Renewables overtake oil

[petros]

Ya, apparently the subsidies that are required really make it a "good deal" and with the current government, even if we had lots of excess "renewables" we'd likely sell it to the US at a loss and the Canadian Taxpayers will foot the bill willingly. Great! Good idea. I'll stick with fossil fuels in the meantime so I can stay cool in the summer and warm in the winter, thank you very much. Renewables cannot guarantee either.

Only one region and one Province in particular will be the solar king. A large portion of the people of that Province dont see "Canada" as a beneficiary of that income. They will keep the money for themselves.

 

[mentalfloss]

Oil is Dead.

 

[petros]

Uh huh. How much are you paying per L these days?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Oil is Dead.

Yeah, for 50-100 million years.

 

[Twin_Moose]

TSX futures rise on firmer oil prices, COVID-19 treatment hopes

Did I miss the headline were it says TSX rises over more renewable energy investments will lead Canada out of the Corona recession

 

[mentalfloss]

Such fail.

The End of Oil Is Near

The global oil industry is in a tailspin. Demand has cratered, prices have collapsed, and profits are shrinking. The oil majors (giant global corporations including BP, Chevron, and Shell) are taking billions of dollars in losses while cutting tens of thousands of jobs. Smaller companies are declaring bankruptcy, and investors are looking elsewhere for returns. Significant changes to when, where, and how much oil will be produced, and by whom, are already underway. It is clear that the oil industry will not recover from COVID-19 and return to its former self.

https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2020-5-september-october/feature/end-oil-near

 

[gerryh]

Such fail.
The End of Oil Is Near
The global oil industry is in a tailspin. Demand has cratered, prices have collapsed, and profits are shrinking. The oil majors (giant global corporations including BP, Chevron, and Shell) are taking billions of dollars in losses while cutting tens of thousands of jobs. Smaller companies are declaring bankruptcy, and investors are looking elsewhere for returns. Significant changes to when, where, and how much oil will be produced, and by whom, are already underway. It is clear that the oil industry will not recover from COVID-19 and return to its former self.
https://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/2020-5-september-october/feature/end-oil-near

Or so the Sierra club hopes.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Gregory John: First Nations don't oppose energy projects

Many people would have us believe Indigenous North Americans are unanimous in their opposition to oil and gas development. Canada has seen a steady stream of protesters travelling from the United States who cite “helping protect Indigenous lands” as their motivation for interfering with oil and gas development projects in this country. Yet Indigenous people in Canada are far from homogeneous. In Canada there are 633 First Nations, plus the Métis people and the Inuit. In the U.S., there are another 574 Native-American groups. Nowhere else on the planet would such a diverse group of peoples be expected to be unanimous about anything.

The anti-resource development stereotype is false. Among Indigenous groups there is clearly some opposition to some development in specific cases. But in recent research, a colleague and I found that an overwhelming majority of the British Columbia and Alberta First Nations that have taken public positions on oil and gas projects are in support of responsible, sustainable development on their lands. Opposition to such development is — by far — a minority view among Indigenous people and communities in Canada.

In arriving at these results, we examined such evidence as: public information filed with regulatory bodies; consultation reports; membership in Indigenous pro-energy organizations, such as the Indian Resource Council; whether First Nations produce oil and gas on reserve land; and whether they had signed “impact benefit agreements” with any resource projects. Using this information, we categorized individual First Nations as clearly “for” or “against” oil and gas development or as “non-objecting/unclear.” (In cases where no evidence of support or opposition was available, we put them in a “not available” file.)

Want richer First Nations? Say ‘yes’ to pipelines
As an Indigenous oil services business owner, I just want to work
UNDRIP says First Nations can say no to development. But we also need to be able to say yes
Indigenous Canadians want natural resources development — why aren’t we being heard?
In British Columbia, on oil, we found positions in the above sources from almost half of B.C.’s 202 First Nations. Of 96 publicly expressed positions, a minimum of 29 favoured oil development, with just three opposed. Another 64 were found to “non-object” (the language used in the industry) or be unclear. We excluded 106 First Nations as not being relevant to the research, given that they were not impacted by proposed projects and pipelines. (If we measured support or opposition to a proposed sawmill on the shore of the Fraser River in Delta, B.C., we would not count the support or opposition of a town council on the Prairies, given the lack of any impact of such a mill on the Prairies.)

