Disraeli
Active Member
I highly doubt a Biden presidency is going to make a dent in U.S. shale production.
|
|
|
Calgary & Alberta Economy
- Thread starter Oddball
- Start date
darwink
Senior Member
Keystone XL would be the largest effect. Internal regulations on shale, nah, maybe the water disposal rules changes costs a bit.
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
Biden would have the authority to rescind Trump's approval of Keystone XL. I assume by executive order, he may have the authority to ban fracking on federal land which is a statement he has already made.
As for limiting further growth of fossil fuels, that would require some policy moves and bills that congress would have to approve. Like Canada, the U.S has some massive debt incurred by COVID. They will have to pay for things and the proceeds from O&G exports is one way to do it. Common business sense should prevail in both countries ... I hope!
As for limiting further growth of fossil fuels, that would require some policy moves and bills that congress would have to approve. Like Canada, the U.S has some massive debt incurred by COVID. They will have to pay for things and the proceeds from O&G exports is one way to do it. Common business sense should prevail in both countries ... I hope!
darwink
Senior Member
How much fracking is on federal land? Maybe in New Mexico.
And yeah, the Presidential permit since it continues to be challenged in court, the executive can decide to stop the defence - much easier than directly stopping it since directly stopping it you probably end up back in the same mess as Trump with the administration act.
And yeah, the Presidential permit since it continues to be challenged in court, the executive can decide to stop the defence - much easier than directly stopping it since directly stopping it you probably end up back in the same mess as Trump with the administration act.
I'm not sure how the ban on Fracking would work. An outright ban would be a bad move for Biden IMO. Better to keep up the rhetoric, but not actually do anything. I suppose if they did ever ban it outright it would benefit us. We could at least get a better price for the oil we already ship.
darwink
Senior Member
Off of federal lands they can't ban fracking, but they can make disposal of produced water way more expensive, solely by requiring similar disposal standards as here in Alberta. In lots of the USA produced water can be dumped into municipal disposal systems with no consideration of toxicity since federal rules were repealed and states without long experience with oil and gas were left with inadequate rules.
Chowda7
Active Member
$280M earmarked for development of emissions reduction technology in Alberta
The provincial and federal governments are investing up to $280 million into three Emissions Reduction Alberta (ERA) programs, designed to reduce carbon emissions while creating jobs in the province.
edmonton.ctvnews.ca
JonnyCanuck
Senior Member
So with a Biden win, Keystone XL is probably toast. I doubt whether our federal government will lobby hard to get Biden to change his mind.
My larger concern is the $1.5 billion stake the Alberta government made in the pipeline. Has that payment been made or presumably it was it going to be in stages? I think I read that there was a $1.5 billion loss on the rail car purchase contract that was cancelled by the UCP and of course AIMCO lost $4 billion in investments during the COVID market panic. I have not heard whether they have made any of that back since.
Going back a few more years, there was another disastrous investment in the Sturgeon refinery.
That's a lot of money that has been wasted by a province that has been severely weakened by lower oil & gas revenues.
My larger concern is the $1.5 billion stake the Alberta government made in the pipeline. Has that payment been made or presumably it was it going to be in stages? I think I read that there was a $1.5 billion loss on the rail car purchase contract that was cancelled by the UCP and of course AIMCO lost $4 billion in investments during the COVID market panic. I have not heard whether they have made any of that back since.
Going back a few more years, there was another disastrous investment in the Sturgeon refinery.
That's a lot of money that has been wasted by a province that has been severely weakened by lower oil & gas revenues.
darwink
Senior Member
I'd say Keystone XL might not be as dead as people are saying. We both over estimated how much Trump's approval was worth, and how much a President can do to undo it after the fact, at least in the case of the border crossing. Sure, we won't get a new border crossing Presidential permit, but undoing an old one isn't as easy as signing an executive order, as the crossing is done.
The river crossings though, the pipeline needs to cross the Missouri River or major tributaries at least twice. When the court quashed permit 12 which changed the environmental liability and assessment requirement for building around rivers/wetlands, the Trump administration's attempts to speed up processes instead led to the processes being stopped (remind you of anything that happened in Canada?). Denying permits for river crossings when the proper process is followed isn't something the executive branch could do to only one project while letting similar ones go forward . They might be left with two options: end all new liquid pipelines that need federal permits, or allow Keystone XL.
I am not sure what the government would choose to do under those circumstances.
The river crossings though, the pipeline needs to cross the Missouri River or major tributaries at least twice. When the court quashed permit 12 which changed the environmental liability and assessment requirement for building around rivers/wetlands, the Trump administration's attempts to speed up processes instead led to the processes being stopped (remind you of anything that happened in Canada?). Denying permits for river crossings when the proper process is followed isn't something the executive branch could do to only one project while letting similar ones go forward . They might be left with two options: end all new liquid pipelines that need federal permits, or allow Keystone XL.
I am not sure what the government would choose to do under those circumstances.
Biden has talked about stopping Fracking, which would ultimately help Alberta. How much he actually died to stop fracking is anyone’s guess right now, but even curtailing it could help Alberta if the US became a net importer again.
Right now the US has energy independence and I imagine it’s hard to purposely reverse that.
Right now the US has energy independence and I imagine it’s hard to purposely reverse that.
Nimbus
Active Member
If the Republicans keep the Senate doesn't that add another element that may keep Keystone XL alive?
darwink
Senior Member
Not really - only legislation can undo Executive Orders, legislation cannot force the executive to issue permits, plus that would require the House too. Even when the Rs controlled all three branches, they did not pass legislation letting Keystone XL bypass all sorts of processes. It might be possible to bypass the President on all but the border crossing which is already built but getting permission to startup over the border would be flimsy.
The regulatory nets the USA has created make Canada's process look super easy in comparison (for federal jurisdiction infrastructure).
Now - if the Rs are ready to play ball on climate policy I could see a grand bargain (unlikely but who knows once they are into their warring states period post Trump):
- Keystone XL and other pipelines allowed to follow existing processes, and the executive pledges not to block permits on climate grounds
- Clean water rules adopted federally to mirror Texas's rules, not a new set of federal rules (fracking regulation)
- An economy wide price on carbon, except for farmers, and with a household rebate for heating and fuel based on consumption of a cold midwest suburb
Last edited:
It's probably not a big deal for the R's, but it does help the U.S. economy, as they can sell their own oil to other countries at a higher price than they are paying for our oil. It seems like it would be easy revenue for them if they can get more of our oil, and sell more of theirs to world markets.
darwink
Senior Member
The oil market doesn’t work like that though you wouldn’t know it from 95% of the coverage of the industry.
UrbanWarrior
Senior Member
Hi Fi just announced they are closing permanently.