# Pay oil workers to clean up old wells



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Saskatchewan's Brad Wall has put forth an idea that seems to make good sense. Actually someone in the oil industry thought of it, but Wall presented it to Ottawa.

The idea is to hire 1200 experienced oil workers to cap and reclaim 1000 old wells in Saskatchewan. There are probably lots more around in Alberta as well.

The environment gets cleaned up and the workers get paid instead of collecting unemployment for doing nothing.

Maybe this idea will spur some more good ideas to get people employed in a meaningful way, since Ottawa will be spending billions anyways.

http://www.bnn.ca/News/2016/2/8/Sas...id-off-oil-workers-clean-abandoned-wells.aspx


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Makes sense. These type of projects would fall under environmental remediation and infrastructure. During the good times, you won't be able to find the manpower to do this sort of thing. During the bad times, it provides a source of jobs for capable workers.

People make a big deal about infrastructure spending in bad times, but let's face it, during good times you aren't going to find the people or motivation to do them.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

This is a huge problem in Alberta and it is a sleeper. My understanding is that there is a fund for this but it does not come close to covering the cost. So many small producers are going broke. There is zero hope that anyone but the Government will have to shoulder most of the cost.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

The oil workers shouldn't need any help with money they made money hand over fist what happened to that money? $130,000 a worker to cape the wells is a little rich compared to EI which would still have to be paid out latter. Canada already wants to spend money hand over fist in the middle east which will just get blown up.


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Great idea. And for that reason it will probably never happen.

The work is supposed to last 2 years lonewolf. So I guess that's only $65,000 a worker. Better?


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

How is Brad Wall's suggestion anything other than a handout to the oil industry? They were supposed to clean up their mess, not the taxpayers of Canada, Alberta or Saskatchewan. 

As an Albertan, I know how tough it is for people who have been employed in the oil industry and supporting companies. However, most displaced workers are not "oil workers". They are electricians, pipefitters, computer programmers, accountants, purchasing agents and so on. Their skills are readily transferrable. We don't need to subsidize the oil industry or provide interim employment until the price of oil recovers. We need to either invest in alternative industries or allow the economy to automatically adapt to the global competitive economy. 

For that reason, I am opposed to Brad Wall's plan.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Good point Olivaw, but the reality is that the small oil companies that drilled these wells may be barely hanging on or already out of business.........so it won't get done by them.

Did Saskatchewan not gather a "clean up fund" before they allowed companies to start drilling ?

The issue of money set aside for potential clean ups is a big pipeline issue as well and allowing companies to just walk away leaving the taxpayer to pay for the mess isn't good government.


----------



## Ethan (Aug 8, 2010)

From the BNN article:



> Saskatchewan’s proposal is the brain child of Matt Cugnet, president of Valleyview Petroleums Ltd., a family-owned exploration and production company in Weyburn.


Cool, I went to high school with Matt.

I don't think its a great idea though. It's the responsibility of the oil companies, and I believe they've needed a bond in place before drilling wells for years. How many abandoned wells are out there that need to be cleaned up?


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Its a little rich to expect the tax payers to clean this up now. The oil companies made out like bandits for a decade. If they didnt put away some funds for a rainy day, then too bad. I sympathize with the workers though, but thats what EI is for and that money is already there.

Any federal money coming needs to be a real investment that will lead to continued economic activity. This sounds like just a extend and pretend strategy. Keep the workers occupied until oil comes back.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

They've spent more money on worse things.I'm in favor of infrastructure projects in times like these. Money is going to be paid out in EI claims to unemployed workers, it seems good value for money to add a few bucks and get this work done rather than nothing done.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

tygrus said:


> Its a little rich to expect the tax payers to clean this up now. The oil companies made out like bandits for a decade. If they didnt put away some funds for a rainy day, then too bad. I sympathize with the workers though, but thats what EI is for and that money is already there.
> 
> Any federal money coming needs to be a real investment that will lead to continued economic activity. This sounds like just a extend and pretend strategy. Keep the workers occupied until oil comes back.