B.C. First Nations’ positions on natural gas development are even more clear: 40 First Nations in favour, with none publicly opposed and only one whose position is unclear. (In this case, 161 First Nations either had no public position or were not affected by natural gas projects.)

In Alberta’s long history of active oil and gas operations, several First Nations have built their local economies supporting, supplying and in other ways participating in resource development. We reviewed all of the province’s 48 First Nations and found that 46 supported oil and gas development, while only two were unclear in their public positions.

Why is there such a disconnect between the supposedly unanimous Indigenous opposition to resource development so often portrayed in the media and claimed by anti-oil and gas activists and the very significant support for oil and gas among Indigenous communities that is revealed in our research? The answer is not complicated: despite what protesters argue, these projects bring environmental oversight and economic opportunity to First Nations, who therefore welcome development, regarding it as win-win.

The economic benefits for Indigenous people from energy and energy infrastructure development are significant. To cite but one example, Coastal GasLink’s new pipeline project to transport natural gas from the interior of British Columbia to a processing facility on the coast involves $1 billion of local and Indigenous contracts to support construction.

Coastal GasLink is also an example of how media portrayals of widespread Indigenous opposition are false: all 20 First Nations whose land the Coastal GasLink pipeline crosses have agreements to allow it onto their territory and are thus guaranteed a share of the resulting economic opportunities. Whether it be in right-of-way clearing, camps and camp services, or medical and security services, to name a few, these remote First Nations, many of whom have never participated in such a large project, have welcomed the new economic opportunities the project offers.

Protesters have a long history of coming in at the 11th hour and contesting the decisions of Indigenous communities and the Government of Canada to move forward on projects, completely ignoring the lengthy and detailed processes that have led to these decisions. For each major project, five to 10 years’ worth of intensive study and consultation examines everything from environmental to socioeconomic, geological and archeological impacts. And they proceed in partnership with those who know the land the best — Indigenous people.

It’s time to stop considering Indigenous people a monolith when it comes to energy development. It may also be time to ask who these protests really benefit. “Not us,” many Indigenous people would suggest.

Financial Post

Gregory John is Indigenous content researcher at the Canadian Energy Centre, an Alberta government corporation funded in part by taxes industry pays on carbon emissions.

 

[mentalfloss]

Or so the Sierra club hopes.

They wouldn't come out with the statement if there wasn't a nugget of truth to it.

It's not like we're talking about Alberta or Conservatives here lol

 

[Twin_Moose]

Woah, what is this the Libs. are wanting to make NG apart of the Green initiative? Pipelines are the key to a greener tomorrow say it aint so Hoid, Flossy

Cleaner LNG one answer to climate change crisis, O'Regan tells investors

OTTAWA — Canadian LNG is the best choice for global energy investors looking for sustainable and competitive natural gas production, Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan said Monday.

His speech on the opening day of the virtual Gastech 2020 conference comes just two weeks before Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is set to unveil his promised "ambitious green agenda" in a throne speech laying out his government's COVID-19 economic recovery plan.

O'Regan hinted at some of what may come in that plan, including promises of investments in the electrical grid and energy efficiency programs, a focus on workers and investing in technology to make fossil fuels cleaner.

"We'll get to where we need to be tomorrow by using what we have at our fingertips today," O'Regan said.

He said the best path to a healthy, low-emission economy includes Canada making natural gas a greener product that can be sold overseas — mainly to Asian nations — to replace coal as a source of electricity. That includes developing better carbon-capture and storage technology, as well as investing in research and commercialization to come up new ways to get gas to be more sustainable.

