Lies We are Told About the Canadian Oil Industry

[Rue]

On 11/26/2018 at 9:41 AM, GostHacked said:

That first lie sets it all up for the other lies.  OPEC cries when the price for a barrel of crude drops below 50 dollars. Saudi Arabia has been trying like mad to get the prices to rise, by cutting back on production, creating a 'shortage' that can drive the price up.

Iran as well. But hey why be balanced with such comments.

[Rue]

8 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

Actually the cost of solar and wind installations is now lower than that of coal and oil, and considerably lower than nuclear and hydro which always seem to incur considerable cost overruns.  Green energy does have its problems in that the sun is not always shining and sometimes the wind does not blow, but these problems are being overcome with improved methods of storing energy.  And wind and solar do have considerable advantages over coal and oil in that they can be installed locally without the need of long distance transmission lines.  This makes them perfect for isolated communities or for anyone who wants to install his own local power system.  As for electric cars the most recent models have overcome a number of objections, namely those of range and power.

Oil and coal are now considered old technology and although the two energy systems currently dominate it is clear that the future is in the form of green energy.  I sympathize with those who depend on oil and coal for their jobs, but the days of those industries are numbered. 

While I predominantly agree with you and Reefer and suggest fossil fuel technology has to be scrapped we still have a long way to go with solar, wind, tidal, and other alternative energy sources. The transition will be tricky as old financial networks try preserve their control as long as they can. Its human nature with change. Resistance is a form of behaviour those in power institutionalize to enforce their reign. Resistance to change is often implemented through institutions that impose the status quo and train us to believe change is dangerous.

We resist change brought up to believe our world as we know it must get worse not better if we change and so we fear change. We fear change, the unknown, just as we fear death. 

Change requires education. It may be it's too late to expect certain people ever to accept they must change their lifestyles and in particular a lifestyle which creates disposable garbage that can not be recycled entails manufacturing processes that create toxic pollution and wastes energy in both it's creation process and then utilitarian process or user function.

We can embrace change but it may have to come from the next generation and not the baby boomers and their children.

I worry cell phones have been used to dumb the masses down and turn us all into brainless zombies who are conditioned to follow orders not inititiate.

It starts with people adjusting their expectations of what the current norms are.

It will mean a massive collective reductionist approach to lifestyle as we know it, i.e.,  a drastic scaling down of our rampant consumerism and addiction to unnecessary material goods.

Adding to that problem are incoming Canadians attracted to our materialism and seeking to live the same selfish polluted lives we do because trendy leftists have taught them it is their human right to live that way since we Canadian citizens do.

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by Rue

[GostHacked]

1 hour ago, Rue said:

Iran as well. But hey why be balanced with such comments.

How about we get more balance with Notley from Alberta with her notion of cutting production? However I am not aware that Iran is cutting production. But they very well could be.

HOLD ON..  balance...

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/12/06/cutting-output-by-even-1-barrel-is-a-red-line-for-iran-oil-minister-says.html

Quote

Iran is refusing to cut its oil production at the latest OPEC meeting, saying it is a "red line" for the Islamic Republic.

"It's a red line for Iran to reduce its production, to contribute to a new cut in production. Iran hasn't produced any more oil in the previous months and it's not Iran's responsibility to manage the situation," Bijan Zanganeh, Iran's oil minister, told CNBC's Hadley Gamble Thursday.

"It's the responsibility of the countries that have produced more and more and have collapsed the market with more oil and extra oil and Iran has no responsibility for this situation," he added.

 

 

Edited December 6, 2018 by GostHacked

[Iznogoud]

10 hours ago, Rue said:

While I predominantly agree with you and Reefer and suggest fossil fuel technology has to be scrapped we still have a long way to go with solar, wind, tidal, and other alternative energy sources. The transition will be tricky as old financial networks try preserve their control as long as they can. Its human nature with change. Resistance is a form of behaviour those in power institutionalize to enforce their reign. Resistance to change is often implemented through institutions that impose the status quo and train us to believe change is dangerous.

