Official (Alberta) Oil Discussion Thread

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by OldDutch

Pipelines are never the issue, cars are. Neither are tried and true environmentalists who are actually a small voting block. This is an easy move to signal to the suburban woke set. A hypocrite faux social justice set that will happily fill up their SUV with fuel not from dirty Canada.

It cynical politics at its finest and another example that Biden is a typical politician and like Obama no one to celebrate.

I went to an IEA international conference on CO2 capture 10 years ago, and the comment from one of the speakers that stuck with me was "cars vote, power plants don't". It would be political suicide to try to curb emissions from cars, although a carbon tax does make some headway to doing so if it makes filling up painful enough.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

I went to an IEA international conference on CO2 capture 10 years ago, and the comment from one of the speakers that stuck with me was "cars vote, power plants don't". It would be political suicide to try to curb emissions from cars, although a carbon tax does make some headway to doing so if it makes filling up painful enough.

... by extension, if I may reword to some degree, the world needs more of a consumption based tax rather than a supplier based penalty. USA currently needs hydrocarbon based energy and they vast majority of them don't care where it comes from, as long as it's meets the pricing metric and availability. Politically if they can make a particular supplier (ie: country or company) look like a bad boogeyman then that helps justify the ends. Such as having U.S. celebrities dish out opinions of Canadian oil recovery technologies yet quite probable they've never visited domestic or international oil/gas fields, nor have much or any idea about respective ESG.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by InglewoodFan

I went to an IEA international conference on CO2 capture 10 years ago, and the comment from one of the speakers that stuck with me was "cars vote, power plants don't". It would be political suicide to try to curb emissions from cars...

Or flying, which is even worse for GHG emissions, and used by a smaller and wealthier demographic than driving - a demographic that overlaps even more closely with people who express concern over global warming.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Or flying, which is even worse for GHG emissions, and used by a smaller and wealthier demographic than driving - a demographic that overlaps even more closely with people who express concern over global warming.

It's not the flying itself that is necessarily bad for GHG it's the distances involved. If you and a friend were to drive to Vancouver for example, you'd emit way more carbon driving then if you were to fly.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Dan02

It's not the flying itself that is necessarily bad for GHG it's the distances involved. If you and a friend were to drive to Vancouver for example, you'd emit way more carbon driving then if you were to fly.

It is definitely not way more. It might even be less.

Some numbers I found: average Canadian car 206 gCO2/km.
Short-haul flight: ~150 gCO2/km/passenger

Car trip: ~200kg CO2 (1000km)
Flight: ~210kg CO2 (700km, 2 passengers)

Close enough that it depends on factors like what plane, what car, maybe even which way the wind's blowing.

If you're traveling solo, however, then it's better to fly unless your car is electric.

[Dan02]

Originally Posted by SebC

It is definitely not way more. It might even be less.

Some numbers I found: average Canadian car 206 gCO2/km.
Short-haul flight: ~150 gCO2/km/passenger

Car trip: ~200kg CO2 (1000km)
Flight: ~210kg CO2 (700km, 2 passengers)

Close enough that it depends on factors like what plane, what car, maybe even which way the wind's blowing.

If you're traveling solo, however, then it's better to fly unless your car is electric.

The newest Generation of single aisle planes be it the MAX,NEO or A220 are significantly more efficient then that. Airbus reported their fleetwide deliveries last year to have an expected carbon footprint of 63.5g/km

Lets use the Max 8 for example, on regional routes the expected fuel efficiency is 2.28 L/100/seat and assuming a 90% load factor that works out to 2.53L/100km/person

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_e...t#cite_note-51

2.53 x 7(00km) x 2 people = 35.42 L of jet feul

Jet Fuel has 21.10 lbs/gallon of carbon which is 2.53 kg/l, so the total expected carbon released would be closer to 90 kgs not 210.

