Quote:
Originally Posted by vajennasguy
I work as a power engineer at one of the sites that laid 1000 contractors off. The main company that got booted off site provided a lot of the labourers. I used to work 3 hours out of a 12 hour shift, now I work 4 because I have to shovel my own walkways and clean my own workspace.
This amounts to you admitting you earn about 33% of your salary.... cool. But then, I guess I asked what you do. Sounds like you're not actually in the extraction side of the process.
Nonetheless, I guess you're trying to suggest that your company only laid off some people who shovel and clean, so you speak for all Tar Sands production when you claim the overall business model is in great shape despite the 50% drop in oil price. Makes sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vajennasguy
So yeah, production hasn't gone down.
What, at your alleged site? That tells us little, even if true.
I assume you're trying to defend Tar Sands as a whole,
which provides a paltry 2-3% of global consumption, for all that pollution and drama regarding pipeline capacity. While production of your crap-grade oil holds "steady" for now for contracts locked in, the near future doesn't look good, and I think you know it. How do you think the Fort Hills and Cenovus Narrows Lake projects look now after assuming $100 oil last year? Fort Hills is looking at something like a 5.7% return with prices this low? Ouch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vajennasguy
The $80 or $90 break even point or whatever it was includes expansion costs in the expenses. These are capital expenditures that should be amortized over years. You can google it for yourself.
You mean like you did? I don't need to google it. I know it.
If you expect to grow, you constantly have expansion costs. If you don't expect to grow, your dog is this fight just rolled over and exposed its belly. That's pretty much why Energy Aspects put it that way. ... you know "full-cycle" costs.
It's striking that you'd object in an attempt to dismiss CAPEX, while ignoring the fact that the graph you trolled over did not even include dividends and interest payments. Of course, there's environmental and litigation costs that aren't considered either, which people like you insist is always someone else's problem. The biosphere, however, can't be privatized, and doesn't care how you acknowledge some costs while ignoring others.
I'd say the graph was quite generous to your horrid industry, in the larger picture.
You can object all you like, but in the end, Canadian Tar Sands makes up a tiny percentage of the energy pie, isn't predicted to grow (without prices that break economies), and won't ever come close to making up for dying existing capacity of far better crude sources.
Unconventional oil production is doomed. You're gonna need to come to grips with it within the next 4-5 years any way you slice it. Or don't. Up to you.
Last edited by JiggsCasey; 02-13-2015 at 06:21 PM.