Topic
Extractors gobble natural gas, deducting the cost from their taxes. That already huge public subsidy, hidden from view, is due to balloon.
Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage process. Image courtesy of TreeHugger.
Tories and petro firms worry oil sands restrictions in Europe will spread to other key nations. They're lobbying hard to prevent it.
A short course in Dutch Disease, deindustrialization and the Bitumen Curse.
Alberta's oil sands extractors' use of natural gas, already voracious and set to rise steeply, is more than half paid for by Canadian taxpayers -- a vast yet little-known subsidy that insiders say encourages profligate consumption of a finite energy source.
The numbers are huge. Oil sands operations currently consume about one billion cubic feet of gas per day, heating thick bitumen so it can be extracted from surrounding rock and gravel. This reverse-alchemy eats up about 20 per cent of Canada's natural gas demand and may balloon to 40 per cent by 2035.
The price is huge, too -- much of it written off against corporate taxes. Bitumen recovery and upgrading will eat up more than 15 billion cubic metres of natural gas this year according to data from the Alberta government. At current prices this will cost $3.4 billion, of which $1.7 billion will be paid for by the public.
Both gas consumption and prices are projected to balloon in coming years, which will vastly increase lost revenue to the taxpayer.
But even though Canadian citizens are on the hook, the Alberta extractors aren't required to share with the public the price they are assigning to the natural gas they are writing off.
Meanwhile, petro firms are pushing into methods of oil sands extraction that require ever increasing amounts of natural gas.
So why has it become so profitable to convert natural gas into tar? Perhaps the biggest piece of the puzzle is hidden in tax and royalty regulations.
Companies operating in Alberta's oil sands are allowed to deduct fuel costs from their provincial and federal taxes. They are also allowed to double dip and deduct these same fuel expenses from the royalties payable the Alberta taxpayer. This means that in the first eight months of 2010, taxpayers paid for more than half of natural gas used to extract bitumen from rock.
A real gas hog: Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage
Not only is this subsidy an enormous gift from the taxpayer to some of the world's most profitable companies, it also undermines economic incentives for industry to develop more efficient practices. A good example is seen in the history of a process called Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage (SAGD).
SAGD is one of several techniques used to extract tarry bitumen from the surrounding rock and currently accounts for about 40 per cent of non-surface mining production. Since bitumen will not flow unless heated, large volumes of steam are injected into horizontal pipes drilled into these formations to drain the tar to extraction wells.
An important yardstick of the efficiencies of such operations is called the Steam-Oil Ratio (SOR). Although SORs are now reported to the government, they remain a guarded industry secret for many individual companies -- apparently for good reason.
A case study for one of the original SAGD pilot projects from 1987 to 1989 reported a SOR value of 2.38. Another project from the early 1990s had an SOR of 2.5. One would expect that as time goes on and industry efficiencies improve that SOR values would come down.
Instead they have steeply increased. The most recent data provided by the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) to The Tyee shows a 2010 average for 14 commercial SAGD operations of 3.7. Even weighting the data based on bitumen production provides an average SOR of 3.0 -- about 50 per cent higher than industry best practice and double what SAGD was supposed to achieve in theory. Several individual operations have SORs over five.
Thanks in part to the taxpayer funded fuel subsidy, SAGD now requires about 50 per cent per cent more steam to produce a barrel of tar than it did 20 years ago.
The fine print about royalties
To understand how companies are able to offload so much of their fuel expenses to the taxpayer we have to peer deeper into the fine print of the Alberta royalty regime.
Bitumen producers pay the Alberta taxpayer based a variable royalty rate that fluctuates with the price of crude -- approximately $80 per barrel in 2010. Based on this price, companies pay a bitumen royalty of 30.77 percent. Since natural gas costs can be directly deducted from these royalties, companies can then recover 30.77 cents for every dollar spent on natural gas.
Companies can also deduct their remaining natural gas costs (69.23 cents) from their provincial and federal corporate taxes at 28 per cent, which works out to a further 19.38 cents on the dollar.
In other words, the taxpayer is currently paying for 50.15 per cent of the one billion cubic feet of natural gas consumed every day heating bitumen in northern Alberta.
As the price of oil rises, so too does the proportion of natural gas costs deductible from royalties. If crude prices rose to $120 per barrel, bitumen operators would be able to write off almost 57 per cent of their natural gas consumption.
It should also be noted that companies pay only a token royalty rate until they recover 100 per cent of their capital investments, interest charges and operating expenses -- what the Alberta government refers to as "payout". Prior to payout, royalties are less than one seventh as much, and companies are allowed to write off a much larger portion of their natural gas expenses. Many of the more generous aspects of this royalty program were introduced in 1997 when oil prices were less than a third of current prices.
Tax subsidies help make process profitable: expert
Dr. Adam Brandt of Stanford University expressed surprise when informed of natural gas write-offs available to Alberta oil sands operators. "I didn't realize that it was that large of an effective cost reduction."
Brandt is an expert on quantifying the environmental impacts of energy systems, particularly greenhouse gas emissions. During the conversation with The Tyee, he calculated the current cost to operators for natural gas was as little as $4.33 per barrel of bitumen produced -- prior to write offs. "I've never done these numbers before so I didn't know that the cost could be so low."
Some of the figures from the ERCB averaged over 2010 show steam oil ratios as high as 8.7 for Husky Oil's Tucker Lake project -- more than three times higher than the SAGD pilot projects from 20 years ago.
"I have a hard time believing that they are making money with [a SOR of] 8.7. Although if they were able to write off 50 per cent of the cost of the natural gas, maybe they are. It kind of looks that way."
Operations with steam oil ratios that are high have a correspondingly lower energy profit. "At the very high end maybe a third of the energy content of the bitumen is offset by the natural gas consumed in production," said Brandt
He cautions that steam oil ratios are highly dependent on local conditions of individual bitumen deposits as well as the stage of development. "A project will look worse as it is warming up." Natural gas prices are also lower now than in previous years, which would affect the heating cost per barrel of bitumen.
Taxpayer liability growing by $15 billion a year?
Declining reserves of global crude and ballooning supplies of shale gas from the advent of hydraulic fracking have also perversely improved the profitability of converting gas into bitumen. By 2007, energy from crude became twice as valuable as equivalent energy from much cleaner natural gas. The most recent prices indicate that a barrel of bitumen tar is currently worth three times more than the equivalent energy from natural gas.
But why shouldn't natural gas be treated like any other business expense? Unlike labour, steel or concrete, natural gas is a finite publicly owned resource. It also produces 30 per cent less carbon emissions per unit energy than crude and 45 per cent less than coal.
The Alberta royalty regime also sends the wrong market signals to those now investing billions in oil sands infrastructure, stifling innovation and favouring technologies that are needlessly wasteful, say industry insiders. They warn that if this infrastructure is built on the assumption that 50 per cent of gas costs will be covered by the taxpayer, it may lock in highly inefficient natural gas use for the lifetime of these operations -- up to 30 years or more.
A recent industry presentation shows the lifetime fuel costs of SAGD plants are two to three times larger than initial capital expenditures. Assuming a $10 billion annual investment in SAGD, the lifecycle fuel cost for new plants is increasing by $20 to 30 billion per year, and the taxpayer portion of this fuel cost liability is growing by a staggering $10-15 billion per year.
Write-offs just part of business: Alberta government
The province of Alberta dismisses charges that natural gas costs to bitumen producers are unfairly low. "While your point about natural gas costs being 'written off' against royalties is valid you could make that same argument for any allowed cost," said Alberta Energy spokesperson Tim Markle. "The fact remains that the costs are only partially offset by royalties, so there is still an incentive to reduce costs as much as possible, as it increases net revenue to the company."
But how much of an incentive? Calculations provided by Stanford University indicate that after write-offs, natural gas expenses from the most efficient SAGD operations represent as little as eight per cent of the value of a barrel of bitumen produced. At the other end of the spectrum, natural gas used at an operation with an SOR of 5 still represents only about 15 per cent of the value of bitumen produced.
This also assumes that those companies that supply their own natural gas are not selling to themselves at inflated prices. Such a scenario raises obvious issues around public oversight and transparency, particularly in light of the enormous volume of gas consumed.
"It is always a challenge to determine what would be the appropriate price in such situations involving internal transfers," said Dr. Kin Lo, professor of accounting at University of British Columbia.
