Houston oil and gas on a slippery slope

[grassfarmer]

Sure glad to have left the shady dealings of the oil patch behind. That was always the nightmare waiting to happen - contaminated water, contaminated land - oil companies benefit and farmers pay the cost. Clearing up wellheads is one thing but they were never going to remove the pipes underground. Thousands of miles of pipe that will corrode in time and once water gets into them, runs through them and reappears on your neighbours land YOU are liable for the contamination caused. Maybe some of the gung-ho oil industry supporters should think about this when they champion oil and write of alternate power sources as uneconomic? Doesn't make oil look so cheap when you consider it is produced with little (if any) royalty paid on it and the cost of cleanup may exceed the value of production and that cost will be borne by the tax payer.

[checking]

I getting tired of why should the taxpayer be on the hook for clean up of the energy industries messes?

The answer is that ruling governments put in office by those same taxpayers enact legislation that creates impediments to land protection through Boards of Arbitration to settle disputes between landholders and the energy industry. This allows no real negotiation to happen, like pipeline removal, like immediate suspended well reclamation, like a host of ugly things such as off site spills that all they want to do is pay crop loss on, until they don't, and if you attempt to really protect your land, said mineral developer will take you to that low ball government board that won't protect your land like you could protect your land, if they got to hell out of the way.

You bet the taxpayer should be on the hook since it is their government that hasn't the fortitude to upfront all the costs from cradle to grave for those mineral extractions. Someone needs to be kicked into a furrow, and covered over.

[hgb]

Well chuck, maybe Houston should be steadfast about living up to contracts,
I only posted the facts as I was told by head office Calgary, that the payments are being with held on all non-producing gas wells. Trying to keep head above water was the offices exact words.
They are not the first or will they be the last gas company to have financial troubles. If they are just using the tight economic time to ditch old wells leaving it for the government to take care of, cheeses me off.
I would be happy if my Houston wells were reclaimed, they are eye sores I do the complete maintainace around these wells, inactive for over 15 years. You may be correct that reclamation and accountability is a strong point of theirs, so much so they just haven't had time to the ones on my land.
I neither slammed them or made accusations on my original post, I only posted so other land owners would take notice and act if they are in a none payment situation with abyone as filling out a section 36 form is an important step to have completed if a company is headed to bankruptcy.
Enough said just the facts.

[grassfarmer]

I guess by the same token there shouldn't have been any public outcry over the Khadr and the earlier Arar payouts by Canadian Governments? The people elect the Government so it's their fault.

[oneoff]

Like I said; don't be so hasty at the beginning of the deal...when there are some opportunities to potentially advance the cause of a reasonable, well thought out long term deal. That begins with seeking others previous experience and attempting to build upon that foundation.

It isn't and won't be all cake and/or gravy.

[chuckChuck]

There's a lot of evidence ofdining off someone else's cake and expecting it to remain an endless supply.

The comment about never wanting to assume an oil company liability is the only way to approach someone else's potentially bottomless cleanup bill.
Now one knows how long or how extensive the cleanup can be.

It's also disingenuous to lap up all the gravy and near the end to complain about what is left. Remember you don't know whom the oil company asset owner will be tomorrow; and you certainly have no input into whom that might be.

Infrastructure is a necessity to any development. Those necessary gathering lines and well heads and processing plants are essential as long as everyone remains dependent on fossil fuel based transportation; steel and material production; power for refining and processing and people movement at all stages of an industrial based economy.

So be careful when taking the advice of hypocritical commentors who couldn't function without the existence of the fuel sources that they disparage.

...and of course promote some alternative that would currently immerse society in a shocking crisis if they practiced their proposals and required other more significant producers to change their ways immediately.

We are all currently dependent on oil and gas to fuel our economy, but that doesn't change the fact there are legitimate concerns about how the oil industry operates and what it does to cover the cost of cleaning up abandoned facilities.

Germany, Denmark and several other European countries have very significant amounts of renewable electricity sources , and bio-fuels. Are you suggesting that Germany the largest and strongest industrial economy in Europe is in crisis? Because you are wrong again.

[oneoff]

There have been times when I've wondered if the energy source change statements from eco energy promoters are coming from the same sources that once in a while admit that we are currently dependent on oil and gas to fuel our economy.

Wetern Canad is not Portugal nor some European country. Those who insinuate that we take someone else's lead are mostly wrong. They are definitely attempting to mislead and are most likely promoting self interests.

[chuckChuck]

There have been times when I've wondered if the energy source change statements from eco energy promoters are coming from the same sources that once in a while admit that we are currently dependent on oil and gas to fuel our economy.

Wetern Canad is not Portugal nor some European country. Those who insinuate that we take someone else's lead are mostly wrong. They are definitely attempting to mislead and are most likely promoting self interests.

Why do you assume that the world is so black and white? Perhaps it easier you to think in those terms?

Germany which I referenced is both a leader in renewable energy and dependent on fossil energy. This may be a novel concept for you, but it is possible to have both renewable energy sources and still be dependent on fossil energy supplies without creating a crisis or a contradiction.

You are correct in that European countries are quite different than Canada when it comes to our economies and energy needs. But we can learn from each other. Most of our democratic institutions, legal system, education system were based on European examples. So apparently we followed their lead on many things. So we must be misguided?

But why bring up Portugal when Norway has large supplies of fossil energy and is still moving to reduce dependence on fossil energy and reduce carbon emissions? This would be a more relevant comparison.

[oneoff]

When you or anyone demonstrates an on farm solar energy system to reliably and continuously run even one aeration fan at a time...I will be impressed. Until then quit promoting solar energy as the replacement for the Western Canadian energy needs.

Even if chuck understands we haven't even begun to bring enough such energy online to be significant; there's a whole crowd who doesn't even know where food originally comes from.

I don't see any of the climate change crowd ready to give up their entitlements; nor any recognition that not nearly everyone lives in a temperate climate (year round) that requires no or little supplemental heat; nor a recognition that fast transit is not an option; or even that freight subsidies might be an arguable topic.

Some stand to gain (or intend to gain) from a carbon tax; but someone else has to pay those bills and may well not be able to pass these costs along.

[chuckChuck]

There is no single solution to reduce carbon emissions. Solar is just one option in many to reduce carbon emissions.

Solar, wind, backed up by hydro, or natural gas would all be good options to reduce carbon emissions. SaskPower is investing in wind and solar and will hopefully start using more natural gas.

Canada has some of the largest renewable hydro resources in the world.

"Total electricity generation in Canada in 2015 was 635 terawatt hours. Hydro has the highest share of generation at 58.9%, followed by nuclear at 15%, coal at 9.6%, gas/oil/others at 10.6% and non-hydro renewables at 5.9%. ... Provincial electricity supply from hydroelectricity: Manitoba: 96.6%"

In Germany bio-gas electrical generation is part of many farms. There are a few examples in Canada of using animal manure bio-gas to make electricity.

So it is technically possible to use renewable energy system to run aeration fans continuously. Solar and hydro can be part of the system as well. All renewable forms.

You can even use an on farm natural gas generator for large loads, backup and solar if you want to go off the electrical grid!