Oil and The Future of Canada

[waldo]

MLW member TimG... is this you still refusing to substantiate your repeated 10-15% claim?

[waldo]

Except this number is a fiction because Germany's grid is linked with the rest of Europe. To do the calculation correctly you have to include all areas where Germany can dump excess power and if you did that you would get a much lower percentage (most likely below 10% even if most of the installations are within Denmark and Germany).

no - the only fiction is yours! To manage the rarer instances when a surplus of renewable power from extreme windy days has impacted upon Germany's grid and resulted in an overspill of electricity from Germany into Denmark... into Poland... so called phase shifters have been/will be installed at country borders to enable grid operators an ability to control the flow of power crossing Germany's borders... suggested to be completed within 2015.

[nerve]

Oil prices will never see $40 a barrel again. Not just because of all the shale oil down South but Lockeheed has recently developed Tesla's technology of endless energy and it will only be 3-5 years before it is in commercial form. Also Google "Thorium Plasma Battery Technology". Oil consumption will be cut in half within th enext five years and may only be used for lubricants and plastics production. I predict $10 a barrel within 5-6 years.

Given that oil currently hovers above $40 per barrel you may want to wait until the price is well below $40 prior to making a prediction.

Unless you mean Western Canadian Select - yeah, that may not see $40 for a while.

The problem with these assertions is the real sale value, and the fact WCS can't exist at those prices, it has to pay to get rid of oil at those prices, which is just a bit of madness in any long term economic policy. Why pay to give resources away?

We aren't talking about 10% of the economy being weakened, we are talking about 10% of the economy disappearing.

So if 100% is 3 trillion we are talking about 300 billion dollars (all tax revenue of the federal government) just ceasing to exist.

If 10% unemployment resulted, it would be really high unemployment. We are already seeing this drop tied into crime rates in Edmonton. It isn't just oh less money to trade with there are tons of other social effects, its a big deal. It isn't just money gone, we then have EI, Welfare, Prison costs, medical costs due to poor nutrition, and drain on social programs all cropping up, it has a reverse effect to, not just a 0 net gain effect.

'

Even looking at a 10% drop in tax inputs to the Federal government, that turns a 1 billion surplus into a 20+ billion deficit. Or in turn 20 billion cut from somewhere..

Edited October 7, 2015 by nerve

[nerve]

THERE IS NO FREE ENERGY?

There is the sun though, which beams energy to earth, as well as magnetic fields everywhere, that could power and do power devices. Then there are the radio transmitters that clog up all the frequencies, that are also able to be harvested for energy, then there is the motion of the planet itself. Tons of energy sources that are free and renewable. That only require a device to harvest instead of fuel to power a device. There are massive telluric forces that are powered by the earth itself, static forces that are massively powerful.

If you are seeing colour then you are seeing free energy!!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telluric_current

Edited October 11, 2015 by nerve

[msj]

THERE IS NO FREE ENERGY?

There is the sun though, which beams energy to earth, as....

Yes, and there is also oil and gas that just sits there ready for the taking.

The costs come from harvesting the energy, costs for transportation/transmission and also those damn things economists call externalities that lovers of fossil fuels in particular conveniently forget about (which is not to say the don't exist for renewables as they certainly do).

Those costs require investment, materials, labour, research and development etc so the energy can be free but everything else about it isn't.

[Wilber]

http://www.autoline.tv ATW #1930

I watched a very interesting interview on PBS's Autoline of Mary Ann Wright, VP of Engineering and Product Development at Johnson Controls on the future of automotive propulsion.