Here is the thing. If the companies are bankrupt, they're not going to be cleaning them up. Meanwhile, we sit around with about 50,000 uncapped wells. http://globalnews.ca/news/2307275/i...st-of-abandoned-oil-and-gas-wells-in-alberta/
So, do we go after the remaining companies to clean up the sites? Sure we should be more stringent on the oil companies but considering how weak-willed we are when it comes to oil or big business we let things slide. That goes with anything, eg. The pension holidays that companies were allowed which contributed to the Nortel pension being underfunded.
As for being a stop gap, it is not much different than the bailout for the auto industry. Let's face it, we might have bought some time, but economics are going to drive them all to Mexico.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Probably 60% of the salaries would return to the government in taxes anyways. Income tax, sales tax, municipal tax.

If the government pays it out of infrastructure money, they keep the EI money they didn't spend, since they scoop the surpluses anyways.

I would like to see a massive plan to install solar panels on everyone's roof and maybe small wind generators, and spending for homeowners to upgrade furnaces, windows, insulation etc.

The cost we pay today could reap benefits in the future. Paying out EI or welfare doesn't benefit anyone.

We can't just sit around hoping oil prices get higher soon.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Have those on welfare do the work in exchange for their welfare checks. Maybe have the refugees coming to Canada do the work instead of giving them free handouts


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

People in Western Canada shake their collective heads. Lots of handouts for the auto industry and other large manufacturing concerns like Bombardier and the shipbuilders. Of course, lots of votes. Same in the Maritimes where those have not provinces have had their generous ei subsidized for year by other provinces.

Alberta/Sask and their resources are key to Canada's economy. Yet the Harper Gov'd essentially did nothing for these provinces and we have yet to see whether the Liberals will follow suit. If the Government leaves Alberta and Saskatewan to twist in the wind it will negatively impact Canada for years to come.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Any money we get needs to go to diversifying our economy...period, or at very least opening up the markets we already have.

If we don't make those moves now we are really going to pay the price down the road. Everyone is so shortsighted trying to artificially revive the oil boom. Its not going to happen. You will never ever see $100 oil again in your life time.

And dont shed a tear for the oil companies. They could have had a strategy in place to ship oil to the east 20 years ago but most are still bitter from the NEP. Now many of them are selling off paid for lighter production to pay off their oils sands bets. How stupid is that.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

I have no issue with diversifying our economy. In fact, I'm sure I've mentioned that in previous posts. However, it is the long game and will take some time to develop. Unfortunately we are behind the 8-ball thanks to the previous government's focus on oil, but it will take some time to develop.

The Alberta's government recent support for developing other petrochemical industries is a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen if it will amount to anything. 

In the meantime, we still have these oil wells that need to be capped. Why not take the opportunity to do it now while the oil companies have dropped the ball. Pointing fingers never accomplishes anything, we have to accept that we are in this situation and work our way out.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

fraser said:


> People in Western Canada shake their collective heads. Lots of handouts for the auto industry and other large manufacturing concerns like Bombardier and the shipbuilders.


I was not in favour of any bailouts, but tell me if you think that the oil companies would accept the strings attached to those bailouts and give the government a stake in the company. I doubt it.



fraser said:


> Alberta/Sask and their resources are key to Canada's economy. Yet the Harper Gov'd essentially did nothing for these provinces and we have yet to see whether the Liberals will follow suit. If the Government leaves Alberta and Saskatewan to twist in the wind it will negatively impact Canada for years to come.


Funny, I thought the GDP share of oil and gas extraction was around 3%, even Harper said "the oil industry isn't remotely the entire Canadian economy". But the funny part about what you are saying is that even though the Conservatives did nothing for the industry for the past 10 years, if the Liberals don't do anything, it's all on the Liberals.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

bgc_fan said:


> The Alberta's government recent support for developing other petrochemical industries is a step in the right direction, but it remains to be seen if it will amount to anything.


See here we go again. Thats not a new industry. Been around for 100 years and it still burns fossil fuels. 

3D printing with renewable recyclable bioplastic resins are the future. You can easily see it coming.

I wish Elon Musk could run canada.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

tygrus said:


> Any money we get needs to go to diversifying our economy...period, or at very least opening up the markets we already have.


A good thing to do ... but it will require changes in the leadership thinking across several areas, particularly business.




tygrus said:


> ... Everyone is so shortsighted trying to artificially revive the oil boom. Its not going to happen. You will never ever see $100 oil again in your life time.


