Friday, December 13, 2013

Update-2: FP removes interesting piece of information from oilsands article with no explanation

So yesterday I came across an article on Cenovus and I found one paragraph particularly interesting, so I tweeted it.

Interestingly, the paragraph that contained that portion is now removed from the article. There is no record of an edit or mistake, just gone. Poof. It's interesting because that paragraph defines an unsustainable deteriorating condition in Alberta. If the future wealth is going to come from extreme energy, but extreme energy needs the profit from conventional energy to operate, we've got a problem don't we?

Oh well, gone now.


The author actually got back to me via Twitter. Here is the exchange:

Apparently it wasn't "removed" or changed, the article was simply replaced with a nearly identical article with the same title at the same URL. So, NOT a change, a replacement. Good thing that was cleared up eh?


CBC has the original article before "replacement":

Now that I have the full text of the two articles in front of me I can reference more than the one sentence I copied. It seems to me all of the information that defines what the *new* FP article describes as "getting a handle on rising operating costs and boost cash flow" is pretty well gone. All that remains is a light shell of the details provided in the "wire copy".

The entire outlook of the article has been altered replaced from a cautionary outlook on the cost of development, to a rosy outlook of the company's reactions in question.

Click here to recommend this post on and help other people find this information.

Richard Fantin is a self-taught software developer who has mostly throughout his career focused on financial applications and high frequency trading. He currently works for CenturyLink

Nazayh Zanidean is a Project Coordinator for a mid-sized construction contractor in Calgary, Alberta. He enjoys writing as a hobby on topics that include foreign policy, international human rights, security and systemic media bias.

No comments:

Post a Comment