Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[Locke]

Originally Posted by heep223

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.

Hes putting the Ideal ahead of the Practical while ignoring the Logistics. Much like our current Governments.

Realistically speaking Canada could get our emissions down to 0, live in igloos, burn whale oil for warmth and dogsled from town to town and literally no one would notice any difference in World-Wide emissions.

So why do we bother?

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hes putting the Ideal ahead of the Practical while ignoring the Logistics. Much like our current Governments.

Realistically speaking Canada could get our emissions down to 0, live in igloos, burn whale oil for warmth and dogsled from town to town and literally no one would notice any difference in World-Wide emissions.

So why do we bother?

Too bad our dog poo/methane emissions would go through the roof. More protests to ensue...

[Resolute 14]

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?

Because earth has finite space, and pretending that Canada's 2% of the global total is worse than China's 23% is merely disingenuous and hypocritical bullcrap?

Maybe we should rank countries by emissions per KM^2 of land area?

[Fuzz]

oo, I like that idea....

[Zarley]

I don't know why we aren't looking at emissions on a net basis, ie. factoring in the carbon absorbed and sequestered by our vast forests and unspoiled landscapes.

[Fuzz]

As quick and dirty as I could possibly do... 2010 data from Wikipedia

Spoiler!

Dark blue is probably no data. Didn't feel like QCing the tables for matching country names. General picture here.

[GGG]

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.

My understanding is that royalties get included in costs and no royalty is paid until all cost is recovered therefore instead of paying a royalty you just pay the carbon tax.

In a general sense royalty is the surplus amount of money available after investment return so to have the same project exist the royalty needs to be reduced by an amount equal to the tax or investment isn't profitable.

My understanding was the revised royalty system accounted for this.

[indes]

People just buy into groupthink way too much these days and with social media it's too easy for people to jump behind a cause even though they couldn't care less about it. I wonder how many protestors there would be without misinformation on Facebook about O&G.

Until the big emitters cut back there will be no change. (2% change if we sacrifice all of our standard of living) We are not making a difference. There would be more of a difference made by innovation in industry and technology and we are pushing those away. I assumed Canadians were aware that we have a resource based economy and are unable to compete with other countries in manufacturing, service or technology.

I truly believe that the wave of environmentalism that is going around is extremely short sighted and will cause us to look the fool on the international stage within the next few decades.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally Posted by GGG

My understanding is that royalties get included in costs and no royalty is paid until all cost is recovered therefore instead of paying a royalty you just pay the carbon tax.

In a general sense royalty is the surplus amount of money available after investment return so to have the same project exist the royalty needs to be reduced by an amount equal to the tax or investment isn't profitable.

My understanding was the revised royalty system accounted for this.

You're kinda right, but kinda wrong.

A standard 'drilling completion cost allowance' will set the cost bar, presumably including carbon costs. Lower (but not zero) royalties are paid pre-payout, and more after.

The new royalty regime targets rents. So in theory royalties don't impact the viability of a project. The carbon tax creates costs, so it both reduces the royalties we get and reduces the viability of all projects. And because of the DCCA, a higher than average carbon project is even less viable, all else being equal, because those costs are not factored into when the higher royalties kick in.

[Azure]

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.

From what I can tell there are a lot of engineers without work right now in Alberta. Perhaps someone should hire a bunch of the best ones, put them in a room, give them an unlimited budget and tell them to figure out how to radically reduce the amount of emissions coming from gas-fired power plants.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I don't know why we aren't looking at emissions on a net basis, ie. factoring in the carbon absorbed and sequestered by our vast forests and unspoiled landscapes.

Because at its heart this isn't about empiricism and data. Global warming has become a moral issue, a kind of secular religion.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Zarley

I don't know why we aren't looking at emissions on a net basis, ie. factoring in the carbon absorbed and sequestered by our vast forests and unspoiled landscapes.

I thought that was a good point and then found out we do this;

https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/forests/repo...turbance/16552

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Because at its heart this isn't about empiricism and data. Global warming has become a moral issue, a kind of secular religion.

I wouldn't agree with this statement. The IPCC analyzed data for nearly 40 years before concluding global warming was influenced, if not created, by man.