LOL ... funny, I had a co-worker three years ago tell me that we would "never see under a $1 per litre gas prices again in our life time". I was pointing out at the time that despite the predictions for sustained high gas prices, I paid $0.70 a litre or so in the 90's.




tygrus said:


> They could have had a strategy in place to ship oil to the east 20 years ago but most are still bitter from the NEP.


Expecting the long view from business leaders instead of "what's lining my pocket in the short term?"

Good luck with that one ...


Cheers


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> I was not in favour of any bailouts, but tell me if you think that the oil companies would accept the strings attached to those bailouts and give the government a stake in the company. I doubt it.


What sort of strings do you see killing the deal?
Surely being able to re-hire right away instead of beating the bushes to rebuild the workforce is worth it in the long term.





bgc_fan said:


> Funny, I thought the GDP share of oil and gas extraction was around 3% ...


Then I guess all the Canadian and world wide investors dumping on the Canadian market are vastly overstating the impacts and it's a great time to buy those other market areas that are going to keep chugging along nicely, right?

Or pick up some oil company bargains?


Looking at the article, I find it strange that;


> ... Ontario and Quebec, which account for more than half of Canada’s GDP, see less reason to worry. *They are home to large manufacturing industries, such as cars and aerospace,* which have long complained that the oil-fuelled rise in the Canadian dollar was damaging their competitiveness.
> 
> The currency has fallen by 15% against the American dollar since June, giving exports a boost, and may weaken further because of lower interest rates.


Odd ... I thought the news out of Ontario was the constant shutdown in Ontario where US car plants were more competitive. I recall an interview being posted in another CMF thread where things like high electricity prices etc. made a difference in currency irrelevant to the business equation.

Add in that the G&M profiled why manufacturing was bypassing Canada in general. 
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...acturing-is-bypassing-canada/article14717261/


Even Canadian companies are doing similar.


> Magna, which is based in Aurora, Ontario, has announced a dozen expansions since 2014 in the form of joint ventures, new factories and expanded facilities. *Only one of those was in Canada.*
> 
> But let’s look on the bright side: maybe some of those hundreds of new Magna workers in the U.S., Mexico, India, China and Europe will be tempted to see the country from where their paycheques originate?


http://www.canadianbusiness.com/economy/will-a-low-canadian-dollar-actually-help-manufacturers/

So yes, the displaced workers may have transferable skills but Ontario and Quebec may not be interested.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> What sort of strings do you see killing the deal?
> Surely being able to re-hire right away instead of beating the bushes to rebuild the workforce is worth it in the long term.


The first string being giving up equity in the company. The billions that were given in the bailout ended up giving the Canadian government around 11% equity in GM. For Bombardier, the Quebec pension plan has a 50% stake in the new C-series jets. The other factor is the fact that the companies had to restructure their operations to be profitable. I'm not sure restructuring is a feasible course of action when it is the price of crude oil that is the problem. So, do you think any of the oil companies are willing to give up a piece of their equity? Another string may be that the companies would have to guarantee a number of jobs for a minimum period of time.



Eclectic12 said:


> Then I guess all the Canadian and world wide investors dumping on the Canadian market are vastly overstating the impacts and it's a great time to buy those other market areas that are going to keep chugging along nicely, right?
> 
> Or pick up some oil company bargains?


I was being facetious and pointing out that when the going got tough, even the Conservatives were trying to downplay the impact of falling oil price.



Eclectic12 said:


> Odd ... I thought the news out of Ontario was the constant shutdown in Ontario where US car plants were more competitive. I recall an interview being posted in another CMF thread where things like high electricity prices etc. made a difference in currency irrelevant to the business equation.
> 
> Add in that the G&M profiled why manufacturing was bypassing Canada in general.
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repo...acturing-is-bypassing-canada/article14717261/


You may have noticed that the article was written in 2013 and pointed out that the high dollar was a factor. As for the lack of R&D and innovation, that's a given. The problem being that when times are good, manufacturers should be reinvesting to take advantage of the high dollar, but instead, they just pocketed the extra cash. Likewise, when the government cuts corporate taxes to encourage investments, all the companies did was stockpile the money.

