The Tariff Thread

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why would he be angry? He genuinely couldnt GAF about the environment, thats our problem.

Do as Suzuki says, not as he does or is he too busy taking a private jet to another Climate Conference.

Suzuki is a gigantic hypocrite.

Because he's always angry. My friend ran into him in Kensington once, said "hi" and was basically told to #### off. He's not good people.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because he's always angry. My friend ran into him in Kingston once, said "hi" and was basically told to #### off. He's not good people.

Oh yeah. the guy is a jerk. I have 0 respect for Suzuki.

Is is Dave I know I know and wish I didnt.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by edslunch

The second article talks about the (unsavoury) potential to switch to Russia or Venezuela as alternate sources of heavy oil, which makes zero sense except in an F*** Canada strategy.

National Bank reported this morning on a daily report that Bloomberg was reporting on a Marathon (the company) call they are doing this. “We’re working with the administration” right from the CEO’s lips.

I suppose we could just say it’s untrue or hard for them to do or we don’t believe them or this or that, and die economically, but that seems like a poor strategy.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

It looked for a time we may be heading that way, but humanity gave up on pricing externalities, so it didn't work. I think it really could have gone either way 10 years ago. It's clear which way it has gone now, though I don't think that's anything to celebrate.

Helping to bring millions of people around the world up to our standard of living is something to celebrate though. People focus on the environmental externalities, but forget how much having reliable access to abundant and affordable energy has played in improving people's standard of living in drastic ways.

We take energy for granted because we were lucky enough to be born into a society already built on its foundations, but there are plenty of countries who are still looking to climb the ladder. I mean we are ashamed that our energy isn't clean enough...while something like 2 Billion people in the world still cook and heat their homes on open fires with wood scraps and animal dung! It may not register high in the corporate ESG annual report, but going from burning frickin' dung, to having a steady stream of even our dirtiest oil and gas (or even coal) would improve the lives of these people tremendously.

[chedder]

Originally Posted by Table 5

https://nationalpost.com/news/canada...m_content=news


Good.

You just know this will make our moron premier think she's right in ramming though the eastern slopes coal mines.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Helping to bring millions of people around the world up to our standard of living is something to celebrate though. People focus on the environmental externalities, but forget how much having reliable access to abundant and affordable energy has played in improving people's standard of living in drastic ways.

We take energy for granted because we were lucky enough to be born into a society already built on its foundations, but there are plenty of countries who are still looking to climb the ladder. I mean we are ashamed that our energy isn't clean enough...while something like 2 Billion people in the world still cook and heat their homes on open fires with wood scraps and animal dung! It may not register high in the corporate ESG annual report, but going from burning frickin' dung, to having a steady stream of even our dirtiest oil and gas (or even coal) would improve the lives of these people tremendously.

Sure, which is why I'm not against helping them get up to speed, but many of these countries are bypassing a lot of O&G and going straight to green tech. But I'd probably not criticize an third world country for doing what they need to. Which is kinda why we should have been doing more, so they stood a chance and didn't need to sacrifice cheap energy. We can't really use that excuse, unless we only care about profits and cheap stuff. Like I said, this is our current reality, so we may as well play it. But it's going to have some pretty large negative outcomes which we also have to expect.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

National Bank reported this morning on a daily report that Bloomberg was reporting on a Marathon (the company) call they are doing this. “We’re working with the administration” right from the CEO’s lips.

I suppose we could just say it’s untrue or hard for them to do or we don’t believe them or this or that, and die economically, but that seems like a poor strategy.

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

National Bank reported this morning on a daily report that Bloomberg was reporting on a Marathon (the company) call they are doing this. “We’re working with the administration” right from the CEO’s lips.

I suppose we could just say it’s untrue or hard for them to do or we don’t believe them or this or that, and die economically, but that seems like a poor strategy.

I read it as Marathon is looking at moving to domestic lighter crudes, IF the tariffs come in. That makes sense. The second article speculates about switching to Russian or Venezuelan heavy oil. That’s the one that makes no economic sense to me.

[indes]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

National Bank reported this morning on a daily report that Bloomberg was reporting on a Marathon (the company) call they are doing this. “We’re working with the administration” right from the CEO’s lips.

I suppose we could just say it’s untrue or hard for them to do or we don’t believe them or this or that, and die economically, but that seems like a poor strategy.

I posted the article that covers it. I agree with you that hoping it doesn't happen is not a good or feasible strategy.

That being said the CEO was talking in response to an earnings call, and he was pretty much just blowing smoke. The transition from heavy crude to light crude would cost them a fortune, cost even more due to down time and take years to complete. Then, even if they went down that hole and lost all those billions, they would make less money than they do now due to higher input prices.

It would be far more likely for them to call on venezuela for heavy crude (still more expensive) than for them to take all the downtime to switch over. I also imagine they have hedged pricing and shipping contracts with the pipeline operators that would come with hefty fines if they decided not to buy anymore.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Sure, which is why I'm not against helping them get up to speed, but many of these countries are bypassing a lot of O&G and going straight to green tech. But I'd probably not criticize an third world country for doing what they need to. Which is kinda why we should have been doing more, so they stood a chance and didn't need to sacrifice cheap energy. We can't really use that excuse, unless we only care about profits and cheap stuff. Like I said, this is our current reality, so we may as well play it. But it's going to have some pretty large negative outcomes which we also have to expect.

Don't feel too bad...what we did, or will do, in Canada is fairly irrelevant. If you look at the population/economic projections over the next few decades, the vast majority of growth it is in South Asia and Africa, so that's where you need to focus your efforts in improvement.

