$30 barrel oil?

[Ca_Silvia13]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We use more heat in the winter and southern places use more A/C in the summer so that’s pretty moot argument. Our emissions is far more than just it’s cold here so we burn more natural gas. There’s lots of places in Europe that also have as cold of winters yet they emit less because they’ve worked towards alternatives like geo-thermal or wind.

I wouldn't say it's a total wash. We burn fuel to run our gas/electric furnaces.

A/C can be run with electricity only which in other places could be generated by Solar, Nuclear or Hydro which have less of an impact on those climate change numbers.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A/C can be run with electricity only which in other places could be generated by Solar, Nuclear or Hydro which have less of an impact on those climate change numbers.

Alberta is viable for both wind and solar (distributed or scaled). This is particularly true in southern Alberta.

Note: I am not making a point re: solar one way or the other. I'm calling out that renewables certainly aren't limited to "only which in other places".

We very well could make renewable energy work here. We just choose not to in favor of coal and natural gas.

[arcticcat522]

I thought we stopped discussing this to talk about break even prices and technical stuff......

When we make the shift to more renewable energy produced by solar and wind, what are we going to do about all the birds/bats that die? For solar, the fields and fields that can't grow crops due to massive scale solar panels? What's the next major catastrophe we need to fix in 18 months to avoid extinction??

I've always liked the idea of geo thermal, but don't know much about it.

[arcticcat522]

Natural gas for the win. Export as much as we can to replace coal. That seems like a good first step for a lot of countries.

[dirtsniffer]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

People need to stop with this crap.

Canada’s green house gas emissions is about 1.6% of the world emissions. And that’s is with canada’s population being 0.48% of the world population

We are exactly the country that needs to lead by example and reduce our footprint.

OK, so sorry. If Canada turned off today we could reduce world emissions by less than a margin of error. We could really change the world with feel good feelings man.

Canada has increased its thermal coal exports ten fold over the last decade, why even bother shutting down our thermal coal plants if we are just going to ship that very same coal to India so they can burn it in a less efficient manner? I though the whole purpose was to leave it in the ground?

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

k. Get a better argument dude. Every time a climate thread comes up the same crop of science deniers get in it, cherry pick arguments, and rehash the same debunked arguments over and over. I mean, k. We get it. You prefer to living under a rock and clinging to a declining industry because reasons.

Meanwhile, global attitudes are shifting. Demand for energy is shifting. Investment patterns are shifting. Renewables are less expensive than fossil fuels in many parts of the world, and they're only getting cheaper.

You know: the world is evolving, all around you. But there were people clinging on to the horse and buggy in the era of the automobile, and I guess you're gunning to be their 21st century equivalents. Good for you.

go fuck yourself.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

We use more heat in the winter and southern places use more A/C in the summer so that’s pretty moot argument. Our emissions is far more than just it’s cold here so we burn more natural gas. There’s lots of places in Europe that also have as cold of winters yet they emit less because they’ve worked towards alternatives like geo-thermal or wind.

If you look at our co2 emissions many of the largest impacts are from how big and how cold our country is.
Largest sector is O&G, largest secondary source is natural gas, cause it's cold here.
Second largest sector - transportation, cause the country is massive. be it harder to have efficient public transit to long distant transport, there are real emissions implications.

If you look at the c02 emission intensity by country you can really see that Canada's emissions are negligible on the global scale. Its the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that causes global warming, not the number of people doing the emitting. Per square km, Sweden emits nearly twice as much c02 as Canada. The EU releases 12 times as many emissions per square km compared to Canada. China emits 62x as much c02 per sq km compared to canada. This emission intensity is the direct cause of the increase in the concentration of atmospheric co2.

https://unstats.un.org/unsd/environm...ons_perkm2.pdf


Additionally, since 1990, Canada has reduced its emissions per unit of GDP by 40%, meaning we are doing a good job of increasing the economy without increasing co2 emissions. I never said that we shouldn't try to reduce or improve our emissions, but in no way should it be at the expense of the economy

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Natural gas for the win. Export as much as we can to replace coal. That seems like a good first step for a lot of countries.

Whatever you do, don't point out we have dramatically increased our thermal coal exports.

[arcticcat522]

Global emissions are what everyone should be aiming to reduce. How can anyone argue that?

[ExtraSlow]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

I thought we stopped discussing this to talk about break even prices and technical stuff....

we tried anyway.

[Buster]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

For context: https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warmin...re-of-co2.html

Canada is #4 on a per-capita basis globally, and after #5 the per-capita rates fall off a cliff. Lots of first-world countries and G7 members below us.

per capita rates for climate change aren't particularly relevant.

[Darkane]

Back to business:

I predict the US total output will reach 12,500 again this week or next to compensate for the Saudis. As well, trump has ordered (my personal theory) for the producers to absolutely pin it this week to offset drops from imports, again Saudis.

Trump wants low oil pricing, if the price of oil gets too high a global recession can be triggered because the USD is doing well and their economy is doing well. Such interesting events all happening at once.

All I need to see is 12,600 for @ExtraSlow to get me that case of beer!