[TimG]

d also those damn things economists call externalities that lovers of fossil fuels in particular conveniently forget

No one thinks externalities don't matter. What people argue about is how one calculates the cost of these externalities - particularly when it comes to CO2. The trouble in this debate is just because somebody calculates a number that does not automatically mean the number is reasonable and should be the basis for any policy. This is especially true for CO2 when we really have no idea what the effects will be (the people who claim to know are really just guessing). Edited October 11, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

The trouble in this debate is...

no - the trouble in this debate is you refuse to accept the nature and cost of fossil-fuel externalities that have been presented to you in the past...particularly social costs, particularly health impact costs; e.g.:

a relatively recent study focused on the U.S.: Economic value of U.S. fossil fuel electricity health impacts

Fossil fuel energy has several externalities not accounted for in the retail price, including associated adverse human health impacts, future costs from climate change, and other environmental damages. Here, we quantify the economic value of health impacts associated with PM_2.5 and PM_2.5 precursors (NO_x and SO₂) on a per kilowatt hour basis. We provide figures based on state electricity profiles, national averages and fossil fuel type.

We find that the economic value of improved human health associated with avoiding emissions from fossil fuel electricity in the United States ranges from a low of $0.005$0.013/kWh in California to a high of $0.41$1.01/kWh in Maryland. When accounting for the adverse health impacts of imported electricity, the California figure increases to $0.03$0.07/kWh.

Nationally, the average economic value of health impacts associated with fossil fuel usage is $0.14$0.35/kWh. For coal, oil, and natural gas, respectively, associated economic values of health impacts are $0.19$0.45/kWh, $0.08$0.19/kWh, and $0.01$0.02/kWh. For coal and oil, these costs are larger than the typical retail price of electricity, demonstrating the magnitude of the externality.

When the economic value of health impacts resulting from air emissions is considered, our analysis suggests that on average, U.S. consumers of electricity should be willing to pay $0.24$0.45/kWh for alternatives such as energy efficiency investments or emission-free renewable sources that avoid fossil fuel combustion.

The economic value of health impacts is approximately an order of magnitude larger than estimates of the social cost of carbon for fossil fuel electricity. In total, we estimate that the economic value of health impacts from fossil fuel electricity in the United States is $361.7886.5 billion annually, representing 2.56.0% of the national GDP.

.

[TimG]

a relatively recent study focused on the U.S.:

Who paid for the study and why should anyone assume that their assumptions are reasonable? These kinds of exercises are nothing but guesswork that are extremely influenced by the biases and prejudices of the people doing the guessing.

The bio of the authors:

Ben Machol: Manager, Clean Energy and Climate Change Office EPA

Sarah Rizk: Clean Energy Entrepreneurship Research Assistant at Stanford Graduate School of Business

Both appear to have something to gain by exaggerating the harms of fossil fuels.

This makes their study even less credible.

Edited October 11, 2015 by TimG

[bush_cheney2004]

Who paid for the study and why should anyone assume that their assumptions are reasonable? These kinds of exercises are nothing but guesswork that are extremely influenced by the biases and prejudices of the people doing the guessing.

Agreed...what is this...U.S. Science Studies Day in Canada ? Solar energy feeds and kills a lot of people each year regardless of energy production. Using crops for energy production also causes an "externality".

Edited October 11, 2015 by bush_cheney2004

[waldo]

Agreed...what is this...U.S. Science Studies Day in Canada ?

is this one of your, as you've defined it, "useful microcosms for the CanAm relationship at many levels."... where you have openly asserted that your intent here on MLW is to reinforce that, "Canadian's define their identity by/with everything that is American". Is this one of those/your examples?

[waldo]

Who paid for the study and why should anyone assume that their assumptions are reasonable? These kinds of exercises are nothing but guesswork that are extremely influenced by the biases and prejudices of the people doing the guessing.

The bio of the authors:

Ben Machol: Manager, Clean Energy and Climate Change Office EPA

Sarah Rizk: Clean Energy Entrepreneurship Research Assistant at Stanford Graduate School of Business

Both appear to have something to gain by exaggerating the harms of fossil fuels.

This makes their study even less credible.

you could attempt to counter it... or, as you've been requested/challenged to do in the past, you could provide your own linked references on the costs of fossil-fuel externalities.

[TimG]

you could attempt to counter it... or, as you've been requested/challenged to do in the past, you could provide your own linked references on the costs of fossil-fuel externalities.