We resist change brought up to believe our world as we know it must get worse not better if we change and so we fear change. We fear change, the unknown, just as we fear death. 

Change requires education. It may be it's too late to expect certain people ever to accept they must change their lifestyles and in particular a lifestyle which creates disposable garbage that can not be recycled entails manufacturing processes that create toxic pollution and wastes energy in both it's creation process and then utilitarian process or user function.

We can embrace change but it may have to come from the next generation and not the baby boomers and their children.

I worry cell phones have been used to dumb the masses down and turn us all into brainless zombies who are conditioned to follow orders not inititiate.

It starts with people adjusting their expectations of what the current norms are.

It will mean a massive collective reductionist approach to lifestyle as we know it, i.e.,  a drastic scaling down of our rampant consumerism and addiction to unnecessary material goods.

Adding to that problem are incoming Canadians attracted to our materialism and seeking to live the same selfish polluted lives we do because trendy leftists have taught them it is their human right to live that way since we Canadian citizens do.

 

I certainly agree that fossil fuels are not going away for several decades.  Technological inertia tends to keep established systems in place simply because it is easier to leave things the way that they are rather than change.  However, as it was in the case of the internal combustion engine versus other forms of technology at the beginning of the 20th Century superior tech eventually wins out, especially if it is easier to use and less costly than its competition.  Currently wind and solar are cheaper than coal so I expect that will give them the edge in the long term, especially if governments begin to drop fossil fuel subsidies. 

[cannuck]

9 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

I certainly agree that fossil fuels are not going away for several decades.  Technological inertia tends to keep established systems in place simply because it is easier to leave things the way that they are rather than change.  However, as it was in the case of the internal combustion engine versus other forms of technology at the beginning of the 20th Century superior tech eventually wins out, especially if it is easier to use and less costly than its competition.  Currently wind and solar are cheaper than coal so I expect that will give them the edge in the long term, especially if governments begin to drop fossil fuel subsidies. 

Hydrocarbon based energy is going to be around for quite a while not because we are afraid of change (although we are), but because the infrastructure to produce, refine, deliver and use them is in the tens if not hundreds of TRILLIONS of $$$.  I have heavy equipment, for instance, that has been in service for over 40 years.  Why would I replace perfectly useful and long, LONG ago paid out equipment with something costs many orders of magnitude more to do the same job?   The answer of course is when I could make better money with the new equipment - but since fuel is an almost negligible part of the operating costs, I can not.

Also, solar and wind are only cheaper than coal under some conditions.  If you compare at matching scale (at the utility level) they are not.  BUT: if you were to regulate coal properly to cover full life cycle costs and have appropriate emissions, it is even more capital intensive than nuclear.  (intersing sidebar: the ONLY full scale CCT = Clean Coal Technology plant on the planet is the Sask Power Boundary Dam CCT project, conceived by a Saskatoon engineer while working for SNC Lavalin.

[Iznogoud]

11 hours ago, cannuck said:

Hydrocarbon based energy is going to be around for quite a while not because we are afraid of change (although we are), but because the infrastructure to produce, refine, deliver and use them is in the tens if not hundreds of TRILLIONS of $$$.  I have heavy equipment, for instance, that has been in service for over 40 years.  Why would I replace perfectly useful and long, LONG ago paid out equipment with something costs many orders of magnitude more to do the same job?   The answer of course is when I could make better money with the new equipment - but since fuel is an almost negligible part of the operating costs, I can not.

Also, solar and wind are only cheaper than coal under some conditions.  If you compare at matching scale (at the utility level) they are not.  BUT: if you were to regulate coal properly to cover full life cycle costs and have appropriate emissions, it is even more capital intensive than nuclear.  (intersing sidebar: the ONLY full scale CCT = Clean Coal Technology plant on the planet is the Sask Power Boundary Dam CCT project, conceived by a Saskatoon engineer while working for SNC Lavalin.