However, despite the data, people choose to debate it on a moral level which, to me, seems more finger pointing than morality discussions - look at those guys across the ocean - they're the problem!!

Despite what others are doing, we need to start transitioning away from oil and gas. The "western" world led the way into the oil age, and now we should lead the way out. However, it's not going to happen over night. The transition away from coal started in the early 20th century and is still ongoing for crying out loud. It feels like we're pushing for a transition by pulling the plug on one energy source without having a solid plan in place on how we're going to replace that energy source.

We'll get there, but the first steps are usually the hardest with lots of weaving and stumbling before the path and walk are both straight.

[Knalus]

Originally Posted by Azure

From what I can tell there are a lot of engineers without work right now in Alberta. Perhaps someone should hire a bunch of the best ones, put them in a room, give them an unlimited budget and tell them to figure out how to radically reduce the amount of emissions coming from gas-fired power plants.

It's called carbon capture and sequestration. And it has its own weird series of political issues behind it.

[Leeman4Gilmour]

Originally Posted by Knalus

It's called carbon capture and sequestration. And it has its own weird series of political issues behind it.

And technical issues. And the economics rather suck as well.

[stampsx2]

Originally Posted by Leeman4Gilmour

However, despite the data, people choose to debate it on a moral level which, to me, seems more finger pointing than morality discussions - look at those guys across the ocean - they're the problem!!

Or we could pretend like we're the problem, make tiny changes to feel good about ourselves while the real problem gets worse. If climate change is an issue then we need to look at where the real problem lies.

[SeeGeeWhy]

Originally Posted by Locke

Hes putting the Ideal ahead of the Practical while ignoring the Logistics. Much like our current Governments.

Realistically speaking Canada could get our emissions down to 0, live in igloos, burn whale oil for warmth and dogsled from town to town and literally no one would notice any difference in World-Wide emissions.

So why do we bother?

Approaching a problem with a single solution in mind at the onset is never a good practice in my opinion. Forcing renewables beyond what they're capable of is a folly that we've seen play out in Germany and Ontario and are about to get a front row seat for in Alberta as well. Ignoring logistics as you say is a major downfall of the 100% WWS crowd. I think we need all the best technologies available, an appropriate balance is necessary.. this should never be viewed as an extreme all or nothing choice. Our food is an equally impactful and important choice.

People debate energy mix on a moral level becuase it is forcing us to make value based decisions. We all may agree that it's a good idea to live in harmony with our environment but there are a lot of people that like inexpensive meat and energy during their lifetimes more than the idea of making sure the planet is habitable in another 250 years.

For example I deeply believe that we need to be good stewards of our environment and that through concentrating population density and deploying technology, we can decouple advancement from environmental impact.. but I cannot accept that we need to push a solution that requires high cost of energy to work, even though I place a very high value on things like electricity and all that it brings. This is 100% against my friends who applauded forecasts of energy costs rising in Alberta because it meant solar and wind would now be economic to deploy. To me the logic just seemed so backwards but it is becuase the thinking is not consistent with my values. We will never be able to bring the 2 billion people who live in abject energy poverty out of that position with a technology that is effectively a luxury by first world standards and in your addresses grid electricity - ignoring industrial and process heat/power needs and the convenient omission that the construction of a major, advanced grid innebery developing nation ay not be a luxury that we can all afford.

Why it matters for Canada to try is becuase we represent a rather unique mix of things on earth. A stable, peaceful nation; highly educated population; a wealth of raw resources; and as many have alluded to here, a tough climate and geography that forces the need for innovation. Your specific use of imagery that's connected with ancient cultures and lifestyles deeply ingrained with living in harmony with mother earth is also something somewhat unique to Canada - and if we are successful in repairing the damage done to our brothers and sisters who are of these people, maybe we will discover something that will be an important piece of the puzzle that has been largely overlooked until now.

We may not need to bring our direct emissions down as much as China does. But what if we develop a technology that is proven to work in a way that is in harmony with the environment, an exceptional quality of life in one of the more difficult climate/geography configurations on earth? Well to me thst technology is going to work for a lot of less difficult situations and provide a TREMENDOUS leap forward in quality of life for those people. China included.

Canada is excellent at innovating technology and horrible at deploying it. This needs to change. We can make a huge difference and that's why we should bother.

