waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 So you're saying the United States being self-relient is a bad thing then? nice strawman! If the price Canada pays is dependent on export and that market is drying up because of the Shale Boom, then why try and drill in New Brunswick and the Gaspe? Would there not be a domestic use for that gas? Or exporting to another market, not the US? huh! Now you're mixing Canadian exports with domestic use. Yes, as I stated, the U.S. 'shale boom' is a significant impact on Canadian pricing. New markets? Sure... see BC designs on LNG exports... see Kitimat port... see increased shipping with the "safe LNG cargo". By the by, the target gas fields won't rely on fracking extraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Yes I do. That's in abundance as well. Go spread your lies somewhere else. I'd suggest if you're going to claim "lies are being spread", you step up and go beyond your standard bombastic routine. Try to support your claim... rise above your half-truth modus operandi! Edited January 7, 2014 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 I'd suggest if you're going to claim "lies are being spread", you step up and go beyond your standard bombastic routine. Try to support your claim... rise above your half-truth modus operandi! Your claim is the new "peak oil" rubbish brought up back in the 1970s. Besides, even if there were a thousand years worth, you'd still be against it. So stop pretending that quantity is the reason you're against it. Because that's just more rubbish. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Your claim is the new "peak oil" rubbish brought up back in the 1970s. Besides, even if there were a thousand years worth, you'd still be against it. So stop pretending that quantity is the reason you're against it. Because that's just more rubbish. oil was not being discussed. Clearly, as is your way, you dropped into the thread without reading anything and showed your standard fail! Again, the only one talking about 'peak anything' was you. As before, step-up and support your assertion that, "I was/am spreading lies". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 oil was not being discussed. Clearly, as is your way, you dropped into the thread without reading anything and showed your standard fail! Again, the only one talking about 'peak anything' was you. As before, step-up and support your assertion that, "I was/am spreading lies". Nope, you absolutely did bring up peak shale. In fact, you accused somebody of "buying" into the 100+ years of availability. The fact is, you couldn't care less about whether it's 100 years, or 1000 years. So stop pretending that the quantity is any reason why you're against such production. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 7, 2014 Report Share Posted January 7, 2014 Nope, you absolutely did bring up peak shale. In fact, you accused somebody of "buying" into the 100+ years of availability. The fact is, you couldn't care less about whether it's 100 years, or 1000 years. So stop pretending that the quantity is any reason why you're against such production. no - the fracking discussion focus (on production, pricing, emissions, etc., impacts) was the U.S.. The referenced 100+ year availability figure is one well touted, well discussed, well analyzed... and it pertains to the U.S. market. Peak references are global in nature. Again, per your use of "moron" within your accompanying status update message, the only, as you said, "moron" discussing peak (anything) was you. per existing reserve estimates, aligning with the current relatively low U.S. consumption rate (low relative to existing production levels and available supply), the availability of that reserve estimate is said to be between 11 and 100 years of availability. Crank up the production to meet increased domestic consumption... or increased export marketing... and that availability years estimate gets 'tweaked' accordingly. Of course, that maximum 100 year availability estimate presumes upon classifying that estimate to define proven reserves, probable reserves, possible reserves and speculative reserve designations... each of which have associated qualifiers (e.g., can be produced commercially at 'x' discount rate, degrees of technical recoverability, presuming the discovering of new fields, outright (without any foundation) speculation, etc.) again, if you'd like to step-up and support your claim that, as you stated, "I was/am spreading lies", please do so. I would encourage you to bring forward your own estimates of that U.S. reserve and it's respective proven/probable/possible/speculative classifications. Along with doing that, feel free to apply your interpreted usage rate against that reserve... of course, make sure to highlight within that reserve, the number of years availability figure you arrive at. Waiting..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Here's a funny picture! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Brigitte DePappe again? This is, what, the fourth time (?) this professional protester has weaseled her way past security to protest. You'd think the RCMP would know to watch for her by now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boges Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 Brigitte DePappe again? This is, what, the fourth time (?) this professional protester has weaseled her way past security to protest. You'd think the RCMP would know to watch for her by now. Well Brigitte!!!! was a paige, all she had to do was smuggle a sign into her job. She got fired immediately. My favourite part of this story is the "dolt" hasn't ruled out legal action against the RMCP for being roughed up. LOL! Had you got that close to POTUS you'd be lucky to be still alive you putz! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 So standing near the Prime Minister is suddenly a crime? Listen to yourselves. The RCMP isn't even pressing charges. