New posts

Dirtiest Oil on Earth

Sept. 18, 2018, 12:41 p.m.
Posts: 10402
Joined: June 29, 2006

Posted by: tungsten

"On the supply side, fossil fuel companies are most likely to react to international market price signals, such as the current upward trend in the value of WCS, and to the option to claim deductions of several of their current and past expenses now and in the future as long as their activities are profitable. Subsidies serve to promote the production of fuels at the same time that carbon pricing and climate action programs and policies are designed to reduce demand. To put it another way, combining carbon pricing programs and policies are designed to reduce demand. To put it another way, combining carbon pricing and fossil fuel subsidies is like trying to bail water out of a leaky boat. If you don’t fix the leak (the subsidies) you are never going to fix the problem (growing GHG emissions from the oil and gas sector)."

Apparently, it is hard to leave your dealer when you are still hooked.  I read the other day that globally the subsidies for fossil fuels are around 550 billion a year.  For something that comes straight out of the ground, has a well-established market going back over 100 years, has only a handful of major players, where the market is regulated by those same players and almost everyone needs it.... ya I think they can probably stand on their own.  And that doesn't even include the fact that the product is fucking up the planet.

People have to get scared and stop voting for short-term gains because the political parties don't have the balls to rip off the band-aid.

Sept. 18, 2018, 1:05 p.m.
Posts: 1387
Joined: Feb. 26, 2015

These guys are ones to watch. They are in Squamish, have some pretty big hitters on board.

People always ask me what's the phenomenon
Yo what's up? Yo what's goin' on- Adam Yauch

June 19, 2019, 1:06 p.m.
Posts: 1939
Joined: May 23, 2006

Nov. 8, 2019, 1:55 p.m.
Posts: 1939
Joined: May 23, 2006

The critical spotlight on Trudeau was never associated with the powerful oil lobby across borders or the Koch brothers and the US Republican far right.

 Last edited by: tungsten on Nov. 8, 2019, 1:57 p.m., edited 1 time in total.
Jan. 8, 2020, 11:40 p.m.
Posts: 1939
Joined: May 23, 2006

Red ink warnings.........

Feb. 19, 2020, 11:38 a.m.
Posts: 1939
Joined: May 23, 2006

Any day now, the Trudeau government is expected to render its verdict on the $20-billion Teck Resources Frontier mine proposed to push Alberta’s industrialized oilsands landscape farther north.

There’s been a lot of published debate about whether the economics of the big dig make any sense. Less covered has been the environmental toll the project will exact should it proceed.

Last July, the Joint Review Panel assessing the impacts of the project released a 1,335-page report after holding public hearings.

Despite finding “significant adverse effects,” the panel declared that the mammoth project was in the public interest.

It added that the mine “would maximize the value of a product which is essential to everyday life” and provide income for Indigenous peoples of Alberta and Canada. Assuming, that is, oil prices reach $95 a barrel.


Oil prices currently now sit at $50 a barrel, so that public interest to be traded against natural destruction is far from materializing.

In the meantime, here’s what the panel said the mine will destroy or imperil:

The project will destroy 292 square kilometres of the boreal forest, most of which is prime waterfowl habitat. For reference, that’s nearly three times the size of the city of Vancouver.

The report adds, “The project is likely to result in a significant adverse effect to biodiversity, primarily as a result of the loss of wetlands and old-growth forests.”

There will be a high to moderate loss of habitat for migratory birds whose populations are already dwindling.

According to the report, “more than 40 per cent of the old-growth forest within the regional study area will be removed and will not be recreated for more than 100 years after reclamation.”

In addition, the project “has the potential to make an incremental contribution to already existing significant adverse cumulative effects to woodland caribou.”

“Significant adverse effects” are expected for Roland Lake bison herd, a small population of disease-free genetically distinct wood bison.

In its first decade of operation the project will use about 105.2 million cubic metres of water — about 100 billion liters of water, or 100 small lakes.

The project will destroy or alter fish habitat for 1.5 million square metres in the Red Clay Creek and Big Creek watersheds, as well as the Athabasca River.

It will affect the traditional land use, rights and culture of 14 First Nations.

Total greenhouse emissions are estimated at 4.1 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent a year — about the amount generated by 400,000 homes or 800,000 passenger vehicles, or one large coal-fired power plant.

The project’s approval and construction “may make it more difficult to achieve commitments under the Paris Accord.”

The project could “affect groundwater quantity and quality through spills, seepage of process-affected waters, and dewatering and depressurization of surficial deposits and overburden.”

The project will replace peatlands and wetlands with bodies of open water and man-made hills.

Parks Canada is concerned that the project’s effects “might impact the survival, health and breeding success for migratory waterfowl, and may contribute to the overall decline in migratory waterfowl in the Peace-Athabasca Delta and the Wood Buffalo National Park.” [Tyee]

Feb. 19, 2020, 2:49 p.m.
Posts: 10402
Joined: June 29, 2006

would maximize the value of a product which is essential to everyday life

Define "essential".

Feb. 21, 2020, 7:14 p.m.
Posts: 1939
Joined: May 23, 2006

Feb. 24, 2020, 11:57 a.m.
Posts: 1939
Joined: May 23, 2006


Forum jump: