Talk:Ovintiv

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled[edit]

This page is not currently neutral and impartial. The environmental practices section is coped from the EnCana webpage and does not reflect any of the past or current legal action around EnCana:

The recent B.C. EnCana explosions are near Kelly Lake, where a group called the Kelly Lake Metis Settlement Society launched a lawsuit in 2004 complaining the company wasn't consulting properly about developments that could "threaten the continued existence" of the community.

The lawsuit was dropped in 2006 after an out-of-court settlement, though EnCana says the terms of the agreement are confidential.

EnCana has faced other legal threats over the years, including a class action lawsuit it settled earlier this year over royalty payments in Colorado.

In Alberta, the Department of National Defence has joined environmental groups in raising concerns at public hearings about EnCana's proposed shallow gas project near Suffield National Wildlife Area.

And last summer, residents of Kelly Lake, B.C., held a road block to protest oil and gas activity in the region. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.231.110.50 (talk) 01:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In a report appended to the City of Prince George Clean Air Task Force Report, UNBC researcher Gail Millar makes concerning observations about industrial emissions in this city.

1. "Northwood and P.G. Pulp particulate emissions (on a per unit of production basis) were higher than average relative to all pulp mills considered" (pulp mills considered in this review include 20 from various parts of North America and Finland).

2. "The largest industrial sulphur dioxide emitter is the Prince George Husky Oil refinery . . . ranking a distant third out of 12 refineries considered" (on basis of per unit of processing) -- according to most recent reported data.

3. The report fails to draw any conclusions about Prince George sawmills, as emissions data are scant and what is available is based on crude estimates rather than measurements.

These three observations are very sad when viewed in the context of Prince George, a very degraded airshed with numerous reports of childhood asthma and other respiratory ailments within the city's population. These lacking industrial standards and practices are absolutely unacceptable when considering the health of the people living and working in Prince George.

It is imperative our local provincial MLAs advocate for legal changes to address these issues and that the local Ministry of Environment office be more diligent in monitoring and setting more rigorous permit conditions for these companies.

Our health is at stake.

Can we remove the above unsigned rants? Contributions to the talk page must be related to improvement of the article, but the above "BC-Commie" nonsense is completely off-topic Santamoly (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portmanteau[edit]

The intro says the name is a portmanteau of Energy, Canada and Alberta, but I don't see Alberta's contribution to the name... M.Nelson (talk) 04:46, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


ENergy CANada Alberta. 50.98.158.126 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write[edit]

I'm going to begin a re-write to divide the article into meaningful sections, include criticism in the related areas, and provide some flow to the article. Max.inglis (talk) 15:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carsen - unless you can provide a good reason, I'm going to revert the article to the re-writes I made. I removed self-promotional material, unsourced items, and grouped the article into more meaningful sections. I'm guessing your promotion elsewhere of the facebook group and encanalies.com page means that you're somehow involved in the administration of those and have interest in those remaining in the article. Please read WP:NOTSOAPBOXMax.inglis (talk) 15:16, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree. This article needs to be neutral and unbiased, but the history section is written to reframe Encana as a "repeat offender" of sorts. Right or wrong, that's not the purpose of this article.Landroo (talk) 18:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Units[edit]

The convert function 1.2 trillion cubic feet (34 km3) is not correct. Nobody measures a quantity of gas by cubic kilometers. Energy units should be used here. Also, a "billion" can be either 1,000,000,000 (one thousand million=109) or 1,000,000,000,000 (one million million=1012) depending on who's talking and where you're from. Santamoly (talk) 16:53, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Encana. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:52, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 31 October 2019[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move at this time. bd2412 T 02:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Encana → Ovintiv – Consistent with WP:COMMONNAME and, upon finalization of both the proposed name change to Ovintiv and the re-domiciling from Calgary to Houston, this article should be renamed to Ovintiv. A three-month lag time seems both prudent for reasons that are two-fold: (1) it allows the company to complete the name change and (2) by then, the press coverage of this company will using 100% the proposed new name. Note that, upon closing, the company's official name should be noted in the Lede consistent with WP:MOS. Doug Mehus (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely support the move, which honestly can be done manually the same day as the company's name change happens (whenever that is). Radagast (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Radagast Yeah, won't require WP:Page mover permissions, either. I just thought I'd establish a consensus process, so an editor doesn't try creating a new article which would thus necessitate a merge from this article into that new stub-class article. Note, too, that the categories will need to be reconciled with the company's re-domicile to Texas and WikiProjects updated for this article. The ensuing Encana redirect's talk page could still maintain Redirect-class WikiProject references. To non-involved editor closer, if closing this move immediately at 7 days, we probably should not make the move until the effective date of the common and official name change in early January 2020, so will want to either diarize the effective date of the move and do it then, or just hold off closing until January (it's not uncommon for move or merge requests to remain open for months, even years, in some cases). --Doug Mehus (talk) 17:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Close as the request is to do a move in January. It is not common for move requests to be held open for months. power~enwiki (π, ν) 18:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Power~enwiki I disagree; look at the outstanding mergers, which are not demonstrably different procedure wise (different templates to subst). Nevertheless, I support a procedural close only on the condition that in the closing rationale, the non-involved editor or administrator states that no pre-emptive move is to take place prior to the name change becoming official, to protect against editors from taking unilateral, fourth-dimensional, and, thus, erroneous, editing moves. --Doug Mehus (talk) 18:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is alot of pointless and unnecessary process wonkery. I have created the new name as a redirect to this article. Anybody looking under the new name will be directed to the article and the move can be made once the name change is official without any discussion. -- Whpq (talk) 13:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose If I understand this correctly, the company will change its name to something else, and so the proposal is to move it to that new name once they've completed the process. That's not how WP:COMMONNAME works. Either Ovintiva is how sources refer to the company or it isn't. Per WP:OFFICIALNAME we don't blindly follow official names, so unless the bulk of contemporary English sources refer to this company by its new rather than old name, it should stay where it is. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wugapodes, Thank you for your reply, but I would encourage you to change your !vote, possibly to a comment, because the name Encana is not going to exist as either official name or common name. Once the name is ratified by shareholders at the January 2020 meeting, the resolution being put forth will affect the names of Ovintiv's Canadian subsidiary. Thus, there will no longer be any common usage of the name Encana (at the subsidiary or parent company level). If a new company was being created, I'd support tagging this company as defunct, but that's not what's happening.
    See Whpq's response above. Whpq, thank you for creating a redirect, which will require an admin or page mover editor to perform the name change following consensus in the new year. I was worried that our discussing had prompted someone to create a new article to boost their AfC stats. :( Doug Mehus (talk) 19:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Shareholders changing the name of a company doesn't mean we have to change the name, in fact, common name says the exact opposite: Wikipedia does not necessarily use the subject's "official" name as an article title; it generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources). The name doesn't suddenly disappear from use in some Damnatio memoriae, and wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Unless you can show that independent, reliable sources have stopped referring to this company by the name Encana, common name says the page should remain here unless and until that happens. Wug·a·po·des​ 19:51, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    Wugapodes, Maybe my proposal was WP:TOOSOON, and I know how WP:COMMONNAME works, but I was just using common sense with my very reasonable "crystal ball"-esque prediction that common usage would become Ovintiv. Even Whpq accepted that this would become the very likely common name. It sounds like your !vote isn't so much an oppose as an oppose right now on grounds of it being WP:TOOSOON, which is broadly in line with Whpq's comment & redirect creation/reservation and Power~enwiki's procedural close. Doug Mehus (talk) 20:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ovintiv&oldid=1209570077"