My position is we don't know/can't know what the harms really are because any such exercise is a function of the prejudices and biases of the authors. A study produced by people working for Exxon would likely provide much lower numbers but would not be any more credible than the one you provided written by a couple EPA hacks.

You can't seem to get your head around the idea is that some things are simply unknowns and we can't quantify them no matter how much you would like to.

[waldo]

My position is we don't know/can't know what the harms really are because any such exercise is a function of the prejudices and biases of the authors. A study produced by people working for Exxon would likely provide much lower numbers but would not be any more credible than the one you provided written by a couple EPA hacks.

You can't seem to get your head around the idea is that some things are simply unknowns and we can't quantify them no matter how much you would like to.

"a couple of EPA hacks"? One of those two... is an academic at Stanford. What would be an acceptable unbiased source (organization, individual) to you?

Edited October 11, 2015 by waldo

[TimG]

"a couple of EPA hacks"? One of those two... is an academic at Stanford. What would be an acceptable unbiased source (organization, individual) to you?

A study with at least two primary authors: one group with conflicts that would suggest they would underestimate the damage and one group with conflicts that suggest they would over estimate the damages. If they can't agree on a point they would both put their argument justifying their assumptions in the text and the final range would be calculated that includes both sets of assumptions. Not perfect and the process could be undermined because they real biases of any individual can be different from their apparent biases but its results would be more credible than anything I have seen to date.

[waldo]

A study with at least two primary authors: one group with conflicts that would suggest they would underestimate the damage and one group with conflicts that suggest they would over estimate the damages. If they can't agree on a point they would both put their argument justifying their assumptions in the text and the final range would be calculated that includes both sets of assumptions. Not perfect and the process could be undermined because they real biases of any individual can be different from their apparent biases but its results would be more credible than anything I have seen to date.

or... one group (you don't care for/you don't accept) could publish a peer-reviewed study thereby allowing other groups (you care for/you accept) an opportunity to formally challenge the results of the study... and the interactive peer-response process would ensue. Would that be acceptable and if not, why not?

[TimG]

the interactive peer-response process would ensue. Would that be acceptable and if not, why not?

Because such a process produces papers that lead to the counter arguments being ignored because people like you claim papers that they don't like are "rebutted" or "discredited" even when their arguments are sound. Joint studies that produce a single set of numbers that incorporate the full range of estimates would provide policy makers with the best information possible given the huge uncertainties. Edited October 12, 2015 by TimG

[waldo]

Because such a process produces papers that lead to the counter arguments being ignored because people like you claim papers that they don't like are "rebutted" or "discredited" even when their arguments are sound. Joint studies that produce a single set of numbers that incorporate the full range of estimates would provide policy makers with the best information possible given the huge uncertainties.

at least you didn't revert to your old-standby railing against the inherent bias within peer-review. Would you care to comment on a 'working paper... research in progress' from International Monetary Fund (IMF) employees drawing upon data from sources: International Energy Agency (IEA), U.S. Energy Information Agency (EIA), Organization of Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD), the IMF itself, British Petroleum, World Bank, etc..

respective externalities - costs for Petroleum, Coal, Natural Gas:

=> for 2015, a combined total cost of ~ $4.6 trillion (5.7% of global GDP):

as for the 'joint studies' you describe as acceptable to you... examples?

[TimG]

IMF employees drawing upon data from sources:

Who are the employees and what biases are implied by the financial or professional interests? Simply drawing on data from oil companies is not enough because the selection and interpretation of data is what introduces bias. What I am looking for are papers where the headline authors are have opposite biases and they attempt to find a middle ground where they can but are not obligated to do. This adversarial/collaborative approach is unorthodox but I would have more confidence in it than with dueling papers approach which only serves to feed the echo chambers. Edited October 12, 2015 by TimG

[nerve]

My position is we don't know/can't know what the harms really are

Connect your head to an exhaust pipe and look for the harms. We know the stuff is bad, it causes cancer, has enveloped urban areas in a chemical blanket, has caused massive health problems in places such as china were the exposure rates are sped up, and that it causes even local environmental effects.

