Let's resume our discussion about Harper and the oil lobby

[Asher]

Haha, you ****.

1) Quebec will soon make billions too from patches found in the Gulf of the St. Lawrence

No, it'll never make billions per year from that.

2) What I criticized Alberta for, I'll criticize Quebec for
3) We have already established that Alberta's Quebec contribution to equalization was $1.4b, i.e. it's not "billions".

Semantics.

Only $1.4B per year, or about $700 per year per taxpayer from Alberta directly to poor third-world Quebec.

[Asher]

Except it's not humanity's future.

[Fake Boris]

So as soon as Quebec's oil yields around $1.4b, we'll call it semantics if it's not "billions".

[Asher]

You clearly don't understand the energy sector if you think Quebec could ever get close to $1.4B a year in oil royalties.

[Fake Boris]

For the uninformed crowd, Quebec's PM, John Charest, is a former federal conservative heavyweight.

He's already preparing his bid to be Harper's successor by favoring Albertan investors in extremely shady oil and gas deals.

[Asher]

The problem with Gulf of the St. Lawrence is this: it's 1-2 billion barrels of oil at most and it's in an incredibly environmentally sensitive area. Quebec is throwing a hissy fit over Alberta mining frozen tundra while they are considering drilling for oil in an area known for its diverse wildlife, fishing, and tourism industry?

For comparison, Alberta has proven and currently technologically/economically viable reserves of about 180 billion barrels.

Quebec doesn't even qualify as a small-time player.

[Fake Boris]

You clearly don't understand the energy sector if you think Quebec could ever get close to $1.4B a year in oil royalties.

Hydro-Quebec sold the rights to it in exchange for priority dues, so we wouldn't need to extract that much to get to $1.4b.

[Fake Boris]

The problem with Gulf of the St. Lawrence is this: it's 1-2 billion barrels of oil at most and it's in an incredibly environmentally sensitive area. Quebec is throwing a hissy fit over Alberta mining frozen tundra while they are considering drilling for oil in an area known for its diverse wildlife, fishing, and tourism industry?

For comparison, Alberta has proven and currently technologically/economically viable reserves of about 180 billion barrels.

Quebec doesn't even qualify as a small-time player.

Recent unexpected results have set hopes at around 30-40 billion barrels.

You are absolutely correct about the ecological factor. Hence "what I criticized Alberta for, I'll criticize Quebec for".

[Asher]

Hydro-Quebec sold the rights to it in exchange for priority dues, so we wouldn't need to extract that much to get to $1.4b.

Yes, you would...to get $1.4B per year.

[Asher]

Recent unexpected results have set hopes at around 30-40 billion barrels.

It's horse****.

[Fake Boris]

It's horse****.

I don't think so.

We're talking about unconventional shale oil, so as technology develops in the next few years, these barrels will become available.

But here's the real deal that convinces me that we're on to something bigger.

The rights to Gulf oil belonged to Hydro-Quebec, and exploration was conducted by government engineers. In a rather "strange" turn of event:

a) Hydro-Quebec sold the rights at an undisclosed price
b) The Ministry department was shut down and all 26 engineers were hired by the companies whom the rights were sold to
c) At the same time, Charest's government was cheerleading shale gas investments in other areas of Quebec, proclaiming that shale fossil fuels were Quebec's future

[Asher]

I don't think so.

I do, and the industry does.

Who is claiming it's anything beyond 2?

If we're counting "what if" technological scenarios, then Alberta has something like 1.2 trillion barrels.

[Fake Boris]

I am merely pointing out that the timely disbanding of government prospection by a cabinet nationally recognized for its corruption could very well be a sign that there's something real down there.

[regexcellent]

The amount of proven reserves is a fluctuating number dependent on prices.

Just like with minerals, where the word "ore" refers to reserves that can be profitably extracted, so the same rock can be ore at 100 feet depth and not be ore at 500 feet depth.

Whenever gas prices come back down again Alberta will have a much smaller amount of proven oil.

[Flubber]

Hydro-Quebec sold the rights to it in exchange for priority dues, so we wouldn't need to extract that much to get to $1.4b.

Lets assume a royalty rate of 14% for the ease of the math-- To get to 1,4 B you need to produce oil valued at 10 billion bucks per year. At 100 bucks a barrell thats 100 million barrells a year

That strikes me as a lot-- Obviously if your royalty rate is twice as high you need half as many barrells-- If the royalt is a net royalty of some form instead of a gross, then you might need additional production

I have not worked shale oil but I know that shale gas requires a lot of fractures which means very expensive wells which are less capable of maintaing a high royalty burden and remaining economic. Obviously the economics of oil are far superior to that of natyral gas but the fact remains that the plays must be competitive to be developped and the fact that Quebec is undevelopped emans that it lacks a lot of the needed infrastructure. Any ramp up will take time