"Not only is it necessary to obtain a comparable market price for the gas, but one should also factor in the fact that the company did not have to incur many of the other expenses associated with selling the gas, so the price should be adjusted downward relative to the market price. I don't know what prices the oil companies use for the gas consumed, so I can't speculate as to whether those prices are too high."
Natural gas values claimed by companies hidden from public
In fact no one outside the Alberta government or their industry partners knows what natural gas prices companies are reporting. "All the information contained within OSR Project approvals, as well as reporting information, is treated as confidential and cannot be reported publicly," confirmed Markle.
But taxpayers have good reason to demand more transparency. It is standard practice for oil sands producers to purchase gas on the commodities futures market. If a given company saddled themselves with an unfavourable supply contract, the taxpayer will foot the bill for half the difference without any right to look at the books.
When contacted for comment, the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) rejected claims that the current royalty regime provides a perverse subsidy regarding gas consumption. "The royalty rate on the net profit increases with higher oil prices, so royalties actually go up. If the cost of natural gas is the same, then higher oil prices equals higher net profits and higher royalties and higher taxes," said Travis Davies, CAPP's manager of media and issues.
However this does not seem to take into account the lost opportunity cost of selling conserved natural gas as an alternative fuel to the more carbon intensive bitumen. Any gas diverted from bitumen production could be sold as a stand-alone energy source, providing the Alberta government with the same natural gas royalties whether it is used for either purpose. This scenario would also provide higher bitumen royalties since these expenses would no longer be deducted from payments to the taxpayer.
Alberta is blessed with vast reserves of publicly owned non-renewable energy resources. It remains a foible of global economics and weak government policy that it is currently so profitable for companies to convert relatively clean natural gas into carbon-intensive bitumen.
If oil sands operators had to cover the full cost of their natural gas expenses, is it possible that many of these billion dollar ventures might instead be revealed as boondoggles? Since the taxpayer is denied access to basic cost data even though they are paying half the bill, there is no way of knowing.
As they say in business, there's no such thing as a free lunch. That is, unless you can get the government to pick up the tab. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
70
Login or register to post comments
cboo44
2 years ago
Accounting
Just wondering where the accounting calculations for employment, employment taxes, corporate income taxes, property taxes(provincial, municipal) federal/provincial royalties, etc are? Shouldn't they be part of that "trade-off", also?
Jim Baird
2 years ago
SAGD fuel cost and CO2 emissions should be zero
Prof D Chandrasekharam, Earth Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, observes that high-level nuclear waste (HLW) in a geological repository should be considered an anthropogenic Enhanced Geothermal Systems with a small volume of waste capable of generating high amounts of electric power.
Capitalizing on the thermal potential of HLW is the essence of The Nuclear Assisted Hydrocarbon Production Method (NAHPM), which uses the thermal flux of HLW to fracture an unconventional oil formation, alter the chemical and/or physical properties of the hydrocarbon material within the formation to allow removal of the altered materials.
Aside from the Not In My Back Yard factor, the major problems associated with spent nuclear fuel are; the decay heat it generates that can break down the crystalline structure of rock in which it is placed and induces hydrothermal convection that can transport hazardous material back to the biosphere, high-level radiation which is lethal and disassociates water into its ionic components that can detrimentally react with spent fuel bundles and their containers and the cost, danger and the proliferation potential of reprocessing.
The major problems associated with in situ recovery of oilsands are cost, CO2 generation and water scarcity all of which are overcome by the use of HLW heat instead of steam to mobilize the viscous bitumen so that it can be recovered at a producing well.
NAHPM (Canadian patent application 2,659,302) zeroes out this energy cost and produces bitumen without producing an ounce of CO2 in the absence of all but in situ water.
The surface temperature of SNF ranges between 250oC and 350oC and is sufficient to gradually raise the temperature of bitumen in situ into the 150oC range necessary for recovery.
Hydrogen released by the process of radiolysis and ionizing radiation could also aid in fracturing and upgrading long chain bitumen molecules into more valuable fractions under ground.
Placing spent fuel in a deep oilsands formation to foster production would provide a massive economic benefit to Alberta, which is the best way to address the NIMBY factor associated HLW.
Bitumen has unprecedented capacity to sequester radionuclides as was noted by a recent study by Canadian, French, Australian and American scientists.
Besides bitumen’s sequestering properties, much of the oil sands lie beneath a capping shale formation that would further preclude the migration of radionuclides even though such migration is unlikely because the spent fuel is a valuable resource that can be recovered once its decay heat and the bitumen have been depleted for recycling a second time in a CANDU reactor.
In the course of depleting its bitumen resources Alberta would become the global repository for reusable nuclear fuel and would provide a service to the rest of the country by eliminating the major impediment to the sale of CANDUs in which taxpayers have sunk another $20 billion.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Wealth Cannot Be Created...
Without this "writing off" of the natural environment about the tar sands project etc., the potential "profitability" of this project would not exist at all. Certainly for this country. (It is the most dramatic example current in this country, of our quasi-colonial dependence on the US Empire and global corporate capitalism... and the consequences of that.)
Which is the really big problem with the capitalist market view of economics as a self-serving so-called "science", narrowly focused and dummed down as it is, and for the world again, of course. The full costs, the environmental impact consequences, are being put forward into the "hoped" distant future, to future generations... hence the "profits" are being stolen from their mouths. (Demonstrating again the further correctness of Fait Lux's frequent observation that wealth itself cannot be created, only taken from/stolen... myself saying, from the future, for false enrichment today, to the few, and from the "share" that would otherwise go to the entire working class and its poor, who are expected to "subsidize" this "private wealth accumulation" of the few.
Until this all sinks in to our collective heads, and there is an appropriate working class/public response, the damaged lives and natural environment will be an ongoing thing in human societies. Unless, of course, it is first stopped by a retaliatory "correction" by nature itself.
The corporate mafia is alive and well, and prospering still amongst us, with theft of share from us all and the welfare subsidies of the ruling class serving State.
alda
2 years ago
low gas prices
This could explain why the price of natural gas in Canada has remained low when, in fact, as Hughes and other have suggested, Canada only has about 7 or 8 years' supply left. During a rising market, especially, the (seemingly) suppressed price of natural gas has never made sense, and many people I know think the same thing.
Also, when Canada's natural gas is near depletion and Alberta's water supply is severely diminished (as Dr. Schindler and others predict will occur within a few short decades) it will be interesting to see the consequences of such rash, pull-it-out-of-the-ground-as-fast-as-we-can exploitation -- presumably the effect will be rather chaotic, not to mention tragic, for future generations that will desperately need both resources.
How will those companies suck the oil out of the tar so cheaply and easily then? Peak oil looms large.
Cool Hand
2 years ago
Other Side of the Coin
Some interesting tidbits arising from this article:
1. A barrel of bitumen tar is currently worth "three times" more than the "equivalent energy" from natural gas.
2. 15 billion cubic metres of natural gas will be required this year worth $3.4 billion.
3. 20 per cent of Canada's natural gas demand is required in this process, which may balloon to 40 per cent by 2035.
Those are stunning figures.
That's where the huge Montney, Horn River, and Cordova Embayment tight shale natural gas plays in NE BC come into the picture.
Production is still in its infancy stage and once it begins to ramp up post-2012 the oil sands provide another potential lucrative market for BC natural gas. That's one of the problems BC's NE industry will be facing: too much gas and not enough markets (even with the new gas pipeline to built to the coast).
And from the provincial government perspective that would be great: the more natural gas required by the oil sands from BC, the more royalties flow into provincial coffers. And concurrently, the more money for government programs.
morechatter
2 years ago
Subsidies and natural resources and global warming
First I read we are shipping whole logs to China at a fraction of the price and then more of the same. And then I pick up an article saying we have the most over prised home in the world says it all. Go home shove your head under the pillow and just hope that when you uncover your head things make some sense.
Because so far its take, take, take and give it to the filthy rich at all costs even the very world you live in is up for grabs.
morechatter
2 years ago
The other side of the coin
that is right there is another side to this as Canadian dollar sits at parity interests rates will have to rise.
Those very credible banks which keep on changing their two cents worth say they are confident Canadians can bend over backwards to pay those loans.
Dollar at parity who that has got to hurt business but heck look at all the money Big Old Oil companies made selling the dirty old oil to China just like the coal.
morechatter
2 years ago
%^#@ what programs are you talking about cool hand
Its not the big old oil companies pay their fair way and a major threat to global warming
its the price. As Harper says no more money transfers everyone has to learn to pay their own way, except Big Old Oil of course. Harper
went to Switzerland to cheque out the banks.
morechatter
2 years ago
the world we live in is a write off
It almost bought tears to my eyes when it sunk in when reading 50% of the companies pollution gets to be a write off. Now that is sad.
