it helps that I am not employed by the O&G industry, and am not bound to it for my livelihood. I suspect that influences many on this board who will not look at the real science, but think that Andrew Watts and the Heritage Foundation are the best and most accurate sources of information.

Change is happening a lot quicker than I expected. The impacts of climate change are real (come to Miami where spring tides flood it every month now, and mangroves are moving north), and the change in energy production is changing much quicker than one would have thought. We need to embrace that as part of the mix, as oil will always be needed for at least some applications.

There is zero scientific evidence that links CO2 levels with flooding in Miami. Zero. Completely anecdotal.

People are living longer thanks to "global warming". My dog is happier thanks to global warming. etc

[Newview01]

Interesting article on Fox News.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016...ind-farms.html

Under the plan announced Wednesday, companies could kill or injure up to 4,200 bald eagles a year without penalty -- nearly four times the current limit. Golden eagles could only be killed if companies take steps to minimize the losses, for instance, by retrofitting power poles to reduce the risk of electrocution.

Just when bald eagles were making a comeback from the DDT fiasco. O well. It's all for the better right?