[04Terminator]

I saw this in my feed this morning. I don't care who you are, this is inspiring.

https://twitter.com/Louisemac/status...32791996059648
https://www.businessinsider.com/2-ph...illions-2019-9



one year later

[ExtraSlow]

Not happening @Darkane . I'm a lock to win. Trump can't prevent the decline that's already happening.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

go fuck yourself

Lacking a proper rebuttal so you leave me negative rep. Fucking hilarious, mate.

[dirtsniffer]

A proper rebuttal to what? You being a douchebag loser? Enjoy the rep, you earned it.

[A790]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A proper rebuttal to what? You being a douchebag loser? Enjoy the rep, you earned it.

Twice in a row- what a zinger. lol

[pheoxs]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

OK, so sorry. If Canada turned off today we could reduce world emissions by less than a margin of error. We could really change the world with feel good feelings man.

So by your logic we should just give up and do nothing despite the fact that Canada does have control over its own emissions.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

If you look at our co2 emissions many of the largest impacts are from how big and how cold our country is.
Largest sector is O&G, largest secondary source is natural gas, cause it's cold here.
Second largest sector - transportation, cause the country is massive. be it harder to have efficient public transit to long distant transport, there are real emissions implications.

If you look at the c02 emission intensity by country you can really see that Canada's emissions are negligible on the global scale. Its the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere that causes global warming, not the number of people doing the emitting. Per square km, Sweden emits nearly twice as much c02 as Canada. The EU releases 12 times as many emissions per square km compared to Canada. China emits 62x as much c02 per sq km compared to canada. This emission intensity is the direct cause of the increase in the concentration of atmospheric co2.

Your really trying to justify those numbers by using per area? Seriously? So because we have the arctic we just magically get a pass and can say we produce less in a given area.

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Additionally, since 1990, Canada has reduced its emissions per unit of GDP by 40%, meaning we are doing a good job of increasing the economy without increasing co2 emissions. I never said that we shouldn't try to reduce or improve our emissions, but in no way should it be at the expense of the economy

Again you are trying to use bullshit units to skew things. Our GDP has tripled since 1990 so reducing it by 40% doesn't mean shit because our emissions has increased drastically.

I really hope you don't have children because clearly you don't give a shit about anyone else's future.

[ExtraSlow]

There's not really any reason to listen to me, but guys, could you please take this really neat conversation to a different thread? Maybe a thread where climate change is the topic?

[dirtsniffer]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

k. Get a better argument dude. Every time a climate thread comes up the same crop of science deniers get in it, cherry pick arguments, and rehash the same debunked arguments over and over. I mean, k. We get it. You prefer to living under a rock and clinging to a declining industry because reasons.

Meanwhile, global attitudes are shifting. Demand for energy is shifting. Investment patterns are shifting. Renewables are less expensive than fossil fuels in many parts of the world, and they're only getting cheaper.

You know: the world is evolving, all around you. But there were people clinging on to the horse and buggy in the era of the automobile, and I guess you're gunning to be their 21st century equivalents. Good for you.

Ok. I generally think this site is generally able to have a discussion. Maybe I read your post as too much as a personal attack and maybe that's not how it was meant.

I am not a climate change denier or cherry picking arguments, nor am I living under a rock or clinging to a dying industry.

I am for the phase out of coal power, and I'm not against pointing out the hypocrisy of exporting thermal coal if we're trying to avoid burning it for power.

Not the place, for sure. Pheoxs, I am saying that the size of the country is a significant factor in our emissions, using data that's available. Anyways I won't post again.

[04Terminator]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

A proper rebuttal to what? You being a douchebag loser? Enjoy the rep, you earned it.

You must have been one of the test subjects.

"Scientists discover renewable energy source in mediocre white men’s confidence"

https://www.thebeaverton.com/2018/05...ens-confidence

[arcticcat522]

This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote

Back to business:

I predict the US total output will reach 12,500 again this week or next to compensate for the Saudis. As well, trump has ordered (my personal theory) for the producers to absolutely pin it this week to offset drops from imports, again Saudis.

Trump wants low oil pricing, if the price of oil gets too high a global recession can be triggered because the USD is doing well and their economy is doing well. Such interesting events all happening at once.

All I need to see is 12,600 for @ExtraSlow to get me that case of beer!

I've heard that banks are becoming wise to the increasing capital needs vs profitability/well production and have slowed the way they through money at the industry. Is that not at the point to limit output yet? I have a buddy in Texas who is an oil trader and he sees production to increase for a year or 2 before before peaking and settling higher than current levels. I can't see it from the limited knowledge I have with the issues being shown with decline rates ECT...

[ExtraSlow]

Banks have been restricting access to additional debt to fund growth for growths sake for a while now. The simple fact is that many current permian wells do not make money when viewed as "full cycle" projects. If they did, companies could fund growth projects with free cash flow. The small and midsize American company landscape is going to crash hard, and they are responsible for a big part of recent production growth.

I'm privvy to some insane conversations that indicate to me that capital discipline is still a long way away, and profitability is even further for some of these companies. You can't run an oil company on an Uber model, you need to truly generate profits.