We know the composition of the atmosphere has massive effect on what type of weather and temperature we have.

There are no unknowns here.

When this stuff is in the air it kills us, when it is in the water it kills us. This stuff is just another form of uranium, it is only good in the ground or under closed loop controlled processes.

Can we not learn from the mistakes and realize dumping waste into the water and air kills stuff including us and destroys our quality of life.

Wake up. IT IS PLAINLY OBVIOUS.

DO YOUR OWN Experiement hook your head up to an exhaust pipe or just breath what is coming out of it for 5 minutes and see how you feel or get some crude and chow down.

Don't be a moron, the stuff is bad to put into the environment. Denying that helps no one.

If you want to argue making people sick to make money is good do that argument but don't present a moronic premise that fossil fuels are good for the environment - you are coming off as a shill.

This is just a game of how much it takes to make people ill, how much it takes to kill them, and how heavily an atmospheric composition effects the suns effects on the earth. THIS IS SIMPLE SCIENCE.

There is a whole lot more at play regarding ocean temperatures, the jet stream etc.. but you can't avoid the first step to looking at that equation. It is fueling rapid change. Sure change would probably happen anyway but not for a few hundred years as opposed to decades, it is speeding things up and that will have more noticeable environmental effects as nature takes time to adapt. Destroying ecosystems means it won't recover. You know after the last ice age in Europe it took a while (Centuries) for some fish to repopulate the lakes and rivers. Sure we can factory farm stuff these days, but there are going to be higher costs associated with fixing the problems and we would be better off just giving money to big oil not to put oil on the market to save us money in the future. Meanwhile big oil is paying its business partners to keep using it.

Its bad it changes the atmosphere, the atmosphere has noticeable environmental effect.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/

If you are still debating if this is real, you are a troll.

We need to accept the facts and realize that by 2030 we will likely be in the 430PPM or higher range unless things change, actually it could be 450PPM or higher if things continue to grow in terms of how much oil we produce, these rig counts and increases in oil supply and use mean the rate will go up. We will find it hard to reduce the 2PPM per year range, and we are more likely to see that go up unless proactive steps are made. Sure we aren't going to drop dead in the next 50 years from CO2 levels but it is going to have effects should be get there.

We are there

http://400.350.org

Do you know that smell in Toronto

Ok so outside will not stink everywhere but some places already do.

• Complaints of stiffness and odors: 600 - 1000 ppm
• ASHRAE and OSHA standards: 1000 ppm
• general drowsiness: 1000 - 2500 ppm
• adverse health effects expected: 2500 - 5000 ppm
• maximum allowed concentration within a 8 hour working period: 5000 ppm

Now you can say but that is maybe a century away or more.. well it will be more noticeable as an indirect environmental effect than a direct effect on our bodies - the environment will have major issues long before we do from the direct effects BUT IT IS BAD NEWS.

http://newscenter.lbl.gov/2012/10/17/elevated-indoor-carbon-dioxide-impairs-decision-making-performance/

This study from only 3 years ago is using data that is now way off.

ITS WAY WORSE note these are 50ppm off that is a 16% or so differntial.

Ventilation Rate and Resultant CO2 Concentrations

(at 350 ppm outdoor concentration)

Indoor Carbon Dioxide

(ppm)Outside Air Ventilation

(cfm Per Person)CO2 Differential

(Inside – Outside)

800 ppm suggests about 20 cfm (or less)

500 ppm1,000 ppm suggests about 15 cfm (or less)

650 ppm

1,400 ppm suggests about10 cfm (or less)

1,050 ppm

2,400 ppm suggests about5 cfm (or less

)2,050 ppm

As you can see outdoor levels can dramatically effect indoor levels.

The CO2 values in this table are approximate, and are based on a constant number of occupants (sedentary adults), a constant ventilation rate, an outdoor air CO2 concentration of about 350 ppm, and good mixing of the indoor air.

http://eetd.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/lbnl-6148e-is_co2_an_indoor_pollutant_v3.pdf

THERE ARE NO BRAKES WE WANT TO USE, WE ONLY HAVE A GAS PEDAL TO WORK WITH.