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) apparently... you've bought into the 100+ years of shale gas availability claims. Apparently... you either haven't heard of the 'shale gas bubble' or you simply choose to discount it. I don't really know what you're talking about, but I'm guessing you were probably one of the people warning of 'peak oil' too. What happened with that? You making the exact same argument this time, I guess because this time we are 'really' running out right? Edited January 8, 2014 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Not exactly. Cut demand by reducing waste (conservation) and switching energy sources to hydyo and geothermal where avaialble and nuclear - and some limitted use of wind/solar others. I agree those are good sources for static power needs, but you cannot run cars on them. We should moderately increase costs of fossil fuels in the OECD (carbon tax) and help poorer countries develop sustainably. Those are opposing goals. Increasing costs in the OECD will reduce, not improve poor countries development. Until fossil fuels run out, then what? The market will adapt, as it always has. No manipulation is required, the market will automatically price in reductions in supply, and incentivize new technological development and use accordingly. The perfect example was when this argument was used to rail about peak oil. Well that's pretty much disappeared now, due to market action. We don't need our governments to forcibly reduce our standard of living, the natural ebb and flow of available resources and their consequent effect on pricing will make that happen on it's own when or if it's necessary. Edited January 8, 2014 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 So standing near the Prime Minister is suddenly a crime? Listen to yourselves. The RCMP isn't even pressing charges.It is not a crime, but in a public and potentially hostile venue there is no way should anybody not vetted and examined by PM security should get close enough to kill the PM with a handheld rock. If I was an angry lunatic intent on getting my name in the news, I'd be paying close attention to how easy it was for this pair. No surprise that the RCMP would not press charges, they'd love this utter and epic failure at their jobs to just go away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hitops Posted January 8, 2014 Author Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) "How do we support those privileges? Politically with our systems, and economically with our development which is based on fossil fuel consumption. We are saying the same thing. " Not really. Our nominally democratic political system is not necessary to support development, nor is the cheap availaibility of fossil fuels. China is in the midst of an unprecendeted tsunami of devlopment and they have neither a democratic political system or access to cheap oil. Vietnam is another example. I was just in Panama, they are doing pretty well economically or at least a lot better than their neighbours in Central America. They don't have much to do with fossil fuel extraction or consumption, and only recently had any actual experience with democracy. You're joking right? Stability and security is absolutely necessary for development, which is either the state or civil society, usually both. Just look at the many places on earth with tremendous resources and total lack of development. And China's development is, just like everyone else, completely about increasing fuel consumption. They are the dirtiest, most polluting country on the planet right now, due to full-speed ahead coal burning. You're missing the point that while you don't need fossil fuels within your own borders, you need it from somewhere. The world runs on fossil fuels. no - currently, U.S. natural gas pricing has risen from it's lowest levels associated with the early rise of fracking... meanwhile U.S. shale gas production is at its highest ever level. Rising prices in the U.S. reflect a domestic consumption gap... and low(er) exports. Strictly, from a market perspective, the projected impact on Canada's diminishing exports to the U.S. will cause accompanying price increases for natural gas in Canada. You've got in backwards, reduced exports to the US means increased supply here. That would translate in reduced prices, just as it has. That means reduced profits for producers, but that's the risk they take. Edited January 8, 2014 by hitops Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 It was humorous to see how cool Harper was and was so quick to say "It wouldn't be BC without it". The audience got a big kick out of it. It's nice to see the man out of the Ottawa political bubble - his answers are never scripted or shallow - the guy knows his stuff. You may not like him - and may not vote for him - but he is well respected around the world - and in the business community. We could do a lot worse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) "Stability and security is absolutely necessary for development," I agree, but you related that to "our systems", meaning our political systems. That is simply not true, examples provided. Saudi Arabia would be another example: autocracy, safe, secure, wealthy. Edited January 8, 2014 by overthere Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