Are we going to be a write off when global warming lets us know without a doubt she is here with a vengance and we are not?
Here in BC they get the little guy to lighten up on global warming and its not like the low income can even afford to turn on the lights and this is the guy Enviromentalist give a reward to. Now how sad is that as 9% Gordo, a villian when it comes to global warming gets the big prize.
What do British Columbians get but the boo hoo prize as many are crying foul.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Let There Be A God I...
"And from the provincial government perspective that would be great: the more natural gas required by the oil sands from BC, the more royalties flow into provincial coffers. And concurrently, the more money for government programs." Cool Hand.
Yup. It's all about money flowing into the coffers. Fuck the present. Fuck the future. Just keep sucking all that glory hole wealth into the old private wealth accumulation coffers. Reaping paper dividends.
Where else there are big bucks for government programmes as well, of course, is... in that new military hardware the government is procuring as part of its "serving Amerika" war plans programmes, the military buildup and "modernization" being launched as we speak. (The C130 Hercules Heavy Lift aircraft to carry all that hardware and "the boys" to the wars of the future the US Empire is anticipated to be fighting (Yemen, Iran.), and us with them. $9 billion for F35 fighter jets... again, from the US. The helicopters.)Then of course, as we discovered at the G20, the security/police state expenditures of another Tyee article. All in the service of Amerika and global capitalism by and large, and dealing with the economic consequences of that (health and other services cutbacks and eliminations) and a deepening economic crisis in this country.
UNLESS, again of course, the underlying intent of the global capitalist system and ourselves, in addition to/along with securing global resources hegemony, is to kick-start a "real" recovery of neo-liberal sorts from the re-creation of a "war production economy". (Which has served global capitalism so well in the past, if one ignores all the countless dead. Including Hitler's recovery of Germany from the Great Depression and the reparations effects of WWI. But then, who remembers all that anymore, amidst all the smoke and mirrors of Remembrance of past "glorious battles", and the sacrifice of "our boys", now including "girls".)
And if your future is seen connected to future wars "of resource and economic system survival", even though I suspect it is more a blind being drawn toward it, like the moth to the flame, then, in a peak oil fear environment, oil "at any price" is worth it.
Run the money printing presses!
Continued next post...
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Let There Be A God II...
From previous post...
(The last war's finance minister, his name immediately escaping me, was asked in the lead-up, in effect at least,"But how can a small country like Canada afford participation in such a war? Where is the money going to come from"
To which the Minister replied, again at least in words to the effect, " All one really needs is first the resources and then the manpower to do it. Canada has both. (It was the Great Depression afterall. There were lots of idle men about.) It is the job of government in such a situation as this to bring the two together, printing the money needed if necessary.")
At least for war and oil.What can't or the system is not willing to be done in normal " free market" circumstances, it can always find the money for or create in those deemed critical to its survival. And like I say, damn the consequences and the future. We'll deal with that when we get there.
One might be excused for wanting there to be a God. We may wish him to help us yet. :-)
whatthe
2 years ago
This is a great start
Its about time someone starts calling out those welfare bums in the tarpit.
There is no business case and never has been for these freeloaders.
I hope this is just the beginning of a real expose on how the tarpit is just a front for fleecing Canadians.
mopled
2 years ago
A little less chatter about irrelevancies, please.
The information about the various ways the public is being robbed by turning tar into oil is of great importance, but CO2 still has nothing to do with Global Warming aka Climate Change or the latest "Global Climate Disruption."
The term for why we are being taxed has changed because there just isn't anything going on with climate that is either strange or unprecedented.
"In the past decade the atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from 370 ppm to 390 ppm and using those figure the IPCC once estimated that the world should have warmed by at least 0.2 deg C. The fact that the world has not warmed at all means that all the other climatic factors have had a net effect of producing 0.2 deg C of cooling."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/09/david-whitehouse-the-climate-coincidence-why-is-the-temperature-unchanging/#more-27622
Travis Davies f...
2 years ago
Full Disclosure
This is Travis Davies from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (same as quoted in article).
In the interest of colour and context for Tyee readers I include here my email to the author regarding this story:
-----Original Message-----
From: Davies, Travis
Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 11:29 AM
To: Mitchell Anderson
Subject: RE: Media inquiry
Importance: High
Mitchell,
I heard back from some of our technical folks and now have much more to offer, and also, lots to clarify.
First, it is important to point out that the government collects a royalty on both natural gas and oil production. The price for both natural gas and oil is set in the market and we are price takers from that market ... Producers don't "set" the price.
Second, the natural gas royalties are typically set on a sliding scale related to price and productivity of the well as a percentage of total production. Oil Sands royalties have a similar sliding scale but based on price (higher price=higher royalty rate) and are a net profits royalty or revenue minus costs - similar to income tax. Like the income tax system, there are market tests on transfer prices and full reporting and auditing to ensure compliance.
Third, the comment that the write off rate increase with higher oil prices is incorrect. The royalty rate on the net profit increases with higher oil prices, so royalties actually go up. If the cost of natural gas is the same, then higher oil prices = higher net profits and higher royalties and higher taxes.
On the SOR ... It is one of the most important metrics for SAGD projects and companies are continuing driving it down. It is important to look at the SOR trends over the life of the project (by well pad). New pads typically start with higher SOR's then decline, but the overall project trends go down. I don't have the total industry outlook in front of me, but the average I recall seeing (First Energy) is between 3.0 and 2.5 with the best ones going below that. I recall that Christina Lake (Cenovus Energy) is at 2.0 or below. The introduction of propane/solvents is beginning to drive it down further.
I've attached the latest SOR chart from First Energy.
Please let me know in what publication/blog/newsletter the article will appear.
Hope this helps.
Best,
Travis
Travis Davies
Manager--Media and Issues
Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers
www.capp.ca
www.twitter.com/travis_CAPP
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Mopled Source Disclosure...
Just so you folks know who the mopled is using as his expert source, in the link above to the Global Warming Policy Forum. Especially relevant is the last paragraph from Wikipedia below.
"Established in November 2009, and chaired by former Chancellor of the Exchequer Nigel Lawson, GWPF states that it is "deeply concerned about the costs and other implications of many of the policies currently being advocated" to address climate change and that it aims to "bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant".[2][3]
The GWPF is located at 1 Carlton House Terrace, London, renting office space from the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining.[4] The GWPF website carries an array of articles skeptical of environmental science .[5]" from Wikpedia
John Greg
2 years ago
mopled and AGW
mopled is an archetypal AGW denier, head in sand, hands over ears, eyes blinded by the light of faint faith.
He is simply incpapable of understanding the science, or for that matter accepting the very simple fact that the vast majority of science shows beyond a doubt that AGW is real.
About the only thing one can come to consensus with this kind of ideowoo is that while AGW is undeniable, the results of it, i.e., what happens next, is extremely difficult to determine with specificity and accuracy due to such things as the chaotic nature of Nature and weather, and so forth.
Arguing, debating, discussing AGW or any climataological theory with mopled is little more than a waste of time. His favoured sources are anecdotal reports, utterly lunatic fanatics, reams of "because I say so" punditry, and so on.
morechatter
2 years ago
what's up with you
Come now you gotta give me something better than some site when I get my stuff from the science guy and from within. Where do you get your from Minister Pretience as he gets it on with the big banks? Its a tax break here and a tax break there and here a log there a log everywhere a log but here it costs a fortune what is that all about?
What about those money transfers what about with that?
What about the interests rates?
What about having the most over priced homes in the world. Yeah we are number one that is right but only unfortunately it makes us all look like fools.
morechatter
2 years ago
CORRECTION
It should read Federal Minister of Environment, Mr. Pretence has moved over where it will really pay off, not for the environment and not for Canadians either but that is nothing new.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-04/cibc-hires-canadian-environment-minister-jim-prentice-as-vice-chairman.html
KWD
2 years ago
sharing the wealth
“… that wealth itself cannot be created, only taken from/stolen... myself saying, from the future, for false enrichment today, to the few, and from the "share" that would otherwise go to the entire working class and its poor, who are expected to "subsidize" this "private wealth accumulation" of the few.”
