Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

Half as much from oil and gas;









We need to also to feed our cattle BeanO

Who knew that enteric fermentation actually means gas from animal digestion? Combined with manure management it makes cattle et al the top producer. Not sure if this chart is deliberately trying to obscure this but would be better to call it what it is. Or come up with some equally obscure term for o&g emissions

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

We are getting something. Half as much climate warming methane emissions.

Honest question. Why don't environmentalists like yourself go to china or the u.s. who account for 44% of the worlds carbon emmissions and do something about it. Why is your focus on canada which is only 2% of the worlds carbon footprint and the oil sands which is 0.15% of the worlds carbon footprint.

I know you won't answer because you never do which answers my question.

Did you know that according to greenpeace, china is building 155 new coal fire power plants which will have the carbon footprint of brazil. To make things worse they use the cheapest coal that produces more carbon.

Did you know coal power in alberta produces as much carbon as the oil sands but nobody protests those.

It makes my head explode that special interest groups are helping delay the building of schools and putting the icing on the cake in a four year delay of the cancer center in Calgary.

I think my post belongs in the "losing faith in humanity" thread.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by edslunch

Who knew that enteric fermentation actually means gas from animal digestion? Combined with manure management it makes cattle et al the top producer. Not sure if this chart is deliberately trying to obscure this but would be better to call it what it is. Or come up with some equally obscure term for o&g emissions

I had to Google that as well. It does sound better than cow farts though.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Honest question. Why don't environmentalists like yourself go to china or the u.s. who account for 44% of the worlds carbon emmissions and do something about it. Why is your focus on canada which is only 2% of the worlds carbon footprint and the oil sands which is 0.15% of the worlds carbon footprint.

I know you won't answer because you never do which answers my question.

Did you know that according to greenpeace, china is building 155 new coal fire power plants which will have the carbon footprint of brazil. To make things worse they use the cheapest coal that produces more carbon.

Did you know coal power in alberta produces as much carbon as the oil sands but nobody protests those.

It makes my head explode that special interest groups are helping delay the building of schools and putting the icing on the cake in a four year delay of the cancer center in Calgary.

I think my post belongs in the "losing faith in humanity" thread.

As an aside, why aren't we replacing those coal fired plants with gas-fired....its at least an improvement environmentally and helps us use that massive inventory that was discussed earlier in this thread.

[Hessen]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Honest question. Why don't environmentalists like yourself go to china or the u.s. who account for 44% of the worlds carbon emmissions and do something about it. Why is your focus on canada which is only 2% of the worlds carbon footprint and the oil sands which is 0.15% of the worlds carbon footprint.

They focus on Canada because on world stages we don't stand of for ourselves. We've become an easy target for environmentalists due to our somewhat passive nature.

[Fuzz]

The Sheppard plant is a huge addition for Natural gas at 800MW, and Geneese will add another 1080MW.

http://www.capitalpower.com/generati...es/G4and5.aspx

I wonder if smaller scale ones would work near communities that have gas nearby, instead of building transmission lines with large power loss. Not sure on the economies of scale for small plants. I agree though, we should be building these.

Also, a good summary here:
http://www.energy.alberta.ca/electricity/682.asp

looks like some new small scale plants have come online as well.

[GGG]

Methane management is relatively easy to do compared to C02 management. You just burn it and turn it into CO2.

I think this mostly means adding flare systems on older wells or shutting them in if not economical. Modern facilities and wells have pretty strict requirements on vapour recovery and flaring.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

Honest question. Why don't environmentalists like yourself go to china or the u.s. who account for 44% of the worlds carbon emmissions and do something about it. Why is your focus on canada which is only 2% of the worlds carbon footprint and the oil sands which is 0.15% of the worlds carbon footprint.

I know you won't answer because you never do which answers my question.

Did you know that according to greenpeace, china is building 155 new coal fire power plants which will have the carbon footprint of brazil. To make things worse they use the cheapest coal that produces more carbon.

Did you know coal power in alberta produces as much carbon as the oil sands but nobody protests those.

It makes my head explode that special interest groups are helping delay the building of schools and putting the icing on the cake in a four year delay of the cancer center in Calgary.

I think my post belongs in the "losing faith in humanity" thread.

Aren't you also opposed to the NDP's plan to shut down the coal plants sooner than expected?? The switch from coal to gas is pretty much going to happen albeit slowly. It just depends on if you buy out the economic lives of the plants (bad policy) or just stop anything new from getting built (good policy)

We are going to be basically forced to adopt whatever the US decides because that's where we ship our energy so it is important to work collaboratively with them when they are developing emmissions targets. Letting the American left define the tar sands as evil was a huge mistake. By being seen working as a leader in the climate change portfolio we can avoid being the Villain as regulations are crafted. And they will get crafted with or without us.

The other thing to remember is any CO2 regulation doesn't affect the investment viability of Oil and Gas in Alberta it just affects the Royalty rate paid.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by GGG

Methane management is relatively easy to do compared to C02 management. You just burn it and turn it into CO2.

I think this mostly means adding flare systems on older wells or shutting them in if not economical. Modern facilities and wells have pretty strict requirements on vapour recovery and flaring.

