4 ms·

> On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from politically unstable or unfriendly

by munk-a 5y ago

> On the other, other hand - more tar sands oil staying in the ground means more oil from elsewhere in the world, often from politically unstable or unfriendly regimes will replace the oil the US otherwise would have imported from Canada. This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from other sources. Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average production price of that good is increased (assuming there is an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely unnoticeable dip in supply. Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source.

eloff 5y ago
> This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from other sources. Given strongly inelastic demand, I would say very marginally less. > Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average production price of that good is increased (assuming there is an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely unnoticeable dip in supply. I think we're saying the same thing? > Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source. Yes, they had better get serious about transitioning the economy away from oil before Calgary becomes a ghost town. People sure aren't there for the weather.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Hrm, my wording might have been a bit off itself but I mostly just wanted to highlight and rebut what could be worded in your original statement as a sort of fatalist "Even if we reduce what's coming from Canada it won't effect overall production". I do agree that the impact won't solve global warming or potentially cause a reflection in gas pump prices, but the supply is definitely elastic and while the demand is inelastic in the long term short term price fluctuations do actually cause short term fluctuations in demand so there is a fair bit of elasticity there as well. People will find ways to reduce their car commute when prices spike and, especially, oil power plants will defer operation to cheaper (possibly less clean :sigh:) alternatives.
  - eloff 5y ago
    Given how large the oil market is and how generally inelastic the demand is, I would wager any overall reduction in demand will be marginal. There won't be no effect, but I don't see there being a large effect either.
verelo 5y ago
The oil from the tar sands isn't clean, there's no great reasons for it to come from Canada (I'm Canadian too before anyone jumps on that). Sure, it's extracted under better working conditions than many places in the world, but the damage to the environment is substantial, it's a very energy intensive process and furthermore it is much worse in terms of impact and energy use than almost all other means of obtaining oil. Alberta seems to be expecting this oil thing to keep the province going forever; it is over. Diversify, try new things, for your sake and the sake of the rest of Canada. Please stop expecting this to get better. 2015 was a warning, it's now officially ending and the time to start moving on has passed, every day not diversifying the economy of Alberta is just a day of economic procrastination. Edit: Sure energy security, keep some for us, but let's not make it the backbone of our economy.
- eloff 5y ago
  > there's no great reasons for it to come from Canada Energy security, not propping up authoritarian regimes with terrible human rights records, not requiring military interventions to protect a stable supply of oil. Maybe not good enough reasons to change the balance, but reasons nonetheless.
  - hilbertseries 5y ago
    The US is the largest oil producer in the world.
    - YarickR2 5y ago
      Yet Russia is the largest oil supplier to the US
      - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
        The US is the largest oil supplier to the US. You can kinda thank W for that.
        5y ago
boringg 5y ago
Not much else they can do with the same amount of inbound value. They are trying to go hydrogen but they have a small population, pretty right leaning and only a handful of schools. They should have tried to change their policies back in 2009 during that boom but the politicians in Alberta aren’t very forward thinking. That and they don’t play well with the rest of populated country (read BC, Ontario, Quebec)

by munk-a 5y ago

eloff 5y ago

> This statement has some inaccuracies in it, it is true that it will literally result in more oil from other places, but, given supply and demand, it will result in less additional oil from other sources. Given strongly inelastic demand, I would say very marginally less. > Whenever a cheap source of a good is eliminated the average production price of that good is increased (assuming there is an exhaustible supply of that good at that price) so the removal, or even inconveniencing of access, to tar sands extract will cause an up-tick in prices overall and a likely unnoticeable dip in supply. I think we're saying the same thing? > Additionally, as a Canadian myself, the Alberta oils sands have recently contributed strongly to an economic crisis in Calgary as extraction profitability has sharply declined. There is a lot of oil still left up there but Alberta needs to act now, while it has the funds to do so, to transition their economy. It is not a feasible long term revenue source. Yes, they had better get serious about transitioning the economy away from oil before Calgary becomes a ghost town. People sure aren't there for the weather.

munk-a 5y ago
Hrm, my wording might have been a bit off itself but I mostly just wanted to highlight and rebut what could be worded in your original statement as a sort of fatalist "Even if we reduce what's coming from Canada it won't effect overall production". I do agree that the impact won't solve global warming or potentially cause a reflection in gas pump prices, but the supply is definitely elastic and while the demand is inelastic in the long term short term price fluctuations do actually cause short term fluctuations in demand so there is a fair bit of elasticity there as well. People will find ways to reduce their car commute when prices spike and, especially, oil power plants will defer operation to cheaper (possibly less clean :sigh:) alternatives.
- eloff 5y ago
  Given how large the oil market is and how generally inelastic the demand is, I would wager any overall reduction in demand will be marginal. There won't be no effect, but I don't see there being a large effect either.

verelo 5y ago

The oil from the tar sands isn't clean, there's no great reasons for it to come from Canada (I'm Canadian too before anyone jumps on that). Sure, it's extracted under better working conditions than many places in the world, but the damage to the environment is substantial, it's a very energy intensive process and furthermore it is much worse in terms of impact and energy use than almost all other means of obtaining oil. Alberta seems to be expecting this oil thing to keep the province going forever; it is over. Diversify, try new things, for your sake and the sake of the rest of Canada. Please stop expecting this to get better. 2015 was a warning, it's now officially ending and the time to start moving on has passed, every day not diversifying the economy of Alberta is just a day of economic procrastination. Edit: Sure energy security, keep some for us, but let's not make it the backbone of our economy.

eloff 5y ago
> there's no great reasons for it to come from Canada Energy security, not propping up authoritarian regimes with terrible human rights records, not requiring military interventions to protect a stable supply of oil. Maybe not good enough reasons to change the balance, but reasons nonetheless.
- hilbertseries 5y ago
  The US is the largest oil producer in the world.
  - YarickR2 5y ago
    Yet Russia is the largest oil supplier to the US
    - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
      The US is the largest oil supplier to the US. You can kinda thank W for that.
      - 5y ago

boringg 5y ago

Not much else they can do with the same amount of inbound value. They are trying to go hydrogen but they have a small population, pretty right leaning and only a handful of schools. They should have tried to change their policies back in 2009 during that boom but the politicians in Alberta aren’t very forward thinking. That and they don’t play well with the rest of populated country (read BC, Ontario, Quebec)