563 replies to this topic

[VicHockeyFan]

Is that really the best federal place they could find to protest at?  

[sdwright.vic]

Guess it's just trying to cause financial impact? I can't get into my office, I can't collect taxes?

[rjag]

https://www.eia.gov/...o/exec_summ.php

 

Fascinating reading that shows fossil fuel usage in 2040 will still account for 77% of Global Energy requirements....

 

 

 

World use of petroleum and other liquid fuels grows from 95 million barrels per day (b/d) in 2015 to 104 million b/d in 2030 and to 113 million b/d in 2040. Most of the growth in liquid fuels consumption is in the transportation and industrial sectors. In the transportation sector, liquid fuels continue to provide most of the energy consumed. Although advances in nonliquids-based transportation technologies are anticipated, they do not fully offset the rising demand for transportation services worldwide. Liquid fuels consumed for transportation increases by an average of 0.7%/year from 2015 to 2040. The transportation sector accounts for 60% of the total increase in delivered liquid fuels use. Most of the remaining increase in liquid fuels consumption is attributed to the industrial sector, where the chemicals industry continues to consume large quantities of petroleum throughout the projection. The use of liquids declines for electric power generation.

[dasmo]

Whatever happened to peak oil?

[VicHockeyFan]

The whole idea of us suddenly dropping oil use does not make much sense.

The less oil we use, the less it will also cost. So it will remain popular for decades.

[Mike K.]

Whatever happened to peak oil?

 

Maybe there's more to this than we originally thought? I dunno. The Russians were big on this.

 

Of course, generally accepting this theory would destroy the value of oil which we consider to be finite or at least finite in terms of human extraction abilities.

[sdwright.vic]

FYI- They left a bunch of dead fish behind?!?

[North Shore]

Whatever happened to peak oil?

 

I don't think that anything has happened to it, other than it's been lost in the excitement about the shale oil boom in the USA.  Collectively, we burn about a 1000 barrels of oil a second, day in, day out - that simply cannot continue indefinitely...

[VicHockeyFan]

I don't think that anything has happened to it, other than it's been lost in the excitement about the shale oil boom in the USA.  Collectively, we burn about a 1000 barrels of oil a second, day in, day out - that simply cannot continue indefinitely...

 

And nobody expect we will need to.  But we have a good 60 or 70 years left at current production rates and extraction technology efficiency.

[jonny]

I don't think that anything has happened to it, other than it's been lost in the excitement about the shale oil boom in the USA.  Collectively, we burn about a 1000 barrels of oil a second, day in, day out - that simply cannot continue indefinitely...

 

Nothing we do can continue indefinitely. Site C won't be in operation in 150 years. Suncor says they'll be operating in the Alberta oil sands in 200 years. 

 

Everything has costs and benefits. Everybody assumes electric vehicles and solar panels are the magic pills that will solve environmental challenges, but we have yet to really understand the long term scale and implications of two product segments that only occupy tiny slivers of their overall markets.

 

Internal combustion engines bill be come more efficient (see Mazda Skyactiv-G) and won't go away quietly. It's very easy to see scenarios where electric vehicles remain more expensive than their internal combustion counterparts over the long-term. 

 

Look, the environmental hysteria and rhetoric around oil hasn't matched reality for years. Especially in Canada, where our environment is incredibly clean and our environmental standards are high. That's what I think people are coming to realize throughout this mess. The dogmatic repetition of lies and fabrications around the Canadian oil and gas sector is beginning to harm the anti-Trans Mountain movement.  

 

If Canada really wanted to do something easy and meaningful to reduce our negative impacts on the environment, we should adopt California vehicle emissions standards. 

[spanky123]

I don't think that anything has happened to it, other than it's been lost in the excitement about the shale oil boom in the USA.  Collectively, we burn about a 1000 barrels of oil a second, day in, day out - that simply cannot continue indefinitely...

 

I remember in the 70's when we hit "peak oil"!

[rjag]

I remember in the 70's when we hit "peak oil"!

 

And then there was Jeff Rubin...  

[jonny]

So BC has filed their Reference Question(s) to the BC Court of Appeal (the highest court in BC). The province is essentially asking the courts for a ruling on the legality of a proposed law.  

 

 

 

1. Is it within the legislative authority of the Legislature of British Columbia to enact legislation substantially in the form set out in the attached Appendix?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would the attached legislation be applicable to hazardous substances brought into B.C. by means of interprovincial undertakings?
3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes, would existing federal legislation render all or part of the attached legislation inoperative?

 

BC is essentially asking if the BC government can pass legislation that limits or prohibits the transport of heavy oil or diluted bitumen within the province. Under the proposed legislation, Kinder Morgan would need to get a permit from the BC provincial government prior to transporting a "hazardous substance". 

[Bob Fugger]

1. Is it within the legislative authority of the Legislature of British Columbia to enact legislation substantially in the form set out in the attached Appendix?
2. If the answer to question 1 is yes, would the attached legislation be applicable to hazardous substances brought into B.C. by means of interprovincial undertakings?
3. If the answers to questions 1 and 2 are yes, would existing federal legislation render all or part of the attached legislation inoperative?

I mean it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to realize that the answer to Q3 is obvious.  The declaratory power under s.92(1) allows the federal government to essentially point at an infrastructure project that is being undertaken "for the general advantage of Canada" and exempt it from all provincial and municipal jurisdiction, legislation and bylaws.

 

So since even my cat understands this, it is obvious that the entire point of the reference is to play for time.  There is no way that the reasons for judgement of the reference case will be ready in time for the KML deadline.  The pipeline dies and Horgan's political gamesmanship is rewarded with being allowed by the Greens to live another day.  You know, for the good of the province.   

Edited by Bob Fugger, 27 April 2018 - 07:58 AM.

[jonny]

Transport Canada just debunked Horgan's ridiculous claim that we don't know how heavy oil behaves in a marine environment. There have been 60+ peer reviewed articles published in Canada on the subject the last 5 years alone.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/...management.html

[North Shore]

http://nationalpost....76-416fce4ed669

 

The world risks a full-blown oil shock within months as three geostrategic crises come to the boil and Saudi Arabia hints at US$100 crude, setting off a speculative scramble by commodity hedge funds.

[Mike K.]

Transport Canada just debunked Horgan's ridiculous claim that we don't know how heavy oil behaves in a marine environment. There have been 60+ peer reviewed articles published in Canada on the subject the last 5 years alone.

http://www.tc.gc.ca/...management.html

 

The so-called unmuzzling of scientists is suddenly an inconvenience.

[jonny]

Pipeline opponents like to denounce people as climate change deniers when they say carbon taxes are useless or Canada shouldn't be bearing the load when we produce a tiny fraction of global emissions, yet they are just as quick to use "fake news" as anybody.

Edited by jonny, 29 April 2018 - 10:46 AM.

[rjag]

Pipeline opponents like to denounce people as climate change deniers when they say carbon taxes are useless or Canada shouldn't be bearing the load when we produce a tiny fraction of global emissions, yet they are just as quick to use "fake news" as anybody.

Yup, I ask a lot of the pipeline opponents what their concerns are and when they say the old 'the science is settled blah blah IPCC...blah blah" I ask about their feelings on GMO crops and food and they are all against it. When I remind them that science has debunked any myths about GMO food being bad and not 1 single documented case of illness etc I ask them how can they base their opinion on GHG's and anti-pipeline on science and then have an opinion on GMO which is anti-science...? Their position isn't based on science but on emotional rhetoric

[VicHockeyFan]

But, but... Frankenfoods!