So let me get this straight: We need a system that ensures equal distribution of the proceeds of this theft of ”wealth”. Is that what you are saying?
The idea that we are stealing from the future is bogus. When you get right down to it, and consider geologic time scales, all resources, with the exception of the sun’s energy, wind and tidal power, are nonrenewable. The number of times you can harvest fish, forests and agricultural crops, and expect an adequate quantity, with adequate quality, is limited. Sooner or later, regardless of the best efforts of Monsanto, you will interrupt or destroy the biogeochemical cycles that provide the what's needed for further growth. This extends beyond the harvested resource to include other inhabitants of the biosphere like bears, ungulates, insects and fungi.
If we want to truly limit the “theft” of resources … and provide for future generations … we need to consider ways and means of drastically reducing the population.
If we don’t make a conscious decision to change our ways, we will , like you say, be “stopped by a retaliatory "correction" by nature itself”.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Like It Or Lump It...
"If we want to truly limit the “theft” of resources … and provide for future generations … we need to consider ways and means of drastically reducing the population.
If we don’t make a conscious decision to change our ways, we will , like you say, be “stopped by a retaliatory "correction" by nature itself”." from KWD.
Hmmm. Not really sure what your bitch is... other than an apparent hostility to the idea that greater degrees of societal/class equality in power and economic share distribution might be an issue, including in this context. Which is fine, we are all free to differ on issues of class and politics, as well as economics. But outside of that, having addressed the issue of population myself many times, you otherwise seem to echo me. (Which seems to be what really pisses you off. :-)
Nonetheless, outside of that, I am of the view regardless, that part of the way in which these issues, including the welfare of the environment, wil be resolves is:
a) mitigating greed driven activity, in some part, on the part of all classes, but especially the ruling class wealthy whom is "the driver" of it, and the social conflict for economic share, blind to all consequences, that is the result of that.
b.) You are not going to have acceptance, or at least less willing, socially harmonious acceptance of population reductions and more reasonable/rational living standards in a social and economic environment of inequality... Where one class sector, and we should know who that will be, as is, is expected to live on less, while the other class sector, and we should know who that will be, as is, continues to live high on the hog in obsecene material wealth.
c.) The working class, including its poor, is no less concerned with the environment than the "green intelligentsia" self-styled, such as yourself. :-) Nonetheless, my bet will be, as myself, that they will not accept your prescriptions for a solution on such an imbalanced assumption as is the status quo political and economic order. I will certainly not.
It will be, as now, a prescription for social disharmony and ongoing class warfare... especially as the material circumstances of we lower orders deteriorate beyond even our current modest lifestyles. Especially to pay the price for "your" improved environment.
So, yuou may not want to think so, preferring a tail chasing "self-introspection" method of dealing with reality, but the hard issues of class and socio-economic power, and the imbalances there, come into play and are a part in the actual realization of your proposed "green" future. Like it or not
You sure as Hell ain't gonna get it without our, at the very least mine, participation or co-operation, and I predict there will be, indeed already is a working class price tag attached to it... and it starts with respect. Like it or lump it. :-)
Part of the way we have to "change our ways", fella.
KWD
2 years ago
Travis Davies from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Produce
For a moment I thought you were going to come clean and offer to admit that the ‘ole story about private enterprise business-success being the result of laissez faire capitalism, true competition and survival of the fittest is actually a lie.
Perhaps what you are really telling us is that, for the corporate world, socialism is hard to beat. Keep those taxpayer subsidies comin’.
KWD
2 years ago
OK fella
I guess you missed the irony in the part about sharing in the proceeds of thievery and stealing from the future.
As far as the rest goes ... I think we both agree on the symptoms, maybe less so on the cure.
RickW
2 years ago
alda
Quite frankly, those in charge of all this extraction frenzy just don't care. There is not one whit of concern about a future dystopia they fully expect to somehow be able to immunize themselves from.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
My Learned Friend...
Irony takes real skill to impart in the written word. :-)
Just a number of related question though, being as we are agreed on the need for major population reductions.
Are you unaware that Canada, in fact, has a declining population? The average (working class) family in this country is less than two kids? Two kids is not even replacement, but itself declining numbers? (Not all live to breed, are queer, sterile etc.) And that what population growth is occurring in this country is "immigrant driven", by the endless growth requirements of the capitalist system?
The reality in this country at least is, and actually in the US, Japan, Germany and others as well, that the working class is already doing its part for population reduction. And were the religious nutters such as the Catholic Church of not such influence elsewhere in the "poor" world, the birth control technologies available, and the knowledge of their use, most of the worlds people would be able to quickly see and understand the wisdom of population reduction. Were they free of war, imperialist predations, and ignorance long enough. There is a necessity for some "objectivity", outside ideology, in these discussions.
We are all currently living in a system based on fraud and theft, greed and war, and participants. as victims or beneficiaries in it, to varying degrees. Of which it seems very often, the "green intelligentsia" is or chooses to be blissfully ignorant.
Luck
2 years ago
YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT ........
YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT FOLKS.
IF YOU CONSTANTLY EAT NEGATIVE AND BURP IT OUT CONSTANTLY THEN YOU REAP NEGATIVE ALSO.
DOESN'T ANYONE WATCH CBC INTERVIEWS WITH NEW GREEN COMPANIES.
A CANADIAN COMPANY HAS THE TECHNOLOGY TO TAKE THE TAR SAND OUT AND ONCE EXTRACTED IT IS CLEANED WITH CLEAN RECYLCED WATER PROCESS AND THEN TRUCK BACK AFTER THE RECYCLE PROCESS.
THE SAND DOES NOT LEAVE THE AREA AND IS PUT BACK AS IF NOTHING HAPPENED.
THIS CANADIAN COMPANY IS PERFORMING THIS PROCESS IN THE USA AT PRESENT.
IT MUSTBE GOOD. ALL OUR TALENT HEADS SOUTH RIGHT.
ALL OUR CANADIAN GOV HAS TO DO IS WATCH CBC TELEVISION AND THEN CALL THE COMPANY BY TELEPHONE.
LETS NOT ARGUE OVE THE RHETORIC PEOPLE LETS GET THE FACTS AND FOLLOW THRU.
IT IS TOUGH BEING A CANADAIN WATCHING ALL THIS WASTED ENERGY, TECHNOLOGY AND MONEY BEING LOST BY UNCARING CANADIANS FROM ONE COAST TO THE OTHER.
KWD
2 years ago
old news
The economic threat posed by Canads's declining pop numbers was news in the 80s. Increased immigraton was a direct response.
"Irony takes real skill to impart in the written word."
And an even greater skill to comprehend.
trylogic
2 years ago
Scam exposed again
The transformation from tar sands to oil sands has been successful.
Still, they are burning up natural gas with the energy equivalent of two barrels of oil to generate three barrels of oil (!!!)
The natural gas could be used directly to power cars and power plants.
The tar sands project is the worlds biggest polluting enterprise, unnecessary and total stupidity, run and promoted by psychopaths. If you have shares in the participating companies or work for them you are part of the crime.
It needs a paradigm shift to stop the madness.
YCSTS
2 years ago
This is a SCAM to waste NG, that would otherwise replace OIL.
It makes much more sense to convert the NG into Methanol - cost 3.1 cents per liter, plus NG feedstock cost. Sell Methanol at 15 cents per liter, burn it in Extreme Efficiency Methanol engines - double the efficiency of gasoline engines and much cleaner. Methanol being the cleanest burning liquid fuel. A hell of a lot cheaper than converting NG plus Bitumen into gasoline, at a higher cost, and much higher emissions. Big Oil don't want to do that, so they blockade Methanol & DME, which are widely used in China. The last thing on Earth Big Oil wants is its NG to substitute for its expensive and rapidly depleting imported Oil. They wouldn't want any alternative available to Oil, when the OIL CRASH arrives.
So they are also pushing the INCREDIBLE STUPIDITY of using NG for baseload power generation. Yep waste our NG resources on something that can be done with domestic Hydro and Nuclear, without imports, without job losses, without emissions.
That's what this GIANT RENEWABLE ENERGY SCAM is all about. Wind, Solar & Scampbell's Run-of-the-River Hydro requires a 100% complementary NG power supply. 80-90% of the total Wind/Solar/NG system energy will come from the NG. Yep, waste NG on power, wouldn't want any substitution of NG for Oil. Double Bonus for the Oil Miscreants, the Solar & Wind energy is so INCREDIBLY EXPENSIVE - add that to expensive Shadowing NG power generation and Electricity will become a very pricey substitute for Oil - when the Peak Oil Crash occurs - and it WILL OCCUR.