Pipelines have lots of fugitive emissions that will be hard to capture. Probably best for the environment to convert them to bitumen pipelines.

[Resolute 14]

Interesting letter in the mail today, from my MP - Tom Kmiec. He wrote about Energy East, and a motion in the House of Commons that was voted down on February 1 that would have simply expressed support for the Energy East Project. The entire letter was written to target Kent Hehr for promising to "pound the table on the need for pipelines" and then failing to follow through as Hehr voted against the motion.

It was an interesting letter because of numerous factors. The first being that he is right. Hehr put his party above his constituents' needs. But interestingly, Kmiec doesn't use it to bang the PC vs. Liberal drum - he doesn't even identify the party affiliations at all in his letter, except where it was noted in a screen shot of the vote itself - to request donations or to misrepresent the issue. All he asked was that the public remind their members that they represent their constituents. And he did so in a rather respectful fashion.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by GGG

The other thing to remember is any CO2 regulation doesn't affect the investment viability of Oil and Gas in Alberta it just affects the Royalty rate paid.

What a weird comment. I hope I am just misinterpreting.

Royalties come off the top of revenues, and just like any other cost, have a significant impact on project economics and investment decision-making.

Petronas just the other day cited Trudeau's knee jerk GHG emission policy changes as a reason that they're probably going to walk away from the LNG project that they've already sunk $10B into. Ten billion.

[ranchlandsselling]

Originally Posted by heep223

What a weird comment. I hope I am just misinterpreting.

Royalties come off the top of revenues, and just like any other cost, have a significant impact on project economics and investment decision-making.

Petronas just the other day cited Trudeau's knee jerk GHG emission policy changes as a reason that they're probably going to walk away from the LNG project that they've already sunk $10B into. Ten billion.

Meh, no biggy, how many billions in infrastructure are the feds going to spend to prop up the economy? And in the end tax payers would actually be footing that money, which is better, right?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by GGG

Aren't you also opposed to the NDP's plan to shut down the coal plants sooner than expected??

I never said that. I don't know what the economic impact of shutting them down early would be but then again, neither does the ndp. So, whatever.

[PsYcNeT]

It's cool that virtuous paragon stampsx2 points out that Canada is only 2% of the worlds carbon footprint.

Why don't we talk about per capita?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by ranchlandsselling

Meh, no biggy, how many billions in infrastructure are the feds going to spend to prop up the economy? And in the end tax payers would actually be footing that money, which is better, right?

The feds are going to borrow 10 billion dollars in tax payers money to prop up the economy. The oil and gas sector puts 80 billion private dollars annually into the canadian economy.

Instead of ridiculous carbon penalties I would be much happier if the government said a certain percentage of revenue will go into national and provincial parks, more campgrounds, wildlife bridges, lake cleanup, poaching police, tree planting, contaminated soil cleanup accross the country, etc etc.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by stampsx2

contaminated soil cleanup accross the country

So you're against carbon taxes, but you want public money put towards cleaning up soil damage caused by private industry?

Okey dokey.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's cool that virtuous paragon stampsx2 points out that Canada is only 2% of the worlds carbon footprint.

Why don't we talk about per capita?

hahahahahahaha

Yes let's talk per capita. So why are environmentalists not in Quatar protesting their high carbon emmissions. Why are they in Canada the 14th highest per capita polluter. Why are they not in Saudi Arabia, Austrailia, the U.S., Kuwait, UAE etc, all higher polluters per capita than Canada?

Not only that but with Alberta already determined to move away from coal power plants, we're already moving down on the per capita emmiters. So now that we're doing our part can you go protest somewhere where it will actually make a difference?

With Canada being in a cold climate and having to heat our homes and turn our lights on earlier because of short days, I think we're doing quite well on the emissions side of things.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So you're against carbon taxes, but you want public money put towards cleaning up soil damage caused by private industry?

Okey dokey.

Who else would pay for the clean up if there is no viable company responsible?

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

So you're against carbon taxes, but you want public money put towards cleaning up soil damage caused by private industry?

Okey dokey.

For the private industry that caused the damage in the past and doesn't exist anymore, yes. For those that can be held accountable today, no.

[heep223]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

It's cool that virtuous paragon stampsx2 points out that Canada is only 2% of the worlds carbon footprint.

Why don't we talk about per capita?

You have to realize though, we have an enormous country and a small population. A large portion of emissions comes from burning fossil fuels for transportation. That's why you also see other sparsely populated, large countries like Greenland and Kazakhstan up there are well. We simply have to burn more fuel to move around and ship things around the country.

I think Canada's like 15th in the world if you look at it per capita, behind basically all of the middle eastern countries, the US, and a few other randoms.

So if you really want to talk apples to apples, you'd have to make an adjustment for the sheer size of the countries IMO. Also, our very cold climate is a factor because heating our buildings I think is around 15% of emissions.

It's not as simple as you make it out to be. The one simple fact that we know is that we are a very, very small emitter on the global scale. So his initial point stands really.

Trudeau is just hurting the economy and not making any difference in the global scheme of things. It's all politicking.