Edited October 13, 2015 by nerve

[TimG]

We know the composition of the atmosphere has massive effect on what type of weather and temperature we have.

Actually we don't. We know the effect is barely measureable and the negative consequences to date are basically zero (all alleged negative consequences cannot be statistically separated from normal weather variations).

Can we not learn from the mistakes and realize dumping waste into the water and air kills stuff including us and destroys our quality of life.

CO2 does not 'kill things'. If anything it contributes to more robust plant growth. The net effects are unknown at this time but people love to speculate. It is quite possible that CO2 emission are the best thing that ever happened to us because the greater concentrations will prevent the next ice age.

There is no greater fool than someone who cannot differentiate between CO2 and particulate pollution. There is a difference. Learn it.

Edited October 13, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Actually we don't. We know the effect is barely measureable and the negative consequences to date are basically zero (all alleged consequences cannot be statistically separated from normal weather variations).

CO2 does not 'kill things'. If anything it contributes to more robust plant growth. The net effects are unknown at this time but people love to speculate. It is quite possible that CO2 emission are the best thing that ever happened to usecause the greater concentrations will prevent the next ice age.

There is no greater idiot than someone who cannot differentiate between CO2 and particulate pollution. There is a difference. Learn it.

We now that as CO2 became sequestered, the climate became favorable to humans. Ad we know that if we unsequester it, we will return the place to uninhabitable to us once again. It's fairly simple.

[nerve]

We now that as CO2 became sequestered, the climate became favorable to humans. Ad we know that if we unsequester it, we will return the place to uninhabitable to us once again. It's fairly simple.

Actually we don't. We know the effect is barely measureable and the negative consequences to date are basically zero (all alleged negative consequences cannot be statistically separated from normal weather variations).

CO2 does not 'kill things'. If anything it contributes to more robust plant growth. The net effects are unknown at this time but people love to speculate. It is quite possible that CO2 emission are the best thing that ever happened to us because the greater concentrations will prevent the next ice age.

There is no greater fool than someone who cannot differentiate between CO2 and particulate pollution. There is a difference. Learn it.

That is an absolute lie. I can't believe you are trying to push that as truth.

CO2 doesn't kill things, you are completely WRONG, it DOES.

You are the fool buddy.

The fact you can't accept simple science is beyond me.

http://www.bu.edu/animalcare/lasc-bumc/guidelines/3-level-page/

http://www.achd.net/food/pubs/pdf/2013_CO2_A_Silent_Killer.pdf

You are a moron if you think CO2 isn't lethal.

Dude negative consequences to date ---- zero you are out of touch.

It is VERY CLEAR

Notice how 400 isn't even on the graph??!!

Wake the heck up.

If this was a gas oil price differential chart I think you'd agree that prices correlate. IT CORRELATES STOP YOUR NONSENSE.

We have more problems than the warming... there are a bunch of potential problems - pole reversal, total melting of the caps and even an ice age after massively high temperatures.

About 325,000 years ago, at the peak of a warm interglacial, global temperature and CO2 levels were higher than they are today. Today we are again at the peak, and near to the end, of a warm interglacial, and the earth is now due to enter the next Ice Age. If we are lucky, we may have a few years to prepare for it. The Ice Age will return, as it always has, in its regular and natural cycle, with or without any influence from the effects of AGW.

This doesn't mean we will escape the increase but it means we will potentially have some major earth ending problems. It all depends on how the peaks and troughs lie and the rate of change, that is our ability to adapt to it. We are speeding up a process of change, and how long it can be maintained is questionable. The problem is, if you warm stuff up too much then we are screwed, if we don't protect from the next ice age we are screwed. Canada particularly since we would be covered in an ice sheet. The effects of non-homeostasis would be very very bad. Eearth needs to get its sh1t together. Because it is a bigger problem than a few degrees temperature change.

1. We have to deal with the "warming" increase in ocean levels. (we are talking a lot of the planet under water you know everything 30 feet or less above sea level being gone.)