Take notice how rapidly electricity prices are rising and are predicted to rise all across Canada. Especially under Bilderberg Campbell and Bilderberg McQuinty’s efforts. And Electricity is Canada’s cleanest source of Energy by far! It should be holding its price, while dirty imported Oil gets more expensive. This outrage is NO ACCIDENT. That plus stupidly wasting NG on Tar Sands and Power Generation, which Nuclear could do FAR CHEAPER and VASTLY CLEANER, is setting the stage for the BILDERBERG’S Peak Oil catastrophe.
G West
2 years ago
@Travis Davies
So, what was your point?
Seems to me the essential thesis of Mitchell's piece is pretty much untouched by your contribution.
The taxpayers are 'giving' you a vital natural resource at a bargain basement price so you can use it to turn the Tar Sands and enormous chunks of the natural eco-system into extremely high priced synthetic oil while producing more CO2 than the whole of the rest of Canada combined...
If you can't figure out what's wrong with this picture, all the pretty little BS ads you've been paying big bucks to show on national TV ain't gonna do the trick.
You touch the TAR BABY - you get dirty. And, into the bargain, you and your bosses and the politicians who dance to their little tune are turning this country into a one-horse operation: Just another prime example of the resource curse or the Dutch paradox. We are already beginning to experience lags in overall economic growth and development because other sectors of the economy are being neglected as we increasingly rely on Alberta and oil – especially Tar Baby oil.
As our dollar turns into Harper’s wet dream, a petrodollar, the central institutions of government are being corrupted; other industries are becoming weaker and less able to compete in the international marketplace or even to produce for our own needs, and – as increasing resource revenues enter the economy the situation is going to get worse and worse..
morechatter
2 years ago
Oil driving the dollar
http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/news/breaking-news/article.aspx?cp-documentid=26290194
mopled
2 years ago
I'm a "denier" and proud of it
Just a few of the
"75 reasons to be skeptical of "global warming""
* Carbon dioxide contributes to only 4.2 - 8.4% of the greenhouse gas effect
* Only approximately 4% of carbon dioxide is man-made
* Water vapor accounts for 90 - 95% of the green house gas effect
* 99.99% of water vapor is natural, meaning that no amount of deindustrialization could get rid of it
* There have been many times when the temperature has been higher than it is now including the Medieval Warming Period, the Holocene, the Jurassic, and the Eemian
* Increases in carbon dioxide follow increases in temperature by about 800 years, not precede them
* Phil Jones of the Hadley CRU, and key figure in the "climategate" scandal, admits that there has been no "statistically significant" global warming since 1995
* 2008 and 2009 were the coolest two years of the decade
* During the Ordovician period carbon dioxide concentrations were twelve times what they are now, and the temperature was lower
* Solar activity is highly correlated with temperature change:
All of the above are links to articles on this site:
http://joshfulton.blogspot.com/2010/02/75-reasons-to-be-skeptical-of-global.html
I'm also listening to this as I write:
http://www.youtube.com/user/M4GW#p/a/u/0/Vx-t9k7epIk
jwstewart
2 years ago
"Are you unaware that
"Are you unaware that Canada, in fact, has a declining population? The average (working class) family in this country is less than two kids? Two kids is not even replacement, but itself declining numbers? (Not all live to breed, are queer, sterile etc.)"
I can't take this comment at face value, indepth analysis is needed. Two kids per couple is a growth number, insofar as those kids will themselves have kids long before the first set of parents croak.
Maybe prospective parents should be required to wait until their half-dead to procreate, like half the current life expectancy.
plebe
2 years ago
Time to end subsidies for
Time to end subsidies for the fossil-fuel industry!
plebe
2 years ago
Climate change deniers: untie!
Mopled: The running average of mean global temperatures is now higher than it has ever been in the instrumental record. In the northern hemisphere, summer 2009 and winter 2010 were the second-warmest periods on record. Don't trust the temperature records? How about melting glaciers, diminishing snow covers, increasing sea-levels, and the increase in night-time temperatures?
Despite your misleading statistics on CO2 and water vapour, anthropogenic emissions of CO2 currently overwhelm any natural climate forcings. In other words: Yes, we can change the climate.
In the geologic past, changes in solar radiation drove the glaciation cycles, and CO2 lagged behind. In other words it was not a driving force. The fact that we have now altered the composition of the atmosphere in a (geologically speaking) very short time frame by burning geologic carbon frightens me, and I think it should frighten everyone.
KWD
2 years ago
Alberta
The home of the TAR BABY. Excellent!
Almost all of my relatives live there. I was wondering how I could broach the unshakable truth clinging to gobs of sticky tar sands wealth.
whatthe
2 years ago
Time to end subisidies
This gets to the heart of the matter as the rest here simply complicate the lords prayer.
However, if the subsidies and I mean all of them were ended today the tar pit would close up as all the current stakeholders would lose the margins of Profit.
The question is. Is it acceptable for the people of Canada to be subsidizing the profit of the largest, most profitable companies on earth in exchange for some jobs?
This before we even consider all the downstream drawbacks with respect to the environment and the future liability of mopping up the mess.
I say its a no brainer, but the tar pit has its tar babies in Government and one of them is our dictator who clings to his minority like a pitbull to a bone. Witness the prorogatoin of the house at the faintest whiff of an opposition movement.
Petro Canada was in fact a prophetic Trudeau insight as he named our country the petro state it has becoeme decades before it happened.
Just look to Nigeria and other countries after a few decades of petro state style of politics and peer into our future.
mopled
2 years ago
[EDITED.]
[OFFENSIVE COMMENT REMOVEED. -MODERATOR.]
Where's your proof....lay it on me.
Just how does CO2 change climate?
mopled
2 years ago
End subsidies to Warmists, whiler you are at it.
"Global warmers in full retreat as Aussie experts admit growing doubts about their own methods as new study shows one third of temperatures not reliable.
The Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) admits it was wrong about urban heating effects as a professional statistical analysis by Andrew Barnham exposes a BOM claim that “since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C”; the BOM assertion has no empirical scientific basis."
http://climaterealists.com/index.php?id=6619&linkbox=true&position=1
plebe
2 years ago
Proof
Mopled: Do try reading some peer-reviewed journal articles - or do you believe that those are all junk as well?
Here's a list of papers to get you started (and why you should read them):
- Glaciers are sensitive to changes in temperature and precipitation. For recent changes in glacier extent in British Columbia see http://web.unbc.ca/~menounos/www/2007GL030780.pdf, or look at the global picture of glacier mass change (http://www.spaceweather.ac.cn/publication/jgrs/2006/pdf/2006GL027511.pdf)
- Northern hemisphere snow cover has been decreasing *especially in the spring months*. Why? These are the months where snow cover would be most sensitive to changes in temperature. This reference is behind a paywall: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0442%282000%29013%3C2339%3ANHSCVA%3E2.0.CO%3B2, but this one isn't: http://web.unbc.ca/~sdery/publicationfiles/2007GL031474.pdf
- Observed decreases in diurnal temperature range and increases in nighttime temperatures can be explained primarily by increased absorption of heat in the atmosphere due to CO2 (i.e. its not the sun). References:(1) http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2004/2004GL019998.shtml, (2) https://bora.uib.no/handle/1956/1477
- Sea levels and ocean heat content have been rising steadily since observations began in 1960. Here's a great paper: http://www.astepback.com/GEP/Nature%20Higher%20Warming%20SLR%20rates.pdf
- And now, back at you: where's your proof that climate change isn't happening? Or if you accept that it is happening, what the hell is causing it if it isn't CO2? For evidence I prefer peer-reviewed papers as opposed to regurgitated blog opinions.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
What Constitutes a Declining Population Rate?
In reply to doubting thomas, jwstewart.
First, what you offered to my claim was certainly not and "in depth" analysis. Perhaps the below will help you along.
There is some difference of opinion on this, is my discovery. The link below suggests, I think rather mechanically, that 2 births per "fertile" family is simply "replacement", with "fertile population" remaining the same. (I say it is a declining population for obvious reasons of young death, infertility, failure to breed and produce for whatever reasons etc. Though this is mitigated "some" by longevity increases.