Politically, support for LNG crosses party lines in Ottawa. A plan to sell Canadian LNG to overseas market was one of the chief climate change policies in the Conservative campaign in 2019 and was also part of new Conservative Leader Erin O'Toole's leadership campaign platform.

NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh has also been supportive of LNG projects, particularly the LNG Canada project in northern British Columbia that is also fully backed by the provincial NDP government in B.C.

O'Regan said the International Energy Agency forecasts growth in demand for gas for decades and that "bodes well for Canada."

The IEA's own forecasts are a bit more complex than that. Looking at existing policies around the world, it predicted in 2019 that LNG will grow 36 per cent over the next 20 years. However under a "sustainable development scenario" that transforms the world's energy use in line with the Paris climate change agreement goals on global warming, it expects natural gas use to peak by the end of this decade.

The IEA also warned that shipping LNG to Asia may not be as attractive as some think given dropping prices for renewables and rising prices for natural gas. Those warnings however came before the COVID-19 lockdowns curbed demand and saw gas prices plummet, a scenario the agency says will not reverse itself very quickly.

Keith Stewart, a senior energy strategist at Greenpeace Canada, said the 11 LNG project proposals in Canada which O'Regan referenced in his speech are likely to become "white elephants" that are abandoned in favour of everything from wind and solar to hydrogen. He said many major investors have already shown reluctance if not outright refusals, to back fossil fuels any longer.

"Politicians want to tell us 'okay we don't have to change very much' but we do and we have to start planning for those big changes rather than imagining we can kind of tweak our way out of this," he said.

The IEA does say that switching from coal to gas reduced global emissions more than 500 million tonnes between 2010 and 2019, an amount equal to two-thirds of Canada's total annual greenhouse gas emissions. It estimated that replacing coal with gas in existing power plants could save 1.2 billion tonnes of emissions, noting that may be the best case for scenario for gas.

Catherine Abreu, executive director of the Climate Action Network Canada, said initially O'Regan's Monday speech sounded good to her, talking about investing in a transition for workers, electricity grids and energy efficiency programs.

"Then I realized it was actually a speech about LNG disguised as a speech about renewable energy and I felt really duped," she said.

She said she is trying to remain hopeful about the throne speech but is worried it will provide "token" acknowledgments or investments for clean energy "but then continues this trend that we've seen of the real priority and the real investment going toward the fossil fuel sector."

While making the woke heads explode like the bolded lady


IMO this is to pave the Liquification project through Quebec that saw Buffet say phuck it

 

[pgs]

Woah, what is this the Libs. are wanting to make NG apart of the Green initiative? Pipelines are the key to a greener tomorrow say it aint so Hoid, Flossy

Cleaner LNG one answer to climate change crisis, O'Regan tells investors



While making the woke heads explode like the bolded lady


IMO this is to pave the Liquification project through Quebec that saw Buffet say phuck it

Say , it sounds like Christi Clarke was right . Well what do you know ?

 

[taxslave]

Say , it sounds like Christi Clarke was right . Well what do you know ?

Of course she was. That is one of the reasons irrational leftys hate her.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Say , it sounds like Christi Clarke was right . Well what do you know ?

If all the anti's were cleared out of the way we would have been selling LNG from the beginning of the demand not at the tail end.

 

[taxslave]

If all the anti's were cleared out of the way we would have been selling LNG from the beginning of the demand not at the tail end.

Looks like demand is on the upswing again. Must really suck to be a Gloom&Doom lefty preacher.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Pretty much a realtor worried that the project would drop prices for her commission.

Anti-nuclear flyers sent to 50,000 homes are 'fear mongering,' says top scientist

Anti-nuclear flyers sent to 50,000 Ontario homes, that criticize a proposed high tech vault to store the country's nuclear waste, contain misinformation and are an attempt at 'fear mongering,' according to a top scientist working on the proposed project.

The flyers were mailed to homes in a dozen communities across a large swathe of Bruce and Grey counties, including Owen Sound, Kincardine and Walkerton by Protect Our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste, a grassroots organization trying to halt the federal government's efforts to build a high tech underground facility to store the country's stockpile of nuclear waste in Southern Ontario.