2. Then we need to deal with the potential cooling and new ice age.

I know you'd love Montreal to be the next Atlantis but a lot of cities are ocean side and a lot of nuclear plants too. These are real issues that are going to need a lot of planning to work around.

http://geology.com/sea-level-rise/

THERE IS LIKE 60 METERS OF OCEAN RAISE ICE WAITING TO MELT

Florida would be under water, cuba would be three islands etc.. netherlands under water, half a belgium THIS IS A MAJOR ISSUE. saint john halifax vancouver GONE. tokyo, manhattan, london, shanghai, beijin hundreds of millions GONE This on a much much smaller planet.

This is the lesser problem that you think the syrian refugee crisis of a few million is bad news, we are talking the biggest refugee crisis of all time.

The issue is MASSIVE MASSIVE MASSIVE

http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

Trust me if antartica ice cover goes we are talking being back in time to the age of dinosaurs.. 40 million years ago . this is much like terraforming

50 years is a long time but we are talking the end of the planet as we know it.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/12/antarctic-ice-melting-so-fast-whole-continent-may-be-at-risk-by-2100

THIS IS A BIG DEAL. we are talking massive changes to ocean and atmospheric patterns which will cause some big problems for europe particularly britain.

http://www.netweather.tv/index.cgi?action=jetstream-tutorial;sess=

Notice how the jet stream also goes over much of Canada....

Remember the polar vortex.. http://climatestate.com/2014/01/05/polar-vortex-jet-stream-and-climate-change/

bear in mind the oceans are sucking up CO2.. however once the ice is gone, no can do.

It is underestimated.

http://www.sciencetimes.com/articles/6659/20150524/once-solid-peninsula-in-antarctica-begins-to-melt.htm

Although a polar shift if more unthinkable than all this other stuff

"The amount of ice that is being lost in this area is so large that it is causing minute shifts in the gravity field of the entire planet"

Change in gravity field = change of magma position = MORE EARTHQUAKES and volcanic bursts.

http://www.livescience.com/22878-magma-movements-gravity-changes.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_volcanoes_in_Antarctica

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

Its not just above but below too...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/131118-antarctica-volcano-earthquakes-erupt-sea-level-rise-science/

THE POINT

THEY ARE DOMINOES CO2 output is just one of the dominoes that will help the others fall.

"The volcano is covered by more than half a mile (one kilometer) of ice, so it would have to be an extraordinarily powerful eruption to breach the surface."

Edited October 13, 2015 by nerve

[TimG]

That is an absolute lie. I can't believe you are trying to push that as truth.

Because it is the the truth one discovers when one reads the the actual scientific basis for the various claims instead of relying on Greenpeace press releases.

CO2 doesn't kill things, you are completely WRONG, it DOES.

Not at the levels we are talking about. You really need to educate yourself.

THERE IS LIKE 60 METERS OF OCEAN RAISE ICE WAITING TO MELT

According to science the current rise is about 3-5mm per year which means it would take 30,000 years for that level of SLR to occur. Now some studies claim this rate will accelerate and estimate about 1m or so by 2100 - a rate that is slow enough to allow people to adapt as needed. Adapting to a slow SLR will be certainly more cost effective than trying to stop it from happening which is most likely impossible.

THIS IS A BIG DEAL. we are talking massive changes to ocean and atmospheric patterns which will cause some big problems for europe particularly britain.

A no. We have a bunch of chicken littles running around with dubious computer models saying such things might occur but these are largely the same people that predicted mass starvation by 2000 or bird flu pandemics by 2010. i.e. just because someone says something might occur that does not mean it actually will and and this point the real data supports a much less alarmist view of the issue since the earth may be warming but it is warming at a rate much slower than was predicted by these magical climate models. Edited October 13, 2015 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

3 to 5 mm/year? What planet are you talking about? Certainly not the same one that Florida, for instance, exists on. The streets are disappearing there due to ice cap/glacial melt as well as thermal expansion of sea water.