But hey, why not look at what actually happened when the dollar fell: in November, there has been a gain in manufacturing and wholesale sales. Whether this trend continues, we'll have to wait and see.

But manufacturing is in a tough situation, which is why we should be looking more into other sectors, particularly in the hi-tech field. For example, Apple is opening up a research facility in Ottawa and Google opened up a new engineering HQ in Waterloo. Given that the expertise in Canada is similar to that in the US, the falling loonie gives more of a reason for these types of firms to have a footprint in Canada.


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

tygrus said:


> See here we go again. Thats not a new industry. Been around for 100 years and it still burns fossil fuels.
> 
> 3D printing with renewable recyclable bioplastic resins are the future. You can easily see it coming.


It's not a new industry in the sense that it is new technology. However, it is an area that is underserved in Canada and it branches out the offerings from Alberta other than just oil.

As interesting as 3-D printing is, it requires feedstock. bioplastic resins are not always the right material and you may have to use the traditional plastic derived from oil. It all depends on the application.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> ... You may have noticed that the article was written in 2013 and pointed out that the high dollar was a factor.


True ... though the news reports more recently have been along the lines that the up tick has been a drop in the bucket compared to other low dollar times. I haven't dug out the details though.




bgc_fan said:


> ... But manufacturing is in a tough situation, which is why we should be looking more into other sectors, particularly in the hi-tech field. For example, Apple is opening up a research facility in Ottawa and Google opened up a new engineering HQ in Waterloo. Given that the expertise in Canada is similar to that in the US, the falling loonie gives more of a reason for these types of firms to have a footprint in Canada.


Question is ... can we keep it. Dell opened a new call centre to much fan fare in Ottawa then promptly terminated it.


Cheers


*PS*

The 2015 number is manufacturing added 11,600 new jobs where overall, Ontario lost 34,000 jobs. So where one fits the needs, a West to East move could work. With the overall numbers down, it does not seem like a "be happy, there are other locations" scenario.
http://business.financialpost.com/e...-job-in-2015-advanced-manufacturing-is-hiring


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

This fund already exists in Alberta. It is administered by the govt, but funded by all oilcos. They contract service companies to do the abandonments properly. So in essence, this is already being done. The issue is that with the downturn a lot of these smaller production companies are going belly up, and the fund is taking over more of these orphan wells than they normally do. Plus their funding is dropping. So while they are still doing abandonments, their backlog is growing.

If one were to presume that it would be the public's job to clean them up in the end regardless (even if it shouldn't be), then fine, expansion of this program seems like a good idea. And then reset the contribution rates so that it's self sustaining going forward at a $25 oil price. Any surplus can be rebated back to oilcos in the future.

These orphan wells aren't really problematic. There's really nothign left in them, they've been sucked dry. The issue is possible lack on containment in the well bore and getting cross contamination between water sources which might damage drinking aquifers. But also rare since the good aquifers are high up and the 'bad' ones are lower. And water doesn't go uphill. Might also be issues with small amount of gas escaping. Really a problem if its sour.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> The first string being giving up equity in the company.
> The billions that were given in the bailout ended up giving the Canadian government around 11% equity in GM ...
> So, do you think any of the oil companies are willing to give up a piece of their equity?


When all other viable alternatives disappear so that it is give up equity or disappear, I expect they would.

Like GM, living to fight another day means there is always the chance of buying out the gov't. Disappearing means one will have to start from scratch in the future, where there may be not much left to build upon, in term of a workforce.

AFAICT ... the existing players were hostile to the setup of PetroCanada as a crown corp in 1975 yet somehow they were able to buy *before* the NEP came into being.


There is what one wants and then there's what may have to happen.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> When all other viable alternatives disappear so that it is give up equity or disappear, I expect they would.
> 
> Like GM, living to fight another day means there is always the chance of buying out the gov't. Disappearing means one will have to start from scratch in the future, where there may be not much left to build upon, in term of a workforce.
> 
> ...


The other factor is the fact that I haven't heard any oil companies asking for a bailout. Unless you are saying that the Canadian government should ask every company to see if they want/need help like Quebec did for Bombardier. Otherwise, I would say let them go.