Originally Posted by Azure

From what I can tell there are a lot of engineers without work right now in Alberta. Perhaps someone should hire a bunch of the best ones, put them in a room, give them an unlimited budget and tell them to figure out how to radically reduce the amount of emissions coming from gas-fired power plants.

Easy, replace the boilers with small modular fission systems. By far less expensive and impactful that combined cycle gas combustion with CCS.

We will run out of CCS capacity pretty quickly anyway, it's not a long term solution.

Our petroleum techies need to be working on stuff like how to develop carbon based materials that will advance superconductivity, battery storage, photovoltaic energy conversion, computing power; supercritical CO2 turbines; construction materials, prosthetics, advanced plastics, and on and on and on. Not to mention, fabricating the hydrocarbons from water and air themselves. All possible and all required.

It's not hydrocarbon we need to move off of.. chemical combustion and hydrocarbon based materials will be far too useful forever. We need to move off of extraction and into concentrated, intentional fabrication of such things.

[bsimms]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Because at its heart this isn't about empiricism and data. Global warming has become a moral issue, a kind of secular religion.

Canada's contribution to global warming provokes emotion, which always seems to trump logic; and brings to mind my favorite quote by Bill Watterson, "the surest sign there is intelligent life elsewhere in the universe is that it has never tried to contact us". Humanity is emotional and irrational... and those "damn oil sands" are just to provocative compared to what little the public knows of the practices common in China and the Middle East.

[Tinordi]

Please expand on this:

Originally Posted by SeeGeeWhy

Approaching a problem with a single solution in mind at the onset is never a good practice in my opinion. Forcing renewables beyond what they're capable of is a folly that we've seen play out in Germany and Ontario and are about to get a front row seat for in Alberta as well. Ignoring logistics as you say is a major downfall of the 100% WWS crowd. I think we need all the best technologies available, an appropriate balance is necessary.. this should never be viewed as an extreme all or nothing choice. Our food is an equally impactful and important choice.

If anything the renewable distributed energy vision of the power grid is fundamentally about not approaching it with one solution in mind.

How would a proposed power mix that you support be more diverse that what is unfolding in Germany, Ontario and elsewhere?

What Germany's doing is adding MORE diversity to its system. As a result it's become alot more energy secure in the process while the reliability of their electricity grid is actually increasing.

[Frequitude]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

How would a proposed power mix that you support be more diverse that what is unfolding in Germany, Ontario and elsewhere?

More nuclear.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

What Germany's doing is adding MORE diversity to its system. As a result it's become alot more energy secure in the process while the reliability of their electricity grid is actually increasing.

And more expensive with a lower return on energy invested. Not to say that greener sources are not worth that price of admission, but let's not ignore it either.

This is what strikes a chord with me:

People debate energy mix on a moral level because it is forcing us to make value based decisions. We all may agree that it's a good idea to live in harmony with our environment but there are a lot of people that like inexpensive meat and energy during their lifetimes more than the idea of making sure the planet is habitable in another 250 years.

For example I deeply believe that we need to be good stewards of our environment and that through concentrating population density and deploying technology, we can decouple advancement from environmental impact.. but I cannot accept that we need to push a solution that requires high cost of energy to work, even though I place a very high value on things like electricity and all that it brings. This is 100% against my friends who applauded forecasts of energy costs rising in Alberta because it meant solar and wind would now be economic to deploy. To me the logic just seemed so backwards but it is becuase the thinking is not consistent with my values. We will never be able to bring the 2 billion people who live in abject energy poverty out of that position with a technology that is effectively a luxury by first world standards and in your addresses grid electricity - ignoring industrial and process heat/power needs and the convenient omission that the construction of a major, advanced grid innebery developing nation ay not be a luxury that we can all afford.

It goes back to the fundamental intersection of the first law of thermodynamics, economics and quality of life. The world fundamentally cannot maintain the same standard of living (or grow 2 billion people out of poverty) at current energy costs using renewables.

Cheaper energy, greener energy, higher standard of living. Pick 2.

That is the #1 thing I want those who debate energy mix on a moral level to realize. Then we can start to have an educated and productive conversation on how to move the world forward. Because you and I are sitting on the same side of the same table, just in slightly different positions.