So far as I have been able to determine clean coal technology is a myth.  In order to be truly clean coal would have to burn without producing any greenhouse gas emissions, and I doubt that is possible.  My reference to technological inertia agrees with your stand that massive investment in existing technology creates a technological mass that is hard to change.  As a result fossil fuels are not going to go away anytime soon.  But that was also true of many other technologies in the 20th Century.  An example is that horses were used as a major form of transport even in the so-called mechanized armies of World war II.  However, in the long term superior technology always wins out.  There will be resistance to this trend, of course, from established industry, particularly in countries like the US and Canada which have huge oil industries.  But there will also be much less resistance in nations like China and India which are major importers of oil. 

[cannuck]

14 hours ago, Iznogoud said:

So far as I have been able to determine clean coal technology is a myth.  In order to be truly clean coal would have to burn without producing any greenhouse gas emissions, and I doubt that is possible.  My reference to technological inertia agrees with your stand that massive investment in existing technology creates a technological mass that is hard to change.  As a result fossil fuels are not going to go away anytime soon.  But that was also true of many other technologies in the 20th Century.  An example is that horses were used as a major form of transport even in the so-called mechanized armies of World war II.  However, in the long term superior technology always wins out.  There will be resistance to this trend, of course, from established industry, particularly in countries like the US and Canada which have huge oil industries.  But there will also be much less resistance in nations like China and India which are major importers of oil. 

In full scale CCT, the greenhouse gasses are sequestered in subterranian reservoirs - as can be done in Europe in North Sea oilfields, and as is done here in many places.  Many oil production areas are near coal deposits.  One can burn the coal to generate electricity, and inject the stack gasses into the oil bearing zones (EOR - enhanced oil recovery).

While horses were replaced by ICE powered vehicles, that happened because it was a superior technology.  Try using electric, solar, wind to move 400 passengers 12,000 kms. a mach 0.8 - or load your B train up to a gross weight of 63,500 Kgs and tell me how your "superior technology" is working.  This crap is happening for political reasons under heavy subsidy, not because it makes any economic or technical sense.

The real issue with ANY of this stuff is the one thing nobody seems to have the brains or balls to deal with - population.  We spend all of our effort looking for more efficient or "greener" ways of doing a bunch of things we shouldn't be doing in the first place.  And, at the top of that list is breeding at an unsustainable pace.

Edited December 8, 2018 by cannuck

[Iznogoud]

So far as attempting to develop clean coal tech, what is the point when solar and wind are already clean?  It seems to me that is simply beating a dead horse. 

I think if you read my post you will note that I did not mention that electric power will replace aircraft, although it is a possibility if batteries continue to improve.  In fact there are multiple designs for electric aircraft already in the works.  All that is need is improved batteries to deliver the power. 

https://techcrunch.com/2018/07/08/the-electric-aircraft-is-taking-off/

As for trucks the latest electric powered designs blow away conventional diesel powered vehicles. 

https://electrek.co/guides/tesla-semi/

https://nikolamotor.com/one

I agree that population is a problem.  Humanity simply takes up too much space, but currently birth rates in most of the developed world are lower than the replacement rate.  This is eventually going to result in a population crash in many nations unless they do what the US and Canada have done and allow large scale immigration. 

And I really fail to see what politics has to do with any of this except for the fact that large coal and oil interests have lobbied extensively to pressure politicians to oppose green energy.  I see a direct historical parallel in early opposition to railroads and the internal combustion engine.  Of course, we all know how successful that was. 

[eyeball]

7 hours ago, cannuck said:

The real issue with ANY of this stuff is the one thing nobody seems to have the brains or balls to deal with - population.  We spend all of our effort looking for more efficient or "greener" ways of doing a bunch of things we shouldn't be doing in the first place.  And, at the top of that list is breeding at an unsustainable pace.

Except breeding like rabbits is how the economy grows. I mean, without an endlessly expanding pool of consumers we're all doomed. - zero growth will destroy the world or so I've been told.

[cannuck]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Except breeding like rabbits is how the economy grows. I mean, without an endlessly expanding pool of consumers we're all doomed. - zero growth will destroy the world or so I've been told.

Funny you should mention that.  I have been told the same thing.   Problem is, existing rate of growth WILL actually destroy the world as a sustainable habitat.