The flyers show a brightly coloured map of the southwestern Ontario peninsula with a radiation symbol near the community of Kincardine meant to symbolize the proposed location of the vault. A red plume appears to be leaking from the site into the nearby lake with the words "a leak from the dump site could eventually contaminate the Great Lakes."

Paul Gierszewski, the director of safety and technical research with the Nuclear Waste Management Organization (NWMO), the federal agency tasked with finding a permanent place to store Canada's stockpile of nuclear waste, said the flyers are an attempt to deliberately deceive the public.

Flyers an attempt to deceive the public, says top scientist

"From my perspective it's being deliberately vague and its encouraging people to misinterpret the project," he said. "It's fear mongering in a way. Our approach is to isolate and contain the waste."

The NWMO has been tasked with finding a permanent home for the most toxic waste Canada has ever produced, a stockpile of three million spent nuclear fuel bundles, which could end up at one of two potential sites: Ignace, a community northwest of Thunder Bay and the town of South Bruce on the shore of Lake Huron.

Scientists are proposing a kind of high tech underground vault, called a deep geologic repository, or DGR; a multi-billion dollar high tech nuclear waste dump that would see the material stored for millennia as far below the Earth as the CN Tower is tall.

The debate over whether to put the DGR in South Bruce has divided the community. A debate that includes the ethics of leaving the burden of some of Canada's most dangerous nuclear material to future generations, the possible development and devaluation of prime Ontario farmland and concerns over the potential safety of the drinking water for 40 million people in two countries.

Except, Gierszewski said, according to all of their models, the potential radioactive contamination of Lake Huron isn't just improbable, it would take a really long time.

"The only way for radioactivity to move is through the process of diffusion and that's an extremely slow process."

Gierszewski added that the waste stored inside the facility would be encased in several layers of protection far below the bottom of the lake.

Gierszewski said even if the water were to make it into the DGR and into the protective case holding the waste, the vault would still be safe and capable of supporting a family living on the land on top of it, even in what he called the "unlikely circumstances" that one or more containers containing waste were to rupture.

"One container, multiple containers, all containers; these are things that we look at to understand risk," he said. "It's extremely unlikely."

Scientists have tested nuclear waste containers rigorously for decades. The NWMO has even published a video in which the containers survive being dropped from a tower, lit on fire, submerged in water and hit by a speeding freight train with no release of radiation.

In the proposed DGR, those containers would be encased in cement, clay and then stored in underground chambers nearly a kilometre below the Earth.

'There's 40 million people who drink from the Great Lakes'

"There's 40 million people who drink from the Great Lakes and they deserve to know what this proposal is," said Michelle Stein, one of the organizers of the grassroots anti-nuclear group Protect Our Waterways - No Nuclear Waste, which distributed the flyers to 50,000 homes.

Stein said the map on the flyer is meant to show people how the Great Lakes could become contaminated by radiation, if it were to leak from the proposed site, but she admitted it is not based on any particular research or scientific information.

"Off the top of my head, I can't say there is any specific research paper, but everything that happens in the Great Lakes water basin, ends up in the Great Lakes," she said.

Stein said she thinks the high level nuclear waste, which has been sitting in temporary storage for the past 70 years, should stay where it is until new and better technology can come up with a better solution.

"It needs to be kept above ground and monitored until a real solution can be found," she said. "They can upgrade the facilities that are there."

Stein said building the multi-billion dollar DGR and having regular shipments of highly toxic nuclear waste delivered to the area will change the community of South Bruce forever.

"They're going to be bringing work camps, which they tend not to want to talk about," she said. "The fabric of our community is going to change."

She said the stigma of being a dumping site for Canada's nuclear waste will also affect the community. She said the DGR hasn't even been built yet and already the area's reputation is suffering.

"They say it's not going to affect agriculture, yet I've one Toronto land buyer tell me he would not be interested in our lands anymore because his clients want to know where their produce comes from."