Again, the problem is that oil sands extraction is expensive and producers have to sell at a discount due to the extra refining that is required, I.e. limited refineries that can handle the crude. So fundamentally, these operations are not economically viable compared to alternatives. Maybe in the future when all the 'cheap' oil is gone from Saudi Arabia, these oil sources will become more viable due to scarcity. But then we would be looking at the long game, decades away.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> The other factor is the fact that I haven't heard any oil companies asking for a bailout.


Some on this thread were ... but I doubt the gov't is going to offer unless they ask as there's lots of other items with dollars to be spent on.




bgc_fan said:


> Unless you are saying that the Canadian government should ask every company to see if they want/need help like Quebec did for Bombardier.


I seem to recall the auto sector and Bombardier being on whatever gov't they could think of doorstep. 




bgc_fan said:


> Again, the problem is that oil sands extraction is expensive and producers have to sell at a discount due to the extra refining that is required, I.e. limited refineries that can handle the crude.
> 
> So fundamentally, these operations are not economically viable compared to alternatives. Maybe in the future when all the 'cheap' oil is gone from Saudi Arabia, these oil sources will become more viable due to scarcity. But then we would be looking at the long game, decades away.


 ... not sure what you are trying to convince me of as I've seen the oil patch cycle many times.

My point was that is a cycle where no one knows when it will take off or drop again. 

As I say, my co-worker was positive a down cycle with resulting low gas prices was not possible in our lifetimes yet from my perspective, here it is again.


Cheers


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> I seem to recall the auto sector and Bombardier being on whatever gov't they could think of doorstep.


Like I said, it was the companies approaching the governments for help. I haven't heard anything about oil companies going to the governments for help other than the Alberta government asking the federal government for help. Has there been some movement where the oil companies have gotten together on a common front to ask for aid from the governments?



Eclectic12 said:


> ... not sure what you are trying to convince me of as I've seen the oil patch cycle many times.
> 
> My point was that is a cycle where no one knows when it will take off or drop again.
> 
> As I say, my co-worker was positive a down cycle with resulting low gas prices was not possible in our lifetimes yet from my perspective, here it is again.


Like that meme about Albertan bumper stickers in the 1980s asking God to please let there be another oil boom, we promise we won't waste it this time?

My point is that oil sands extraction is expensive. You can agree to that right? You can also agree that the resultant product is sold at a discount because of two reasons: transport from Alberta and extra refining costs/effort, i.e. fewer refineries can handle Western Select oil. So we have a product that costs more to make, and sold for less than other products on the market. If it wasn't oil, would it make fiscal sense to go into a business like this?


----------



## Mechanic (Oct 29, 2013)

While I fully support the oilfield industry, I also can't help but figure the outrageous salaries are a big part of why our production costs are so high. I can see a lot of re-hires at some point, at lower salaries.


----------



## fraser (May 15, 2010)

Oil is not a new industry but this downturn is dramatically different than others of the past. It is partly based on technological advances. There have been substantial changes in the technology that is/has reducing the cost of bringing product to the surface. These changes are/will be industry game changers.


----------



## OhGreatGuru (May 24, 2009)

My first reaction was "Why should the taxpayer clean up the environmental messes made by rich oil companies?" But if the situation is as nobleea describes, where many of these sites are the responsibility of small drilling companies that are now either bankrupt or insolvent, then I guess a case can be made for taxpayer funding to fix the problem.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Interesting that Nobleea also touched on leaking gas.

The recent methane leak in California has sparked closer scrutiny and testing new air quality testing around natural gas infrastructure and the results have been startling to say the least.

Virtually all across the natural gas infrastructure, methane is leaking. As it is colorless and odorless through most of the infrastructure nobody had a grasp on the size of the problem.

The "fix" isn't usually complicated or necessarily expensive. It is often the case that a valve seal is leaking or the valve was left partially open, seals around joints etc..........so another possible immediate job creation plan would be to check and upgrade the complete gas network from start to finish.

The taxpayer may not be responsible, but at the end of the day we either fix it or we don't and we happen to need to create jobs with money allocated to infrastructure, so it is a perfect time to get going.

Canada could easily spend $100 Billion dollars on infrastructure today, that will service our needs for the next 30,50, 100 years and when thought of that way, the cost is a billion or two a year over time.