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm
There is a lot of material out there which one can go through, but the critical element, it seems from my studies, is the death rate compared to the birth rate. And while Canada's population is declining (sans immigration) and few babies are being born, folks are also living longer is the other side of the equation that seems to make it difficult for demographers to draw hard and fast conclusions about growing and declining population rates.
On the other hand, the more accurate description of this issue is from the Wikipedia site below, which states in part:
"Taken globally, the total fertility rate at replacement is 2.33 children per woman. 2.33 children per woman includes 2 children to replace the parents, with a third of a child extra to make up for the different sex ratio at birth and early mortality prior to the end of their fertile life.[2]"
Which proves my point. And I will be pleased to accept your apology for doubting it. :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sub-replacement_fertility
John Greg
2 years ago
plebe ...
You are almost certainly wasting your time. Mopled is utterly and completely incapable of distinguishing between peer-reviewed journals and fanatical anecdotes, or legitimate science and lunatic punditry, and the myriad conservative and simply idiotic journalists who post most of has favoured creed.
He is, as I've stated before, the archetypal denier who is also a signal example of what willful ignorance is and does.
You could present mopled with a million pieces of irrefutable proof and he would still deny it, because, as we all know, an overexcited, neo-con fanatical journalist (with a website built of many colours, ALL CAPS, and irregular font bolding) who cannot even understand the difference between weather and climate knows more, far, far more about the science of climate change than any PhD or multi-degreed professional.
I mean, it goes without saying, right? Loud journalists, and their reptilian overlords, always know more about, well, anything and everything.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Canada's Birth Rate Compared...
For Canada's birthrate, check out the attached. Which by the way is 1.6 per family. (Go to the bottom of the above link to compare with other countries. Such as China 1.8, India 3.1, and USA 2.0)
http://www.pregnantpause.org/numbers/fertility.htm
mopled
2 years ago
How about that geo-engineering,eh!
It's going to save us all from the warming that was and is no more. Don't let facts get in the way of an excuse for poisoning the Earth for fun and profit. The tar sands is minor compared to this one.
WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE THEY SPRAYING
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-K9rXydMmfw&feature=related
plebe
2 years ago
Greg: Agreed.
But that doesn't mean it isn't worth standing up and demonstrating what science does know. At least other posters who may not be so willfully ignorant can then see the logic of the climate change argument, and the mountains of evidence that support it.
And, as always, it pays to be polite.
mopled
2 years ago
John Greg
How utterly transparent of you. I ask for the proof that human generated CO2 is capable of changing/disrupting/warming the climate and we are treated to a song and dance about pearls before deniers.
My dear man...put up or do the proverbial.
I understand your reluctance to provide evidence of AGW since after all the hoop-de-do the best the (blush)Nobel Prize winning IPCC could come up with, was a 90% probability. Then it was found that the climate data had been massaged and original data discarded...Climategate and all that.
http://www.climate-gate.org/
Should you bother to look at the series,"What in the world are they spraying?"
in Part 3 you will find that the aluminum being spread in our skies (40,000 ppm in the atmosphere in Phoenix) is not only poisoning the soil and water, it acts as a fire accelerant.
Now compare forest fires to tailing ponds, while remembering that the Ruling Elite gives us both.
mopled
2 years ago
Plebe
What you presented was evidence that things change..from glaciers to temperature.
Nowhere do you present evidence that the 4% extra CO2 man contributes is capable of causing those changes.
Do take a look at the graph in the banner.http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/
There is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
No Correlation=No Causation.
AGW is toast.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Plebe...
Plebe: He proclaims sans evidence and using no peer reviewed sources, indeed "industry linked" sources, the end of AGW. But his proclaimations fall on dumbfounded ears here, only because he is so unashamedly transparent.
Still, I agree with you. I think it is wrong to assume that these raver deniers are simply dismissed by everyone. You do a service, and you did it well; mopping the floor with him.
But yes, John Greg is correct too. Given his sloped forehead, knuckle dragger type, he will just rave on.
But then the real evidence you present is really not for him... And that is necessary.
plebe
2 years ago
Opinion vs fact
Dear mopled: In the atmosphere, CO2 absorbs and emits longwave (infrared) radiation at specific wavelengths. If you increase CO2 in the atmosphere, you would expect to see less longwave radiation emitted to space, and increased longwave radiation at the surface. Lo and behold, evidence for decreased longwave emissions to space (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html) and evidence for increased downwelling longwave radiation at the Earth's surface: http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2009/2009JD011800.shtml.
This radiative imbalance leads to an accumulation of heat in the atmosphere and oceans, and all of the effects that I gave you references for previously.
As for your maxim "No Correlation = No Causation", you've got it backwards. The saying is correlation does not equal causation. However no one is arguing that, in the geologic past, CO2 caused temperature changes. Keep your eye on the ball mobled: the problem is that CO2 is controlling the climate of today and of the future.
mopled
2 years ago
Fact is the climate changes no matter what CO2 does
The effect of +/-390 ppm of CO2 is negligible...and if you can't understand that, there is no hope, no matter how well you write or spin facts.
One MUST have a correlation between two things before one can even CONSIDER that one causes the other. Otherwise anything can cause anything else without any kind of relationship between them.
http://mathbits.com/mathbits/tisection/statistics2/correlationcausation.htm
"However no one is arguing that, in the geologic past, CO2 caused temperature changes. Keep your eye on the ball mobled: the problem is that CO2 is controlling the climate of today and of the future."
If CO2 didn't change climate in the past...how did it suddenly attain it magical powers "today and in the future" when it is at such low levels. It was 4000ppm during an ice age. Yet now everything is different?
There is no historical or present day correlation between the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere and the average temperature of the earth.
"Average global temperatures in the Early Carboniferous Period were hot- approximately 20° C (68° F). However, cooling during the Middle Carboniferous reduced average global temperatures to about 12° C (54° F). As shown on the chart below, this is comparable to the average global temperature on Earth today!
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image277.gif
Similarly, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the Early Carboniferous Period were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), but by the Middle Carboniferous had declined to about 350 ppm -- comparable to average CO2 concentrations today!
Earth's atmosphere today contains about 380 ppm CO2 (0.038%). Compared to former geologic times, our present atmosphere, like the Late Carboniferous atmosphere, is CO2- impoverished! In the last 600 million years of Earth's history only the Carboniferous Period and our present age, the Quaternary Period, have witnessed CO2 levels less than 400 ppm."
"Late Carboniferous to Early Permian time (315 mya -- 270 mya) is the only time period in the last 600 million years when both atmospheric CO2 and temperatures were as low as they are today (Quaternary Period )."
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html
plebe,I don't for a minute think you believe what you are writing, or you wouldn't be able to survive modern life without a keeper.
SharingIsGood
2 years ago
global warming and algae
I prefer to name anti-global warming advocates as denialators. That name more closely resembles fact.
Here are some links about algae and carbon nanotubes. If we want to develop and use them, algae, carbon nanotubes and geothermal heat can provide well over half of growing human energy needs. The will need only be for creating sustainable economies instead of producing more war machines for fighting over resources. Even if one were foolish enough not believe in GW, the economics of the following new research makes complete sense.
MOst efficient producer of oil:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/30/business/energy-environment/30iht-renalg.html?ref=canada
Lipid/Oil/biodiesel production:
http://www.oilgae.com/algae/oil/yield/yield.html
Hydrogen Production:
http://www.h2journal.com/displaynews.php?NewsID=569
Electrical production:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/09/100912151548.htm
Electric car:
http://www.allcarselectric.com/blog/1050863_electric-car-drives-375-miles-at-55-\
mph-recharges-in-6-minutes
hydrogen storage:
http://www.mcphy.com/en/hydrogen-storage/mcphy-solution.php
mopled
2 years ago
Is The Western Climate Establishment Corrupt?,
Dr. Dave Evans has gathered substantial evidence that corruption has become endemic within government-sponsored climate units.
Dr. Evans finds that, “The Western Climate Establishment has allowed egregious mistakes, major errors and obvious biases to accumulate — each factor on its own might be hard to pin down, but the pattern is undeniable.” Evans asks, “How many excuses does it take?”
Continues Dr. Evans, “These photos speak for themselves. The corruption of climate science has become so blatant, so obvious, that even non-scientists can no longer throw their hands in the air, and say ‘I don’t know’. You don’t need a PhD to know it is cheating to place thermometers near artificial heat sources and call it ‘global warming’.”
