4 ms·

Oil prices dropped from around 2015-2020, but they are back up again. The question has always been "affordable at what price?" The US needs more oil than it pum

• cmrdporcupine 3y ago
  Keystone was always going to be controversial because, as I pointed out, the Americans are their own oil producer. Their need/desire to import from here is inevitably going to be subject to lobbying/partisan/sectoral pressures. Blaming Trudeau for Keystone's failure is dubious. As for government interference, could as much say things in the other direction: the Alberta government and the federal Harper government, aggressively subsidized -- both economically through direct subsidizes or preferential tax treatment, and ideologically through aggressive campaigns the development of the oil sands and oil and gas exploration and exploitation in the province generally. It has never been free from "interference"; pre-Trudeau or present. But the country as a whole, and the world's climate, does not owe Alberta the progress of this sector. Alberta needed to diversify yesterday. Instead it's doubled down, and now it's blaming everyone else in the nastiest way; down to banning the development of renewables and actually deliberately kneecapping diversification along with an aggressive propaganda campaign of lies. It's almost comical, but actually it's f'ing enraging. Line 9 runs right behind my house, like 1 or 2km away. It carries Alberta oil to Ontario and Quebec, where 90% of oil/gas consumption is domestic and the remainder imported from the US. A fact not apparently recognized in Alberta, where bullshit propaganda about "Saudi oil tankers in the Gulf of St Lawrence" runs rampant. Grew up there, family still there, held thoughts for years of going back. After this last provincial election and what's falling out of it? Never. Folks like Smith are like the Slobodan Milosevics of Canada; vicious ideological shit disturbers balkanizing and building a personal empire out of lies and division, and the end result of it -- as should have been clear from what happened last winter in Ottawa and Couts, etc. -- is going to to get really really ugly.
  • glitchc 3y ago
    I disagree with this screed. Are you okay with the PM being called names? Milosevic indeed. Are you an adult? Show some respect for your elected officials. After all your neighbours voted for them. Are your neighbours dictators and fascists? It's down to numbers. It costs about $40 to produce a barrel of oil in the sands. When the price is above that mark, it's profitable to produce and sell. When it's lower, it's not. That's the supply side. On the demand side, oil is sold on the global market, US is a large customer but certainly not the only one. There is always a market for oil. The key is transportation. Alberta is a landlocked province, it needs a transportation infrastructure to get the product to market. Canada has the third largest reserves of oil on the planet, and the world uses oil for far more than gasoline engines. To leave it in the ground when there's so much demand is folly. It should be harnessed for the betterment of the country. Why can't we be like Norway and use the profits from oil to make our energy infrastructure greener? Why does it have to be a zero-sum game?
    • cmrdporcupine 3y ago
      Don't much care what people call the PM, I didn't vote for him either. Can't say I like the tone that whole thing has taken, but it's people like Smith who crossed the Rubicon to bring us there many moons ago. In the end: We need to be done with hydrocarbons, like yesterday. And the people who've staked their political livelihood to it realize this, and they're distorting the entire political culture out of desperation to hold onto what they have.
      • glitchc 3y ago
        > In the end: We need to be done with hydrocarbons, like yesterday. And the people who've staked their political livelihood to it realize this, and they're distorting the entire political culture out of desperation to hold onto what they have. We can set the vitriol aside and discuss this point, as this is where we disagree. Our way of life is almost entirely dependent on hydrocarbons. Forget gasoline cars and diesel trucks, we can't even build roads or medical devices without them. Just take a look at a saline IV. We have no substitute for the flexibility and durability of plastic. Pick any item in your house, it's everywhere. Same with lubricants, they are in everything. Electric motors require brushes and lubricants too. Switching wholesale will cause will be very costly, and without acceptable substitutes, cause a huge reduction in the quality of life. It's essentially economic and lifestyle suicide. And for what? Canada contributes ~2 percent of global emissions. Reducing that to zero still won't make a dent in global emissions. China and India just need to build a few more coal plants to make up the difference. Meanwhile we will have destroyed our way of life irrevocably. It's far more pragmatic to have a slow, phased rollout of eco-friendly technologies. Alternatives have to be built and tested to show that their total ecological footprint is lower. In many cases, the alternatives don't even exist yet. They need to be designed first. Look at paper straws, turns out they're impossible to make without plastic, and the plastic used is completely under-studied. It leaches into the drink and is more likely than not toxic. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, feel-good thinking is not a substitute for science. Climate change is a global problem. Whether we like it or not, our part to play in it is quite small. We should do what's best for the country and its people.