Letters To The Editor

i enjoyed reading the article written by Elsie Ross on heavy oil as the story is starting to get around.  I did find one error which I'd like to bring to your attention.  Near the end of the article you quote Palliser's water handling costs as $15/bbl for new wells and $22/bbl for reactivated wells; in fact these are the all-in operating costs for the wells as water handling costs are under $2/bbl for trucking and disposing.  Knowledgeable readers will likely know the water handling costs quoted are unrealistic but some might take the information at face value.  Our heavy oil wells have netbacks ranging from $25/bbl to as high as $40/bbl which would not be possible if water handling costs were as high as quoted.

The graph for 2007 adds to 103 percent. The Nuclear in 2007 should be 11 % not 14.

Farhood Rahnama

Chief Economist ERCB

Medvedev conveniently fails to mention that MOST conventional gas production requires hydraulic fracturing. This is a smoke screen to try and put environmentalist pressure on North American gas producers by scaring the general population.

If these quotes are accurate, this person has a very naive and narrow perspective on the oil and gas exploration business.  These are quotes aimed at those who may live in the primarily consuming portions of the US whose idea of the business has been formed from television and Hollywood.

  You can count on a unity crisis happening how can western Canadians tolerate this kind of unequal treatment this cannot be stated enough to eastern Canadians especially based on one of the biggest scams in modern history manmade climate change a gigantic hoax. 

How much would it cost to instead build a replacement plant that burns natural gas, or to convert this plant to burn natural gas? 

excellent

I'd just like to know where you got the quote to convert a vehicle to natural gas for $600.  The quotes we're looking at for our operator's trucks are more in the $10,000 range.  It would sure be nice to drive the cost of conversion down!

The term "Global Warming" is neither current nor applicable when referencing increasing CO2 concentrations because the global temperature has been cooling since the year 2000 while CO2 concentrations have been increasing steadily and the new term is "Climate Change".  Perhaps the lack of correlation between global temperatures and CO2 should be a top world priority for this UN conference?

To who it may concern,

I feel both SEPAC and CAPP are missing the point. The incentives are nice, but what both the conventional oil and natural gas industry needs is some level of royalty certainty.  The PC gov't has proved time and again that they will change royalty structures at a whim, to buy votes from the vast majority of the population who do not understand the business that drives Alberta's economy. 

I believe that the only way to provide a level of certainty is that all oil and gas leases sold by this crown should have the royalty rate stipulated in the lease effective for the term of the lease. Hence, the industry can make their  investment decision on that rate.  If the rate is too high the lease will not be bought, too low and the lease may garner a premium price.  Also, the goverment may change the royalty rate, every sale if they see fit. It may also spur drilling activity; a company with low royalty leases may decide to drill those leases before they expire. Furthermore, this is how the private sector sells oil and gas leases.  A fee title lease, be it from farmer Brown or Encana has the royalty rate indicated on the lease for the term of the lease.

I as an oil and gas executive would like to see SEPAC and CAPP take this approach with the Stelmach gov't. It is very difficult to make an informed business decision if I do not know what the fiscal regime of the province is going to be.  Trying to find the hydrocarbons is hard enough, then we have to predict  its price and now the royality rate. It's a wonder that their are any rigs working in Alberta.