They're gonna industrialise Barclay Sound!

Englishman said:
Yes responsible use is a realistic goal. However, building more multi-billion dollar fossil fuel developments is not responsible.

Developing Barclay sound with wind farms or wave power would be responsible. Decarbonising our economy by 45% by 2030 would be responsible and create more jobs.

Climate change is here and now, and the 70 dead in California resulting from the latest fires deserve more respect. The BC Forest Service say that the regular fire season has got longer and more intense. The guys on the front line deserve more than to be just dismissed as collateral damage in the name of "jobs".

Sacrificing people's lives, now and in the future, for "jobs" is not responsible.
Click to expand...

I think that's just a little drama based stretch of the truth there. Really?

Forest fires have been part of the environment long before we walked the planet. The Sayward Forest fire on Vancouver Island took place long before climate change started happening - that was one massive fire! There is no denying climate change, unless your Trump.

That said, when I see you stopping driving your fossil burning car, or changing over to 100% electric to heat your home and take a shower, stop flushing your toilet into a sewer system that dumps your toxins into our ocean....that's when I might take that argument seriously. We aren't going to shift people away from energy. More likely we can make more of a difference moving them from bad fossil fuels (coal) to less bad ones (LNG). Its a continuum of small shifts that will get us there. Only rich countries like Canada can ponder green energy and have the resources to make it happen. Even then, dramatic shifts won't get public or political support. I think your argument falls short because it is not steeped in realism. This LNG project is proposing to ship the product to countries that are moving away from coal. China being one of the worst.

If we stopped preaching, and were more pragmatic then our chances of shifting people to green energy would be far better. If Canada really wanted this, it would provide real incentives to get people to use green technology that is already available here. Change the building code, and require solar roofing and energy self-sufficient homes - but give out incentives to off-set the start up costs. That's the kind of action that would make a real difference. Instead we collect carbon tax and **** it away. Get real and we can solve climate change, preach at people and we won't accomplish a damn thing - as usual.
 
Not placing any confidence in what the government is doing with regard to climate change and forest fires. There will be more as the climate warms, no question about it. How we actually get people to shift their habits around fuel consumption is another.
 
Searun, I feel like it's a bit tall for someone to expect green leaning people to live in the dark ages, limit their potential success in life while all the "realists" continue denying and plowing forward in the same old belief of "itll happen, but no time soon". How about this. I'll drop my lifestyle, give up the truck, heating, etc if you will agree that this is a real thing, appreciate my dedication and are moved to take the same actions. But no. I give up those things, and I'm ignored as a quack for having given up my comforts.

I am a realist, I know there is a transition. But we aren't transitioning. We have no plan. We have no plan to make a plan. We are existing as we always have. We are expanding our footprint.

So how about we start talking about the plan that we dont have. Renewables are a good development plan.

We collect a carbon tax, why not put it towards putting solar on everyone's roof? Instead it goes to general coffers.

We.are.sleeping.and.there.is.a.real.problem.breathing.down.our.necks.
 
browningmirage said:
Searun, I feel like it's a bit tall for someone to expect green leaning people to live in the dark ages, limit their potential success in life while all the "realists" continue denying and plowing forward in the same old belief of "itll happen, but no time soon". How about this. I'll drop my lifestyle, give up the truck, heating, etc if you will agree that this is a real thing, appreciate my dedication and are moved to take the same actions. But no. I give up those things, and I'm ignored as a quack for having given up my comforts.

I am a realist, I know there is a transition. But we aren't transitioning. We have no plan. We have no plan to make a plan. We are existing as we always have. We are expanding our footprint.

So how about we start talking about the plan that we dont have. Renewables are a good development plan.

We collect a carbon tax, why not put it towards putting solar on everyone's roof? Instead it goes to general coffers.

We.are.sleeping.and.there.is.a.real.problem.breathing.down.our.necks.
Click to expand...

Exactly what I'm saying...stop being pie in the sky, and start being pragmatic so that people have real incentives to change. Taking that carbon tax and putting it to an incentive program would make too much sense for short-sighted politicians unfortunately. Its a sad state of affairs.
 
Were are also little old Canada with a very large land mas and very few people.