Key findings of the paper include:
* Official thermometers are overwhelmingly in warm localities such as near air conditioner exhaust vents, buildings, concrete, tarmac, asphalt, and even fermenting vats of warm sludge.
* Officials hide the modern ARGO data which shows the world’s oceans are cooling.
* They ignore hundreds of thousands of weather balloon results that show the climate models overestimate future warming by at least 300%.
* Officials frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming. But almost never mention the full story: that the planet started the current global warming trend before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
* Leading authors publish a crucial graph with a deceptive colour scheme designed to imitate the results they wish they’d got. Why did a leading journal publish such a naked and childish attempt at cheating?
* Their adjustments blatantly transform the original raw data from thermometers, often creating rising trends. They also selectively ignore thousands of other thermometers.
* Researchers repeatedly go out of their way to hide their records, and dodge FOIs.
* The Russian, Chinese and Indian climate establishments, which are financially independent of the western financial establishment, are all skeptical. As are scientists from other branches of science, as well as many older or retired climate scientists (who have nothing to lose by speaking their minds).
Concludes Dr. Evans, “Once one or two major news outlets start printing these photos of official thermometers near artificial heating sources, and points out the deception, the rush will be on for our elected representatives to abandon the Global Warming Crusade."
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=622452
SharingIsGood
2 years ago
such a gross inacuracy
* Officials frequently point to the last 130 years of global warming. But almost never mention the full story: that the planet started the current global warming trend before 1700, over a century before humans started pumping out meaningful amounts of CO2.
I believe that our earth could rerasonably recover from the effects of 1/2 billion pre-industrial-age people. Mopled is feeding us more of his nonscience.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population_estimates
world population 1500 approx. 0.48 billion
world population 1600 approx. 0.55 billion
world population 1700 approx. 0.62 billion
world population 1800 approx. 0.9 billion
world population 1900 approx. 1.6 billion
world population 1955 approx. 2.7 billion
world population 2010 approx. 6.9 billion
It was not until after the industrial revolution that human population and human burning of fuels/fossil fuels really started to accellerate.
SharingIsGood
2 years ago
previous post.
please note that my previous post contained a quote from mopled. the first paragraph is from his posing just before mine.
mopled
2 years ago
Anybody who uses wikipedia as a climate reference
might as well use "The Watch Tower" as a guide to the future. I envision Warmists in electric go-carts dressed in green homespun waiting for the Rapture as the rest of us carbon sinners are destroyed.
"How does Wikipedia work and how do Connolley and his co-conspirators exercise control? Take Wikipedia's page for Medieval Warm Period, as an example. In the three days following my column's appearance, this page alone was changed some 50 times in battles between Connolley's crew and those who want a fair presentation of history.
One of the battles concerns the so-called hockey stick graphs, which purport to show that temperatures over the last 2000 years were fairly stable until the last century, when temperatures rose rapidly to today's supposedly dangerous and unprecedented levels. In these graphs, the Medieval Warm Period - a period of several centuries around the year 1000 - appears to be a modest bump along the way. Before the hockey stick graphs began to be published about a decade ago, scientists everywhere - including those associated with the UN itself - viewed the Medieval Warm Period as much hotter than today. Rather than appearing as a modest bump compared to today's high temperatures, the Medieval Warm Period looked more like a mountain next to the molehill that is today's temperature increase."
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-hockey-stick-wars.aspx
G West
2 years ago
mopled
You use anything and everything (but no actual science) to support your pipe-dream anti-tax agenda. Most people have tuned you out months ago - I know I have.
And besides, isn't 2010 on track to be the hottest year world-wide since records have been kept?
Or is that just another wiki-fact?
Why dump on wikipedia - there's actually some intelligence behind the resource.
By the way, I heard little Timmy Ball on the radio the other day - he seems to have forgotten all about his pet theories and now spends all his time complaining about the 'lack of respect' he's getting.
Do people actually PAY to listen to this guy?
plebe
2 years ago
end FF subsidies, stop thread hijackers
Apologies to Tyee regulars, but mopled is spamming the comments section in this article with, well, spam. I've asked, politely, for references to back up his assertions, and he obliges with Lawrence Solomon! Last time I checked, NP was not peer-reviewed. He also writes: "The effect of +/-390 ppm of CO2 is negligible", demonstrating that he has little to no understanding of the atmosphere or the greenhouse effect, without which our mean annual temperature would be -18C.
I will stop feeding the troll. Please write your MPs and ask them to stop feeding the fossil fuel industry.
SharingIsGood
2 years ago
mopled the troll
If Mopled had actually clicked on the wikipedia link, he would have see that my numbers were approximate averages of numbers put forth by many trusted sources such as the United Nations. Links for those sources are provided within the article.
Mopled, you are the Tyee's very own anti-Global Warming troll who refuses to acknowledge the truth in anything but a denialator's myopic worldview. I wonder, do you work for a coal or petroleum-related industry? Do you have holdings in a company that could be hurt by slowing CO2 emissions?
BTW, I own some waterfront real estate that could, in fact, double in value if the oceanic water table were to rise but a foot or two. Watching that happen will not please me in the slightest. Money is not my prime mover.
mopled
2 years ago
The lack of scientific fact is all on the Warmist side.
There was a Medieval Warm Period which was warmer than anything since then. There was a Roman Warm Period, which was warmer than the MWP. There are multiple scientific referenced in the listings below.
Medieval Warm Period
Global
Hemispheric
Regional
Africa
Antarctica
Arctic
Asia
China
Miscellaneous
Russia
Australia/New Zealand
Central America
Europe
North America
Oceans
South America
http://www.co2science.org/subject/m/subject_m.php
Roman Warm Period
Asia
Europe
Central
Mediterranean
Northern
Other
Miscellaneous
North America
South America
http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/subject_r.php
Trolldom is a matter if perception. Since none of you can back up your claims with anything substantial, and all that happens is I get called "denier" or "troll", I think the epithets are boomeranging.
Show me your evidence that CO2 changes climate.
mopled
2 years ago
As for wikipedia
"Controversy has erupted among the encyclopedia's core contributors, after a rogue editor revealed that the site's top administrators are using a secret insider mailing list to crackdown on perceived threats to their power.
Many suspected that such a list was in use, as the Wikipedia "ruling clique" grew increasingly concerned with banning editors for the most petty of reasons. But now that the list's existence is confirmed, the rank and file are on the verge of revolt."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/12/04/wikipedia_secret_mailing/
Another prominent Wikipedia editor has been climate topic banned
By a vote of 4-3 Kim Dabelstein Petersen has been topic banned, just like RealClimate founder William Connolley:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/15/another-wikipedia-editor-has-been-climate-topic-banned/
Yeoman
2 years ago
Mopled -
Don't you realize that by posting so much about AGW and chemtrails you are just attracting attention to yourself? They will start enhanced surveillance on you and maybe even spike your water with psycho-active drugs. Go underground before it is too late.
mopled
2 years ago
Yeoman
Thanks for your concern, fake though it may be. I would be remiss in my duty as a citizen if I didn't at least try to arouse others of the dangers of Green Fascism.
"Branding of Dissenters Has Begun – Clearing The Path To A Climate Science Pogrom
What is it with these intolerant zealots who refuse to learn anything from history?
Right smack on the anniversary of Kristallnacht, German Parliamentarians, in a frontal assault, are now openly calling out and branding scientists for the crime of scientific dissent. These out-of-control Parliamentarians are demanding that the German government take a position against dissenting views in climate science.
What follows makes McCarthyism look like a treasure hunt. What a number of zealous German Parliamentarians are calling for borders on a call to launch a science pogrom."
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/11/germany-gets-ugly-with-skeptics/#more-27710
dave0ferg
2 years ago
Tax Code Decryption
Mitch has made a great start in deciphering the tax code.
One of the premises of free market capitalism is that everyone has access to the same information. When corporations hide behind 'corporate confidentially in the name of competitiveness,’ their commitment is suspect. As a public policy, no corporation should be eligible for any subsidy, tax break or accelerated CCA unless they are completely up-front with their financial situation in a clear, understandable manner. Without symmetrical information to all, Adam Smith’s ‘invisible hand’ is more likely to be picking your pocket than serving the common good or democracy.
realisticman
2 years ago
Goodonya Mopled!
It is truly amazing that so many people that jump on sensational bandwagons have such a intense difficulty in jumping off, no matter how convincing evidence to the contrary of their opinions are.
