$30 barrel oil?

[pheoxs]

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

Current headline on oilprice.com:
Attachment 87583

I’d guess it’s both wrong and right. They’ll probably get some fixed in the next 2ish weeks to at least get a portion of the plant operating so says it back online and then it’ll be a while until it’s back at full capacity

[phreezee]

10 weeks= Several months

[killramos]

Capacity restored yea, but at what grade?

Nothing like buying a tanker full of gasoline and having one full of diesel show up (exaggerated example).

Lower grade shit isn’t going to meet Brent spec.

[pheoxs]

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

Capacity restored yea, but at what grade?

Nothing like buying a tanker full of gasoline and having one full of diesel show up (exaggerated example).

Lower grade shit isn’t going to meet Brent spec.

In the pictures of the strike it looked like they hit s bunch of parallel equipment. So perhaps they have enough spares to rebuild one line and run at like 20% capacity on spec with the other lines shut down. And the couple months is the time to get more replacement equipment to get the rest online.

[revelations]

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

Current headline on oilprice.com:
Attachment 87583

Just fucking clickbait. Asking a provocative question and then answering it in their own title (10w = months).

Question everything you read, hear or see.

[killramos]

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

In the pictures of the strike it looked like they hit s bunch of parallel equipment. So perhaps they have enough spares to rebuild one line and run at like 20% capacity on spec with the other lines shut down. And the couple months is the time to get more replacement equipment to get the rest online.

Was reading this morning that they are cracking down on info leaks, taking away the phones of all workers at the site etc.

Sounds like a group of people being super honest.

[JRSC00LUDE]

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

The Ozone hole is a funny thing. Nothing's changed. Here's NASA's own data.

https://ozonewatch.gsfc.nasa.gov/sta...nual_data.html

Graph that out for some lols. This year's a good year tho.

https://www.independent.co.uk/enviro...-a9110326.html

‘Nobody knows what’s triggered it’

I guess it does make me feel better about ourselves that we banned CFCs. That's pretty much my only conclusion. Life did get a little worse, AC ain't as cold as it used to be haha.

Hmmmm, no time to look at all this but I seem to recall getting a mildly smug talking down too when using this as an example in previous climate discussion because "the ozone layer crisis was a perfect example of a time when there was a clear case of human caused looming catastrophe and the science was settled and we changed, thereby saving humanity (obviously paraphrasing)".

Would be funny if that wasn't the case and using it as an example of environmental alarm-ism is actually valid.......but I don't want to be an ozone denier, that's literally worse than Hitler.

[blitz]

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

Hmmmm, no time to look at all this but I seem to recall getting a mildly smug talking down too when using this as an example in previous climate discussion because "the ozone layer crisis was a perfect example of a time when there was a clear case of human caused looming catastrophe and the science was settled and we changed, thereby saving humanity (obviously paraphrasing)".

Would be funny if that wasn't the case and using it as an example of environmental alarm-ism is actually valid.......but I don't want to be an ozone denier, that's literally worse than Hitler.

Well the numbers were increasing steadily through the 80's and then stabilized in the 90's. If you line it up with the phasing out of CFCs it would seem that the damaged was contained.

[01RedDX]

.

[pheoxs]

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

The target year just to get it down to pre-1980 levels is 2075.

Also "nobody knows what caused it" refers specifically to this year's anomaly:





But you'd have to read well past the headline to see all of that...

There’s also reasonable data that indicates China has been using banned CFCs and causing the emissions.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/amp.cnn....scn/index.html

"From the Korean and Japanese data, we used our models to show that emissions of CFC-11 from north eastern China had increased by around 7,000 tons per year after 2013, particularly in or around the provinces of Shandong and Hebei," said Luke Western, a University of Bristol atmospheric modeler. "We didn't find evidence of increasing emissions from Japan, the Korean peninsula or any other country to which our networks are sensitive."

Matt Rigby, a lead author of the study, said the team looked at whether the spike in emissions could be from products created before the phaseout in 2010, but they concluded that "the most likely explanation is that new production has taken place, at least prior to the end of 2017, which is the period covered in our work."

[Tik-Tok]

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

Well the numbers were increasing steadily through the 80's and then stabilized in the 90's. If you line it up with the phasing out of CFCs it would seem that the damaged was contained.

Exactly. We stopped damaging it through action. Sure, there's a possibility that none of it had anything to do with humans, but at least we TRIED, and it appears we got results. What if we didn't try? How big would the damage be now? Maybe the same, maybe not, but I'd rather not risk the chance myself.
Now use that same sentence above when talking about climate change.

[A790]

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

Now use that same sentence above when talking about climate change.

Maybe let's agree that climate change A) exists, and B) is influenced by human behaviour.

Until those two are locked-in, we'll just keep wasting time and spinning our tires propping up dying industries.

[dirtsniffer]

Is exporting thermal coal a dying industry?

Canada could cease to exist tomorrow and it would have 0 impact on climate change.

[pheoxs]

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

Is exporting thermal coal a dying industry?

Canada could cease to exist tomorrow and it would have 0 impact on climate change.

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.

[A790]

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

Is exporting thermal coal a dying industry?

Canada could cease to exist tomorrow and it would have 0 impact on climate change.

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.

[blitz]

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

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

I agree, with the caveat that everything has to be done in moderation. Introduce things too fast and Joe Sixpack with get angry and vote a Trump in and severely damaging your economy for climate change will not encourage other countries to follow our example.

[ickyflex]

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.

You are assuming the rest of the world's population has equal access to the same quality of life as we do in Canada. You think people who can't live like we do in Canada wouldn't if they could?

[A790]

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

You are assuming the rest of the world's population has equal access to the same quality of life as we do in Canada. You think people who can't live like we do in Canada wouldn't if they could?

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.

[ickyflex]

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.

Again, have to take into account different lifestyles. Canadian winters for example require heat vs. countries that do not have winters. It's just far too easy to run stats or numbers without thinking of the biggest picture as to why these stats look the way they do.

For the record, I believe climate change exists, I also recognize humans have an impact (to what extent who the hell actually knows).

[pheoxs]

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

Again, have to take into account different lifestyles. Canadian winters for example require heat vs. countries that do not have winters. It's just far too easy to run stats or numbers without thinking of the biggest picture as to why these stats look the way they do.

For the record, I believe climate change exists, I also recognize humans have an impact (to what extent who the hell actually knows).

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.