If other countries limited themselves to the same population density of Canada would not have any issues.

Yet in the news it’s Canada’s dirty oil that needs to be stopped. USA goes about their business quietly being the top producer in the world.
 
Englishman said:
Yes responsible use is a realistic goal. However, building more multi-billion dollar fossil fuel developments is not responsible.

Developing Barclay sound with wind farms or wave power would be responsible. Decarbonising our economy by 45% by 2030 would be responsible and create more jobs.

Climate change is here and now, and the 70 dead in California resulting from the latest fires deserve more respect. The BC Forest Service say that the regular fire season has got longer and more intense. The guys on the front line deserve more than to be just dismissed as collateral damage in the name of "jobs".

Sacrificing people's lives, now and in the future, for "jobs" is not responsible.
Click to expand...

You still running that fog making oil burner of an engine on your boat....carry on
 
I live in a townhouse that does not have gas only electricity.

My electrical bill for 2 months last winter was 450 bucks.
 
The Jackel said:
You still running that fog making oil burner of an engine on your boat....carry on
Click to expand...
Two separate issues that you are conflating into one and suggesting that his argument is hypocritical.
Now if his argument was everyone should run a modern fuel efficient motor or consider fishing less with their old, less efficient, motor and he was doing neither then you would have a point. That's not his argument. A hypocrite is someone that calls for one action but does the complete opposite. A perfect example of this was done in the election just past by our friends to the south. In Washington State there was a ballot to put a price on carbon at $10 a ton. It lost. What I consider a hypocrite is a company that in public says they support a price on carbon but actively fights against it. Here is the proof.

Here is what BP says in public.
Carbon pricing
We believe that carbon pricing provides the right incentives for everyone – energy producers and consumers alike – to play their part in reducing emissions. It makes energy efficiency more attractive and makes low carbon solutions, such as renewables and carbon capture, use and storage, more cost competitive

A fifth of the world’s GHG emissions are now covered by carbon pricing systems, double the coverage from just five years ago.

We expect around two thirds of BP’s direct emissions will be in countries subject to emissions and carbon policies by 2020.

BP has played a major role in helping governments design their trading systems, and we’ve been active as a trader in the world’s current emissions trading systems since their inception.

Pricing carbon adds a cost to our industry’s production and our products – but it also benefits the sector by providing a roadmap for future investment and a level playing field for all energy sources.

We became a founding member of the US-based Climate Leadership Council in 2017. The council is considering a carbon tax that would be returned to citizens in the form of dividends.

We are also working with our peers and other companies, governments and civil society to help support the expansion of carbon pricing through the Carbon Pricing Leadership Coalition.

https://www.bp.com/en/global/corporate/sustainability/climate-change/carbon-pricing.html

Here is what they did, in the Washington State ballot to put a price on carbon. They gave just under 13 million to fight against putting a price on carbon. Check out the "contribute" tab
https://www.pdc.wa.gov/browse/campaign-explorer/committee?filer_id=NO1631 507&election_year=2018

Now that is a hypocrite.
 
index.php
 
You can wish in one hand and crap in the other,, guess which one is going to fill up faster ??

No one argues that renewables will have their place and will eventually take over controlling interest in the markets but they are a long ways off. No one in their 50's with extra investment capital at their disposal wants to invest in a market that will pay them dividends in 20 years, they need the dividends now to build the retirement fund. If you give your money to a fund manager that guarantees you to lose money for the next 20 years then it will start to earn you 2% after that, are you going to give him your money. That's the situation renewables are in now. Tesla the worlds largest electric car manufacture is a money pit and may very well go under any given year. The markets will and do dictate world economies and government bills and budgets, any government that goes against this trend as we see ends up in the toilet.

The hyper bowls can scream all they want, the market and people will continue to call their bluff and prove them wrong as has taken place the last 20 years and especial the the last 10 years. Just about every prediction made on their behalf has fallen far short and people see it. Now they are making up stuff to say it's worse and even those are proven wrong.