It has become somewhat concerning lately with the ardent posture that we currently encounter. There is a discernable confluence noticeable with overlapping ideologies and beliefs. This makes the unquestioning of religious beliefs more understandable.
Over the past half-century there have been many of these panic driven concepts and only a few seem to be able to spin themselves off of one gospel wagon or another.
Stewart Brand of the Whole Earth Catalog fame is one who has evolved and shifted his beliefs. He gave a presentation here in Vancouver recently. Many thought it to be sacrilegious, I hope you caught it.
I prefer reading non-fiction. Keep it coming.
zalm
2 years ago
Back to the story - theft of resources
In other countries of the world, they insist on getting the highest price possible for their resources, so they can pay for social programs and unearned wealth for the ruling families - whatever. Be that as it may, Venezuela, Brazil, South Africa, and a variety of other states around the world all have much higher royalty rates for their resources than does Canada for its gas and oil. Gawd, even that paragon of free-market virtue, the US is heading that way for some materials, such as old growth lumber.
Alberta's royalty rate is 5% for nearly all production except old sweet wells. Exempt from royalties are all inputs, such as gas used in production, and water draws, not to mention roadbuilding (what isn't done at government expense, that is). also not noted are the large number of shuttered wells, awaiting a time when "the price gets better." The royalty credit doesn't go away for these wells, and under certain circumstances, it's transferable to other sources.
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/OilSands/801.asp
BC's is even lower - 1% in some cases!
Maybe Travis could address this subject without obfuscation.
To claim that 80,000 direct jobs nationally for the oil industry is worth the billions in foregone royalty income, tax credits, and government expenditures is simply ludicrous. I'm not suggesting we nationalize the oil industry, but it would certainly produce better results for the majority of people living in Canada, even if it wouldn't decrease the global pollution burden that moppled insists isn't really happening anyway.
YCSTS
2 years ago
Deniers are in Denial about Energy Reality
Deniers have buried their head in the sand about much more than AGW. Mopled forgets that Oil hit $147 per barrel two years ago, and could have reached $200 per barrel had it not been for the Financial Meltdown.
Oil supplies 37% of World Energy and, in developing countries, demand is rapidly increasing, as is population, while supply is certainly within 10 yrs of Peak, and most likely within 3 yrs of Peak. This situation is completely unsustainable, and modern civilization is on fast train to ENERGY CATASTROPHE. Global Warming just adds Misery to Madness.
The per capita energy consumption of Canada is 130 MWh or an avg power consumption of 60 kw for a family of four. These new "Clean Energy" sources touted by SLEAZOIDS like Campbell's 13 cents per kwh Run-of-the-River, would cost $68k per yr, per family of four. Solar is more like $300k per yr, and Wind upwards of $100k per yr. Along with Peak Oil, there will be Severe Water Shortages, Food Shortages, De-Forestation, Soil Degradation, Desertification, Peak Phosphorus, Toxic Air & Water pollution and Climate Change - even if it is a Natural Cycle - like Mopled claims. And everyone of those is HIGHLY RELATED to the Energy Problem.
Fortunately, there is a Solution to the Energy/Peak Oil problem, that will allow us to deal with those other problems, and without which we WILL NOT be able. That is Nuclear Energy. Only it is capable of supplying Sustainable Energy at under 5 cents per kwh, likely for 2 cents per kwh. Happy coincidence is that Nuclear Energy is also ZERO CO2, ZERO GHG emissions.
So you see, Mopled, AGW is IRRELEVANT. We have NO CHOICE but a RAPID, Expansion of Nuclear Energy, and the slower we move on that, the more future generations will suffer.
YCSTS
2 years ago
An excellent lesson on Energy Reality by Friakel Wippans
"If you have enough energy, it does not matter how poor your metallic ores are, it does not matter how little potable water you have, it does not matter how ingrate your land is. If you have enough energy and the smarts to use it, it doesn’t matter how rough a deal history and geography have dealt you.
If you have energy, you can solve any scarcity. You can extract every element you want from the faintest concentrations. You can desalinate sea water and recycle your sewage. You can irrigate your fields and you can fertilize them as much as you need to make them strive. You can grow and nurture civilization in the most hostile corners of the planet. And once you’re set up, you can pretty much live in closed circuit, endlessly recycling your endowment of matter, that is, as long you have energy.”
KWD
2 years ago
"If you have enough energy ...
you can solve any scarcity"
except the scarcity of "political honesty", the scarcity of concerned,informed citizens, the scarcity of egalitarianism and compassion, and the big one, the scarcity of time.
Oxs
2 years ago
Sigh
This article relies on an appeal to emotion instead on logical veracity. Every business has tax-deductible expenses; managing these is a key component of running any company. Saying that the current tax framework is a subsidy is intellectually dishonest, and puts those less experienced with accounting at a disadvantage for discussion. Tax avoidance is not tax evasion. And subsidy is a charged word; they are not receiving money from the government when they buy natural gas. They simply receive tax credit on their business expenses. Just like every other tax-paying business venture in Canada.
Also:
- Extractive companies face double-taxation because they pay tax through royalties on extraction and on their profit through conventional taxes. This does not actually mean that tax deductions give them a double benefit. It just brings the principle of tax deductions for these companies back in line with other non-extractive industries.
- A SAGD project's SOR ratio is the best predictor of its future profitability because most of their variable costs of extraction are related to natural gas acquisition and steam production. Yet this article seriously insinuates that oil companies get some perverse satisfaction out of having shit steam-oil ratios. Husky's Tucker project has been horrendous, and that 8.0+ SOR is making them hemorrhage money. They are aware of this, and they desperately wish their reservoir wasn't garbage. They are not wasting water to piss us off. It is costing them an arm and a leg and a lot of credibility.
- The water is not "used up" at an X-to-1 ratio because the water is brought back up with the oil, separated and re-used. It keeps costs down to recycle it. Alberta produces 650k barrels of bitumen a day from these SAGD projects alone - it does not have the resources to sustain that type of water usage.
If you want to really stir the pot and bring the discourse to the oil companies on environmental terms it is mandatory that you construct your arguments on a logically rigorous basis. If the companies were subsidized this would be a fine argument, but they aren't. If anything the cash flows from them to us are too high and that's why the oil companies get away with regulatory murder.
There is no silver bullet for this discussion. The government believes it needs the money and the oil more than the trees and the water. That is the misperception we need to fix.
G West
2 years ago
I'm sorry Oxs
There is a silver bullet for this discussion - and the dishonesty is all on the side of the government and the industry.
In fact, the water is 'used' up if it is not available to do what it is ecologically necessary to do - the suggestion that this is simply a matter of providing a better filter is absurd. The water used in these processes is being withdrawn and sequestered at ever increasing rates for increasingly long periods of time and is therefore no longer a part of the normal flow of the Athabaska river. That’s a real and growing problem of which no economic notice is being taken.
This is far from trivial and the suggestion that it isn't is dishonest on YOUR part.
Furthermore, the suggestion that the current economic arrangements are not enormous subsidies is absurd - of course they are...just as oil depletion allowances provided unacceptable subsidies to the oil industry for generations.
As long as oil is not priced at its 'real' value the people who mine, process and sell it are being subsidized by taxpayers - this is done by illogical processes such as those being used to free bitumen from its sand matrix by taking 'free' water and 'almost free' natural gas at a rate of more than one to one for water and much higher for natural gas.
By 2020 in situ processing will likely exceed production from surface mining and the quantities of natural gas used will have increased apace.
As for your claim that these companies are being double taxed - it too is absurd. A royalty is NOT A TAX and, until the costs of production have been met, these companies pay nothing but royalties. The royalty is the only money the taxpayer sees for the eventual extinguishment of the resource if these companies have no bottom line profits. In fact, should the international price of oil fall below $50/bbl you will quickly find the interest in the Tar Sands wanes and the taxpayer will end up - as we always do - with the environmental degradation of a lot of discrete projects quickly jettisoned from their balance sheets of a long list of Tar Sands projects.
This has already happened more than once since the dance with the4 TAR BABY began...it will happen again.
The government doesn't need 'this' money any more than it needs any other money - it just happens to be addicted to EASY MONEY and it operates under the misapprehension that this is easy money.
They are suffering from the Dutch Disease...
RickW
2 years ago
I remember Allan Fotheringham....
...when he wrote for Maclean's. In one article he noted that, over a 50 year stretch, stats showed that BC's forest industry actually COST the province a cool billion dollars.
Such will be the TAR SANDS, when the tally sheets come in.