carepov Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I agree those are good sources for static power needs, but you cannot run cars on them. Unless you consider EVs. Also, to reduce fossil fuel consumption and CO2 emissions in the transportation sector, you can use more natural gas vehicles, you can make investments that reduce the amount of cars on the road, you can also.... Those are opposing goals. Increasing costs in the OECD will reduce, not improve poor countries development. Not if it done right. It's similar to what you just wrote about natural gas prices in Canada. If the OECD countries increase energy costs but and cut energy demand this will effectively increase global energy supplies and the price of energy should go down for developing economies. The market will adapt, as it always has. No manipulation is required, the market will automatically price in reductions in supply, and incentivize new technological development and use accordingly. The perfect example was when this argument was used to rail about peak oil. Well that's pretty much disappeared now, due to market action. We don't need our governments to forcibly reduce our standard of living, the natural ebb and flow of available resources and their consequent effect on pricing will make that happen on it's own when or if it's necessary. First of all, the market is far from perfect (see 2008). Second, there are plenty of actions that we can take to reduce energy consumption without reducing our standard of living. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/energy/debunking-myths-about-nuclear-fuel-coal-wind-solar-10 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 I don't really know what you're talking about, but I'm guessing you were probably one of the people warning of 'peak oil' too. What happened with that? You making the exact same argument this time, I guess because this time we are 'really' running out right? allrightee... Another guy who can't discuss without throwing down a strawman! No one said anything about peak anything. I did make reference to the relatively quick exhaustion of the easily accessible 'low hanging fruit' wells... I did make reference to U.S. shale gas reserve estimates, categorizations within the reserve estimates, factors affecting usage rates, current usage rate, the range of availability (in years) in consideration of reserve estimate and usage rate, etc.. If you have concerns with the estimates/figures I referenced, you certainly have the ready opportunity to speak to your own understanding & interpretation of gas shale reserve estimates. Here... take the same questions/challenge put to the other guy: I would encourage you to bring forward your own estimates of that U.S. reserve and it's respective proven/probable/possible/speculative classifications. Along with doing that, feel free to apply your interpreted usage rate against that reserve... of course, make sure to highlight within that reserve, the number of years availability figure you arrive at. Waiting..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 (edited) Brigette DePape for PM !!! Edited January 8, 2014 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 8, 2014 Report Share Posted January 8, 2014 no - currently, U.S. natural gas pricing has risen from it's lowest levels associated with the early rise of fracking... meanwhile U.S. shale gas production is at its highest ever level. Rising prices in the U.S. reflect a domestic consumption gap... and low(er) exports. Strictly, from a market perspective, the projected impact on Canada's diminishing exports to the U.S. will cause accompanying price increases for natural gas in Canada. You've got in backwards, reduced exports to the US means increased supply here. That would translate in reduced prices, just as it has. That means reduced profits for producers, but that's the risk they take. that's right... cause, like O&G companies will certainly keep production running full-speed ahead with reduced exports. Clearly, O&G companies are all about bringing low(er) prices to consumers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ReeferMadness Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 I don't really know what you're talking about, but I'm guessing you were probably one of the people warning of 'peak oil' too. What happened with that? You making the exact same argument this time, I guess because this time we are 'really' running out right? So are you arguing for the abiotic oil theory? If not, peak oil is a proven theory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) It's quite funny how you keep suggesting the CBC is state controlled. If you had ever watched or listen to it you would know that if Harper controlled it he would have pulled the plug long ago. He can't, A because he doesn't control it...So, who controls the CBC? Harper was at least elected through a democratic system. How were the people at the CBC decided? If you dislike Stephen Harper, you can work to dislodge him. If I dislike Michael Enright, what can I do? ----- But OnGuard, I return to my basic point: technology has completely changed communication. It makes no sense now for the State to subsidize/regulate postal service or radio. This is one example of where the writers of the US Constitution were mistaken. Edited January 9, 2014 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 (edited) August1991 If you dislike Stephen Harper, you can work to dislodge him. If I dislike Michael Enright, what can I do? Well, under the (dubious) premise that this is a serious question, you get the same answer you'd get if any other celebrity figure were the subject; if enough people tune out of Enright's show, he will be replaced. Edited January 9, 2014 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 We could do a lot worse. The new Conservative campaign slogan: Stephen Harper... we could do a lot worse! Oh my. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
overthere Posted January 9, 2014 Report Share Posted January 9, 2014 Well, under the (dubious) premise that this is a serious question, you get the same answer you'd get if any other celebrity figure were the subject; if enough people tune out of Enright's show, he will be replaced.well, no. Nobody watches CBC TV programming and they continue to pound massive subsidies into it. It is clearly not a matter of supply and demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.