Stop reading the Tyee and the CBC read market based analysis papers instead.

https://business.financialpost.com/...n-the-new-oil-revolutions-seven-deadly-shocks

https://www.opec.org/opec_web/flipbook/WOO2017/WOO2017/assets/common/downloads/WOO 2017.pdf

https://www.capp.ca/publications-and-statistics/crude-oil-forecast

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43138948

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Exxons-Shocking-Supply-And-Demand-Predictions.html
 
walleyes said:
You can wish in one hand and crap in the other,, guess which one is going to fill up faster ??

No one argues that renewables will have their place and will eventually take over controlling interest in the markets but they are a long ways off. No one in their 50's with extra investment capital at their disposal wants to invest in a market that will pay them dividends in 20 years, they need the dividends now to build the retirement fund. If you give your money to a fund manager that guarantees you to lose money for the next 20 years then it will start to earn you 2% after that, are you going to give him your money. That's the situation renewables are in now. Tesla the worlds largest electric car manufacture is a money pit and may very well go under any given year. The markets will and do dictate world economies and government bills and budgets, any government that goes against this trend as we see ends up in the toilet.

The hyper bowls can scream all they want, the market and people will continue to call their bluff and prove them wrong as has taken place the last 20 years and especial the the last 10 years. Just about every prediction made on their behalf has fallen far short and people see it. Now they are making up stuff to say it's worse and even those are proven wrong.

Stop reading the Tyee and the CBC read market based analysis papers instead.

https://business.financialpost.com/...n-the-new-oil-revolutions-seven-deadly-shocks

https://www.opec.org/opec_web/flipbook/WOO2017/WOO2017/assets/common/downloads/WOO 2017.pdf

https://www.capp.ca/publications-and-statistics/crude-oil-forecast

https://www.bbc.com/news/business-43138948

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Exxons-Shocking-Supply-And-Demand-Predictions.html
Click to expand...

It seems that things aren't as rosy as you believe. Consider that as of last week there is also an oversupply of oil at 1.3 million barrels a day. Care to remind folks what happened when it was 2 million barrels a day oversupply?

https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-OPECs-Oil-Outlook-Too-Bullish.html
 
Give this some thought.

Wow! Profound If True: Russian Expert Believes Supply Of Hydrocarbon Fossil Fuels Virtually “Infinite”
By P Gosselin on 20. November 2018

Share this...

Recently I presented here an article on filmmaker Marijn Poels’s new documentary that featured former Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, who stated that the theories of climate science are “very confused” and that “the models are wrong”.

But perhaps the most fascinating point the film brings up was presented at the very end: A Russian scientist believes and supports how the Earth’s supply of fossil fuels is in fact virtually endless.

The part of interest begins at 1:18:50.

The notion of fossil fuels being scarce, and thus worthy of high prices, was first initiated by the business savvy Rockefeller way back in 1892, where he paid a group of scientists to push hydrocarbon fuel as a limited resource, and thus making it more expensive.

Infinite supply!
Fossil fuels come from below earth’s crust!

However, the Dutch filmmaker Poels meets with Russian scientist Prof. Dr. Vladimir Kutcherov who presents (1:21:00) his “controversial point of view”, that hydrocarbons are generated at the depths of the earth, 100 to 200 km below the surface, “and then migrate into the earth’s crust and form oil and gas deposits”, and thus virtually infinite – should the theory be true.

They are not the remnants of of old fossilized plant life as we are often told.



Kutcherov explains that carbon and hydrogen elements are under high pressure and temperature just beneath the earth’s crust and form into hydro-carbons that seep to the surface of the earth. Image cropped from: The Uncertainty Has Settled (1:22:13).

Kutcherov says his hypothesis is backed by high pressure experiments, and he believes “there are no doubts that hydrocarbons and natural gas particles could be generated at the sphere of our planet at depths of 100 to 200 kilometers.”

Old oil fields come back

And when asked by Poels if that means the supply is inifinite, Kutcherov answers: “Yes, indeed.”

And when asked about wells and oil fields running out, Kutcherov comments:



The Russian professor adds that this has all been confirmed by samples taken from oil fields in Russia: “After certain time, new oil came in old oil fields and this oil could be only from the depth.”