[Rue]

13 hours ago, eyeball said:

Except breeding like rabbits is how the economy grows. I mean, without an endlessly expanding pool of consumers we're all doomed. - zero growth will destroy the world or so I've been told.

No its not an all or nothing concept. Population growth can actually prevent or aid economic growth. You Marxists need to learn economics and stop trying to define the world as black and white. Vladimir. Joe, Nikita y'all suck at economics. No wonder you write what you do. You and Justin and your 5 year plans to help the masses. Excuse me if I vomit up a hammer and piss out a sickle.

Edited December 9, 2018 by Rue

[cannuck]

2 minutes ago, Rue said:

No its not an all or nothing concept. Population growth can actually prevent or aid economic growth. You Marxists need to learn economics and stop trying to define the world as black and white. Vladimir. Joe, Nikita y'all suck at economics. No wonder you write what you do. You and Justin and your 5 year plans to help the masses. Excuse me if I vomit up a hammer and piss out a sickle.

Smith, Keynes, Friedman and Hayek didn't do much better - they failed to teach the difference between wealth being created vs. wealth merely redistributed.

[Rue]

1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Smith, Keynes, Friedman and Hayek didn't do much better - they failed to teach the difference between wealth being created vs. wealth merely redistributed.

Very true. Hey isn't Friedman one of my people? I thought we were supposed to be good with money.

[ironstone]

Does anybody know of an electric car currently on the market that can be charged in the same time as it takes to fill up the average gasoline powered car?Still quite a hefty price for electric cars as far as I'm concerned.One thing I think most people aren't aware of is the huge cost of replacing these batteries when they fail.

I still have doubts about wind and solar power,even with advances in storage capacity.We can go for many days or weeks without much sun or wind and how long will the stored energy get used up?I think it's clear we will still need some kind of back up energy source.

There is enormous hypocrisy from so-called "green"governments like in BC.Care to take a guess what happens to all the coal that BC exports?

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Rue said:

No its not an all or nothing concept.

It is actually or will be on our current course.  Natural ecosystems can function just fine without human economies but you can't have it the other way around, not for very long at least.

Marxists were as ignorant of this as Smith, Keynes, Friedman and Hayek...but I see you do get this so I guess your meaningless barf about me Marx and Trudeau just is what it is.

A better thread title would have read Lies we are told about the economy.  I'm pretty sure the need for endless growth has more to do with a sociopathic compulsion to concentrate wealth or power (same thing really, kind of like space and time are) into as few hands as possible.  It'll get harder and harder to squeeze out productivity gains and soon the economy will more resemble a toothpaste tube that just can't be wound up any tighter.

That's where it all comes back to the ecosystems underwriting everything.

Edited December 9, 2018 by eyeball

[Rue]

2 hours ago, eyeball said:

It is actually or will be on our current course.  Natural ecosystems can function just fine without human economies but you can't have it the other way around, not for very long at least.

Marxists were as ignorant of this as Smith, Keynes, Friedman and Hayek...but I see you do get this so I guess your meaningless barf about me Marx and Trudeau just is what it is.

A better thread title would have read Lies we are told about the economy.  I'm pretty sure the need for endless growth has more to do with a sociopathic compulsion to concentrate wealth or power (same thing really, kind of like space and time are) into as few hands as possible.  It'll get harder and harder to squeeze out productivity gains and soon the economy will more resemble a toothpaste tube that just can't be wound up any tighter.

That's where it all comes back to the ecosystems underwriting everything.

Hey I have you in the May parade on a poster with Karl, Friedrich, Joe, Nikita and Justin. Grow a mustache and chin hairs. 

Natural ecosystems without humans of course function just fine without us homo sapiens yes. Economics is about human financial transactions. Listen Che, get with the program. Come see me and I can show you how I control the banks. Its like making gefilte fish. You take the scraps no one wants and roll them up and give them a new name.

Edited December 9, 2018 by Rue

[eyeball]

19 minutes ago, Rue said:

Natural ecosystems without humans of course function just fine without us homo sapiens yes. Economics is about human financial transactions.