35.42 x 2.53 = 89.61kg

https://www.eia.gov/environment/emis...2_vol_mass.php

If you're on a older -800 it's about 15-20% higher fuel burn, still substantially less then an average car with 2 people.

[Azure]

I've always assumed it would be possible to develop jet fuel that comes from renewable sources where less C02 is released when burning.

[Fuzz]

They've been trying to push these bio fuels as being green, but I don't really get it. I don't think they release less CO2 when burned, they just keep it in a kinda closed loop(that's the sales job, anyway). In isolation, that might make sense. But so many factors go into it, I don't really buy it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Azure

I've always assumed it would be possible to develop jet fuel that comes from renewable sources where less C02 is released when burning.

https://carbonengineering.com/our-story/

These guys have technology for Direct air capture and conversion to jet fuel. I think as the tech improves this type of thing becomes an option where higher energy densities are required then batteries can provide.

[Azure]

Removal of C02 from the atmosphere is a good play, if it works.

Would help on two fronts.

Pretty skeptical though. Doesn't it take an insane amount of energy? The conversion rate has never seemed good.

[InglewoodFan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Removal of C02 from the atmosphere is a good play, if it works.

Would help on two fronts.

Pretty skeptical though. Doesn't it take an insane amount of energy? The conversion rate has never seemed good.

I have a friend at Carbon Engineering and all of their capture calculations are net of any emissions generated for the energy of capture. They were going to some lengths to find the most efficient of their various pots and pans. Plus with the pilot being in Squamish I believe they are all hydro for their electric consumption. Downside continues to be the recovery rates will never be high because the atmospheric CO2 is so dilute.

Post combustion capture is a whole other kettle of fish. It is a fascinating field with tons of technology challenges to still figure out.

[Monahammer]

I hear there will be interesting news re a government investment today. Not keystone.

[Mr.Coffee]

Originally Posted by GGG

https://carbonengineering.com/our-story/

These guys have technology for Direct air capture and conversion to jet fuel. I think as the tech improves this type of thing becomes an option where higher energy densities are required then batteries can provide.

I’ve been following these guys a little while. Backed by Bill Gates and Murray Edwards.....

Rich get richer with what could potentially be game changing patent / technology but yea, let’s let the billionaires protect their patent some more even though it could literally be game changing for climate change. Moving on...

[RichieRich]

Carbon Engineering started as a smaller Calgary-based engineering outfit. When the owners realized they could get more favorable taxation, perhaps better northern USA access, plus all the great outdoor amenities in Squamish (climbing, biking, hiking, skiing, travel, Vancouver, island, etc...) it was a no brainer for them to move. It's taken a few years to get to this point but they now have a real functional pilot going on. With all the push now for "green" and renewables and emission reduction and CCT, they're well positioned to get funding from real companies and not rely on private or government funding.

[Maccalus]

There are a few carbon capture companies in Calgary due to the sheppard energy plant being a location for one of the recent Carbon X-prize contests. It consisted of several companies demonstrating technology for capture of carbon from power plant off gas or direct air capture in order to store in concrete. I did some work for one of the companies and it is some interesting technology if it can be commercialized.

[Hockeyguy15]

Originally Posted by Monahammer

I hear there will be interesting news re a government investment today. Not keystone.

Did I miss it?

[calgarygeologist]

With gasoline at $1.339 today is that a record high in Calgary? I don't remember fuel ever being this high.

[RichieRich]

Originally Posted by calgarygeologist

With gasoline at $1.339 today is that a record high in Calgary? I don't remember fuel ever being this high.

It looks like it's been a little higher, but only a couple of times in the last 10years... which includes before the big oil crash of 2015.
Select, for comparison, USA avg, Canada avg, and your city (Calgary?) for the 18mo

https://www.gasbuddy.com/charts

[Hack&Lube]

What are the reasons for the gasoline prices? Still aftereffects from Colonial Pipelines or other?

[burn_this_city]

WTI is $70 and the carbon tax has started to add up in a meaningful way.