We can spend today or we will have to spend in the future when it will cost more.

Our city has had a couple of downtown "sinkholes" due to leaking underground water pipes that are almost 100 years old. We can fix them or hope the downtown section of the city doesn't disappear into a giant sinkhole.

New water delivery pipes, public transit, roads and bridges, sewer plants, community centers, the needs are great, because for too many years politicians from all levels of government have made the easy choice of deferring infrastructure spending. It was too easy to raid capital funds set aside for infrastructure needs in order to balance budgets.

I don't agree with the concept of government/business partnerships in infrastructure simply because business only wants the profitable ventures and if a venture is profitable.......the taxpayer should keep it themselves to offset the costs of the unprofitable ventures.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Hundreds of thousands of abandoned wells in Alberta and Saskatchewan, with the governments paying rent of $3000 to $5000 a year to landowners when the companies disappear.

Now would be a good time to employ people to cap the wells and reclaim the land, and also to examine the licensing of small oil companies that can drill wells and then vanish into the night.

http://business.financialpost.com/n...s-abandoned-on-albertans-land?__lsa=147e-99bb


----------



## olivaw (Nov 21, 2010)

There are probably about 1,000 *orphaned* wells in Alberta. (those that are no longer controlled by a producer). Others may be *abandoned* but they are not orphaned. The responsible producers have determined that it is cheaper to pay rent than to cap the well and restore the land. I believe that we should require producers to conduct ongoing site cleanup. We shouldn't allow them to offload the problem onto taxpayers.


----------



## Eclectic12 (Oct 20, 2010)

bgc_fan said:


> ... Has there been some movement where the oil companies have gotten together on a common front to ask for aid from the governments?


Not that I've heard of ... so I expect the standard "shelve it until prices improve" is going to be the order of the day.
Buyouts from others likely are next on the list.




bgc_fan said:


> ... My point is that oil sands extraction is expensive. You can agree to that right?


AFAICT ... the main point we disagreed on was whether an oil exec would ever exchange equity for a bailout.


Cheers


----------



## nobleea (Oct 11, 2013)

sags said:


> The recent methane leak in California has sparked closer scrutiny and testing new air quality testing around natural gas infrastructure and the results have been startling to say the least.
> 
> Virtually all across the natural gas infrastructure, methane is leaking. As it is colorless and odorless through most of the infrastructure nobody had a grasp on the size of the problem.


IIRC, the leak in California was from a salt storage cavern. This is the 'oil tank' where they store natural gas. Alberta has many salt caverns were we store natural gas, and it's a very common way to store it. It sounds like one of the older wells attached to the cavern failed, hence the leak. A proper abandonment of said well would have prevented it, though I would like to believe that Canada is a bit smarter in ensuring that there are no old wells remotely close to NG salt storage caverns.

Separately, a push in both AB and Sask in the last 5-10 years has been to reduce the amount of venting. You see, almost every well produces NG in some quantity. In oil wells, it is usually a small quantity. If it's too small, or if NG collection and pipeline capacity is not present, the gas is useless. It used to be vented, that is exhausted to the atmosphere. They are moving to eliminate venting and burning it instead. Sounds bad, but the methane is far worse as a GHG than CO2. Burning it helps eliminate the sour components and other gases that may be present (it's never pure CH4)


----------



## bgc_fan (Apr 5, 2009)

Eclectic12 said:


> AFAICT ... the main point we disagreed on was whether an oil exec would ever exchange equity for a bailout.


I'm not sure if that's the main point we were disagreeing about. I was just putting up factors that people tend to overlook when they say, "But the Auto industry, Bombardier, why are they getting bailouts", and don't look at some of the factors in play. One of the factors is economic viability. Evidently, for the auto sector, they needed some stop gap funding before becoming profitable. Bombardier is a toss-up. If they can actually secure orders for the C-series and just need some operating cash, it may work out. The oil sands are a little different in that they may not be economonically viable for a while and is highly dependent on oil prices (outside their control). That plus the fact that they cost more to operate and get less in revenue that their conventional oil competitors per barrel. So, if you were presented a business case like this to the bank (for any other product), do you think you would normally get a loan for it?


----------