Bypassing fossil fuels sounds great in theory, but I'm not sure how realistic that is in these scenarios. You don't hop from burning animal waste to a solar panel when you don't even have a basic electrical outlet in your shanty, or your town/country doesn't have a reliable electrical grid (which often coincides with political/social instability). You work with what's cheap, accessible, and transportable...and then go from there. It usually starts with coal (see China).

Oil, Gas, even coal....regardless of what happens with renewables, none of that is going anywhere. It all just gets added to the pile to feed the ever hungry global energy monster. We might as well be the one to feed it...or watch others (like the ones in Central Asia) take over.

[Johnny Makarov]

Originally Posted by Mr.Coffee

National Bank reported this morning on a daily report that Bloomberg was reporting on a Marathon (the company) call they are doing this. “We’re working with the administration” right from the CEO’s lips.

I suppose we could just say it’s untrue or hard for them to do or we don’t believe them or this or that, and die economically, but that seems like a poor strategy.

Cut their effing power during the Superbowl!

[Erick Estrada]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Because he's always angry. My friend ran into him in Kensington once, said "hi" and was basically told to #### off. He's not good people.

There are so many stories like this and you just wonder if he's one those people that's severely conflicted seeing his lifestyle is totally at odds with what he preaches and is forever unable to find inner peace.

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by Erick Estrada

There are so many stories like this and you just wonder if he's one those people that's severely conflicted seeing his lifestyle is totally at odds with what he preaches and is forever unable to find inner peace.

The whole movement has a bunch of greasy folks (like the industry people). Many lifetimes ago when I worked for the government I’d be on committees with the NGO’s on coming up with new flaring and venting rules, orphan well rules, all sorts, and these groups only cared about what they got paid (because you had to pay for them to show up for meeting along with the nicest hotels and meals).

We would have new grad bio, environment hires all hippy as all give but totally jaded soon after.

Like that turnip Jessica Ernst who could light her tap on fire “because of fraccing” but turns out she worked for pan can and was fataing employees and got fired, and that she drilled her water well through coal seams and basically had a coal bed methane well tied into her house because she was stupid.

Everyone is full of crap, everyone.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Don't feel too bad...what we did, or will do, in Canada is fairly irrelevant. If you look at the population/economic projections over the next few decades, the vast majority of growth it is in South Asia and Africa, so that's where you need to focus your efforts in improvement.

Bypassing fossil fuels sounds great in theory, but I'm not sure how realistic that is in these scenarios. You don't hop from burning animal waste to a solar panel when you don't even have a basic electrical outlet in your shanty, or your town/country doesn't have a reliable electrical grid (which often coincides with political/social instability). You work with what's cheap, accessible, and transportable...and then go from there. It usually starts with coal (see China).

Oil, Gas, even coal....regardless of what happens with renewables, none of that is going anywhere. It all just gets added to the pile to feed the ever hungry global energy monster. We might as well be the one to feed it...or watch others (like the ones in Central Asia) take over.

Stories like this are pretty common. It is realistic, and is happening.



https://techxplore.com/news/2023-09-...ck-africa.html

[OldSam]

Originally Posted by Johnny Makarov

Cut their effing power during the Superbowl!

And when they bitch, tell them Fat Donny said he doesn't need anything Canada has. Then ask, if that is true, why do they want to annex us?

[Ped]

Originally Posted by OldSam

And when they bitch, tell them Fat Donny said he doesn't need anything Canada has. Then ask, if that is true, why do they want to annex us?

Silly OldSam. He wants to annex us because it will make our lives that much better!

[Whynotnow]

So the RCMP announced some arrests of migrants, showing they are taking the border security issue seriously. The migrants were crossing from the US into Canada……..

[schteve_d]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

So the RCMP announced some arrests of migrants, showing they are taking the border security issue seriously. The migrants were crossing from the US into Canada……..

'Magine....

[Ped]

Originally Posted by Whynotnow

So the RCMP announced some arrests of migrants, showing they are taking the border security issue seriously. The migrants were crossing from the US into Canada……..

"But you see, they came from Canada into the US, and then they realized that God Trump was going to deport them, so they went back into Canada, and that's when you caught them!"

[blender]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Don't feel too bad...what we did, or will do, in Canada is fairly irrelevant. If you look at the population/economic projections over the next few decades, the vast majority of growth it is in South Asia and Africa, so that's where you need to focus your efforts in improvement.

Bypassing fossil fuels sounds great in theory, but I'm not sure how realistic that is in these scenarios. You don't hop from burning animal waste to a solar panel when you don't even have a basic electrical outlet in your shanty, or your town/country doesn't have a reliable electrical grid (which often coincides with political/social instability). You work with what's cheap, accessible, and transportable...and then go from there. It usually starts with coal (see China).

Oil, Gas, even coal....regardless of what happens with renewables, none of that is going anywhere. It all just gets added to the pile to feed the ever hungry global energy monster. We might as well be the one to feed it...or watch others (like the ones in Central Asia) take over.

I understand your points, and you are correct about the appetite for the energy, but theoretically if a nation chose to not develop its energy reserves, it could reduce the amount of carbon that will go into the atmosphere overall.

[Weitz]

Originally Posted by blender

I understand your points, and you are correct about the appetite for the energy, but theoretically if a nation chose to not develop its energy reserves, it could reduce the amount of carbon that will go into the atmosphere overall.

Only if said energy isn’t replaced elsewhere. Which it would be. Which then just hurts the locals.