"If I'm living next to the nuclear dump nobody wants my produce," she said. "This is a decision that will change life as we know it around here."

 

[petros]

Maybe we should just stop selling it to ON? They dont need the west or its treasures.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Progs heads will explode if they are conflicted by the Pipeline dilemma of allowing them to be built for the greener good.

Canada needs to build pipelines for oil and gas — but for hydrogen, too, clean energy advocates say

As the federal government puts the finishing touches on a national hydrogen strategy designed to kickstart the budding sector, some experts say one of the vital ingredients for the industry to flourish is to build more pipelines.

While pipelines are often associated with moving oil and natural gas, they are equally important for the developing cleaner sources of fuel like hydrogen, according to Maggie Hanna, a fellow at the Energy Futures Lab.

After a 30-year career in the oilpatch as a geologist, Hanna's focus is now on technology and innovation.

Instead of oil and natural gas, she believes hydrogen, hydro, nuclear, solar and wind will be the dominant energy sources a few decades from now as the country moves toward lowering its emissions.

Still, for that clean energy transition to happen, the country will need to put more pipes in the ground.

"We got to get over this friggin' pipeline thing," said Hanna, with a smile as she shook her head. "It is the No. 1 safest way to move any fluid."

Not only does the country still depend heavily on pipelines to move oil and natural gas, but many other sources of energy may also depend on pipelines.

Hanna is a big supporter of utilizing hydrogen for heating buildings, powering trains and long-haul trucks, and for industrial sectors like manufacturing, among other uses.

WATCH | A clean energy transition does require more pipelines:

Hydrogen has the potential to be a major energy source in the future and help the country lower its emissions in the future. That's why the federal government is set to release a national hydrogen strategy before the end of the year, which is expected to include financial incentives and other measures to fuel the sector's growth.

Pipelines would be needed to move hydrogen across the country and for export, said Hanna.

"In liquid forms and gaseous forms, mixed in with methane," she said, among other examples. There would also be a need to move carbon dioxide emissions to be sequestered underground or used in industrial sectors.

Pipeline backlash
Over the last 20 years, oil and natural gas pipelines have garnered much more attention across North America and have attracted a significant amount of criticism because of concern about the impact that expanding the fossil fuel industry will have on climate change.

Federal Natural Resources Minister Seamus O'Regan said the discussion shouldn't focus on vilifying one industry, but instead be centred around how the country can lower its emissions in the future.

"I think we're all going to get a lot more sophisticated about this. I mean pipelines have become a lightning rod," he said. "Pipelines aren't the issue, emissions are the issue."

Whether the country will need more pipelines in the future to move materials like hydrogen, O'Regan said it's an important question "because all of that will require significant investment."

Team Canada
To get more pipes in the ground in the future, some argue a so-called 'Team Canada' approach is necessary.

While Alberta and Quebec have sparred often in recent years over oil and gas pipeline development, both are supporters of growing the hydrogen industry.

Some hydrogen proponents say there is strong support for the sector from coast-to-coast.

"It's the one energy solution that isn't divisive across Canada," said Stephen Beatty, a vice-president with Toyota Canada, which is part of a Quebec hydrogen coalition, which formed earlier this year.

Hydrogen is environmentally-friendly and not a pollutant, he said, like other materials that move by pipeline.

"I think if you look at the history of energy politics over the last year or two, you've seen pipeline debates, you've seen lots of other things happening. The reality is that every major part of the country has a potential to be a player in hydrogen," he said, in a phone interview from a dealership in Ajax, Ontario......More

Scheer's energy corridor is starting to show itself even in a Liberal Canada.

 

[petros]

Cant tie ON or QC to Canada's green energy mecca without some serious transmission lines across the NW ON boreal swamp.

 

[taxslave]

Send it via lazer.

 

[Twin_Moose]

Fed. Environmental office should not be involved in Provincial pipeline decisions only interprovincial decisions.

Nova Gas is within provincial borders TC energy is the interprovincial pipeline.

Alberta welcomes federal approval of gas pipeline expansion while criticizing delay