You've completely edited out or sidestepped that fact that many if not most human financial transactions revolve around or involve the use, exploitation and drawdown of natural capital.  It doesn't factor at all into your equation. Nor did this factor into Marx or Smith's et al, at least not in any meaningful way.

 

Quote

Listen Che, get with the program. Come see me and I can show you how I control the banks. Its like making gefilte fish. You take the scraps no one wants and roll them up and give them a new name.

More barf.

[cannuck]

7 hours ago, Rue said:

Very true. Hey isn't Friedman one of my people? I thought we were supposed to be good with money.

Of course, how that plays out is good with YOUR money, or someone else's?

[Queenmandy85]

I'm being the Devil's advocate here:

With regard to the Trans Mountain pipeline, nobody seems to want to address the problem that it is the Governmnet of BC that is blocking it, not the Feds. So Alberta wants the pipeline and BC doesn't. Why should Alberta's desire be more important than BC's. Alberta gets all the money and none of the risk. BC takes all the risk and gets nothing out of it.. How do you resolve that?

[eyeball]

26 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm being the Devil's advocate here:

With regard to the Trans Mountain pipeline, nobody seems to want to address the problem that it is the Governmnet of BC that is blocking it, not the Feds. So Alberta wants the pipeline and BC doesn't. Why should Alberta's desire be more important than BC's.

The national interest, apparently.  That said why should BC be the only one who has to submit to it?  Alberta made it pretty clear in the past how it feels about its oil and the nation's interest back when Ottawa threatened to treat Alberta's oil the way it treats BC's salmon.  Perhaps if Alberta paid for the restoration of salmon habitat and salmon populations that Ottawa  refuses to contribute anything to BC would feel better about going ahead with this pipeline.

 

Quote

 

Alberta gets all the money and none of the risk. BC takes all the risk and gets nothing out of it.. How do you resolve that?

 

By ramming it down our throats is how I expect it to go..

[Rue]

On 12/9/2018 at 4:29 PM, eyeball said:

You've completely edited out or sidestepped that fact that many if not most human financial transactions revolve around or involve the use, exploitation and drawdown of natural capital.  It doesn't factor at all into your equation. Nor did this factor into Marx or Smith's et al, at least not in any meaningful way.

 

More barf.

Natural capital, drawdown, exploitation, lol. Sounds like you have been watching Mary Poppins.

 Not that you wpuld understand but the economic term capital has nothing to do with being natural. Economics is inherently synthetic. Zippity zappity zoo that flew over you.

Save the sophistry for someone else. Arm chair rich boy commies. So annoying.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Rue

[Rue]

2 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

I'm being the Devil's advocate here:

With regard to the Trans Mountain pipeline, nobody seems to want to address the problem that it is the Governmnet of BC that is blocking it, not the Feds. So Alberta wants the pipeline and BC doesn't. Why should Alberta's desire be more important than BC's. Alberta gets all the money and none of the risk. BC takes all the risk and gets nothing out of it.. How do you resolve that?

...a percentage of the profit and genuine environmental safeguards.

[cannuck]

2 hours ago, Rue said:

...a percentage of the profit and genuine environmental safeguards.

If you wanted to make me happy, it would also include ONLY synthetic crude going down the pipeline, not dilbit.

[Queenmandy85]

The only safeguard is no oil spill. I am in favour of the TM pipeline but you can understand why so many people along the route are worried. Once that crude spills, the damage is there for a long long time. My support is due to the fact that there is already a pipeline there. My question has always been, what is the rush to sell off our oil. We cannot get what it is actually worth while the world is awash in oil and now Brazil has an enormous field off shore. We should keep our oil until the rest of the world's reserves are exhausted. Then we can name our own price. The world will always need coal, iron ore and petroleum products. When it runs out, so does our technology.

[eyeball]

On 12/10/2018 at 4:44 PM, Queenmandy85 said:

My question has always been, what is the rush to sell off our oil. 

Because oil companies and government's want their money now. Be it profits or royalties, they want them asap.