Prof. Kutcherov and others have published a set of papers in PNAS, Nature Geoscience, Review of Geophysics, where “the possibility of abiogenic synthesis of complex hydrocarbon systems was convincingly demonstrated”.

Kept silent by media

He then says that calculation estimate that man only uses 15% of this and that “we don’t need to find new oil fields or gas fields”. All that is needed is to improve the efficiency with how we use the energy.

According to Prof. Kutcherov, this is all being kept silent by the media.
 
GLG said:
Learn the difference between metallurgical coal and thermal coal before you judge us.
Click to expand...

Not Judging you or anyone else. Just the Premier and his dream team
 
Oh my God no !!!! They were out by 2% the travesty of it all. World oil consumption is at or near 100 million bbls/day and they were out by 2 million bbls,, sell your shares, sell your shares.

The fact remains stable oil producing companies world wide remain solid investments and still some of the best investments in regards to dollars earned in returns. Scrutiny has gotten tighter, the days are gone when they receive money just for drilling a hole in the ground, they must prove to be sustainable in wider market variables than in the past but that is just smart business. Usage will increase for the next 20 years and after that it's not like they will go to zero, it's a steady decline after that. So for all intensive purposes in 40 years we could be back where we are now. What does this have to do with the topic at hand,, it would be a solid investment for the province of BC, this company and the local band to get involved in, especially anything to do with Natural Gas. Good solid investment for many, many years.
 
OldBlackDog said:
Give this some thought.

Wow! Profound If True: Russian Expert Believes Supply Of Hydrocarbon Fossil Fuels Virtually “Infinite”
By P Gosselin on 20. November 2018

Share this...
email.png

Recently I presented here an article on filmmaker Marijn Poels’s new documentary that featured former Princeton physicist Freeman Dyson, who stated that the theories of climate science are “very confused” and that “the models are wrong”.

But perhaps the most fascinating point the film brings up was presented at the very end: A Russian scientist believes and supports how the Earth’s supply of fossil fuels is in fact virtually endless.

The part of interest begins at 1:18:50.

The notion of fossil fuels being scarce, and thus worthy of high prices, was first initiated by the business savvy Rockefeller way back in 1892, where he paid a group of scientists to push hydrocarbon fuel as a limited resource, and thus making it more expensive.

Infinite supply!
Fossil fuels come from below earth’s crust!

However, the Dutch filmmaker Poels meets with Russian scientist Prof. Dr. Vladimir Kutcherov who presents (1:21:00) his “controversial point of view”, that hydrocarbons are generated at the depths of the earth, 100 to 200 km below the surface, “and then migrate into the earth’s crust and form oil and gas deposits”, and thus virtually infinite – should the theory be true.

They are not the remnants of of old fossilized plant life as we are often told.



Kutcherov explains that carbon and hydrogen elements are under high pressure and temperature just beneath the earth’s crust and form into hydro-carbons that seep to the surface of the earth. Image cropped from: The Uncertainty Has Settled (1:22:13).

Kutcherov says his hypothesis is backed by high pressure experiments, and he believes “there are no doubts that hydrocarbons and natural gas particles could be generated at the sphere of our planet at depths of 100 to 200 kilometers.”

Old oil fields come back

And when asked by Poels if that means the supply is inifinite, Kutcherov answers: “Yes, indeed.”

And when asked about wells and oil fields running out, Kutcherov comments:



The Russian professor adds that this has all been confirmed by samples taken from oil fields in Russia: “After certain time, new oil came in old oil fields and this oil could be only from the depth.”

Prof. Kutcherov and others have published a set of papers in PNAS, Nature Geoscience, Review of Geophysics, where “the possibility of abiogenic synthesis of complex hydrocarbon systems was convincingly demonstrated”.

Kept silent by media

He then says that calculation estimate that man only uses 15% of this and that “we don’t need to find new oil fields or gas fields”. All that is needed is to improve the efficiency with how we use the energy.

According to Prof. Kutcherov, this is all being kept silent by the media.
Click to expand...

With all do respect OBD that's not a new theory, many have went broke trying to prove it. If this were true we wouldn't have thousands of orphan wells in this country. Unforetunetly pools deplete they may never get to 0 production but they get to the point they are not profitable and have to be abandoned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top