Canada’s Green Shift Could Displace Three-Quarters Of Oil Workers

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,784
4,160
113
Olympus Mons
Does it matter ? You’re talking as if you still have some say in the matter. That debate is over. Burning fossil fuels for energy is bad, and the smart money is already working on how to transition away from it. BC is lucky with its abundance of hydro-electric power, and when Site C comems online we’ll be fine for the next twenty years or so. BC Hydro has been anticipating the rise in popularity of EV’s for some time now and will keep pace with how many are on the road. I expect a rise in popularity of hybrids as they will offer more convenience in long distance travel over hilly terrain. For provinces with out hydro-electric capabilities nuclear may well be an option. That could serve to re-energize our unranium industry that has largely been dormant for some years now.

The right wing pipe dream that we can re-energize Alberta’s oil & gas sector is a pipe dream to be sure, a desperate plea for votes that doesn’t have the support of the industry operators or neighbouring governments both federal and provincial. Cash handouts for an industry that can’t stand on its own will go over with voters as well as bailouts in the aircraft industry did. Finishing the TMX will offer a brief respite, freeing us of the US stranglehold on our exports, but that should be the extent of government assistance.
Your post ignores the fact that electrical generation is far from the only use for oil. You don't think EVs need oil? Tires are made using oil. There are still moving parts on an EV that need oil to stay lubricated. All those turbines have anywhere from 800-900 liters of oil in their nacelles.
Not to mention the myriad other uses for the stuff. The hard fact is, oil just doesn't power the global economy, it IS the global economy. No oil and a lot of shit no longer works.
Look at all the PPE that's been produced over the last year and a half. ALL of it required oil to produce. The drive to totally kill oil production is not unlike slitting one's own throat to lose weight.
Unfortunately, there are a significant number of leftards out there who think like Trudeau; unable to think beyond the immediate present without a clue as to how those actions will affect the future. Outside of their own personal "beliefs" about it that is.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,784
4,160
113
Olympus Mons
He doesn't speak truth though he throws tantrums and uses libtard and trudope and other bullshit stuff. If he can't clean up his act I have every right to put him on ignore.

It doesn't matter what post either his patter never changes.

He is useless to me.
Good. I have absolutely ZERO use or tolerance for intellectually stunted leftards. Especially Marxist shit like you.
 

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,770
437
83
Penticton, BC
Your post ignores the fact that electrical generation is far from the only use for oil. You don't think EVs need oil? Tires are made using oil. There are still moving parts on an EV that need oil to stay lubricated. All those turbines have anywhere from 800-900 liters of oil in their nacelles.
Not to mention the myriad other uses for the stuff. The hard fact is, oil just doesn't power the global economy, it IS the global economy. No oil and a lot of shit no longer works.
Look at all the PPE that's been produced over the last year and a half. ALL of it required oil to produce. The drive to totally kill oil production is not unlike slitting one's own throat to lose weight.
Unfortunately, there are a significant number of leftards out there who think like Trudeau; unable to think beyond the immediate present without a clue as to how those actions will affect the future. Outside of their own personal "beliefs" about it that is.
Yes yes yes and blah blah blah. I dealt with that a few posts back. Nobody is complaining about non-polluting uses of oil, it’s burning it that’s the issue. As its use as a fuel declines the oil sands is going to be left out of the market because their product won’t be able to compete with traditional crude sources.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
101,199
6,864
113
Moccasin Flats
Does it matter ? You’re talking as if you still have some say in the matter. That debate is over. Burning fossil fuels for energy is bad, and the smart money is already working on how to transition away from it.
You say fossil fuel and I say hydrocarbons.

The "smart money" that started the myth of a controllable global thermostat will never cease using fossil fuels especially natural gas.

Why NG?

Hydrogen.

Hydrogen is the future of the hydrocarbon resource industry.

We only need the hydrogen for combustion. It's easy to separate the hydrogen from the CO and the wee bit of S and CO2 in NG. CO can then be catalyzed into valuable CO2 and stored.

They found ways to monetize every process and are closing the loop.

If there really were a "climate crisis" the econauts would be screaming at you to reduce your total energy usage. Is anyone discouraging you to cut your electricity use with such rabid fervor?

No. Why not?
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,784
4,160
113
Olympus Mons
Yes yes yes and blah blah blah. I dealt with that a few posts back. Nobody is complaining about non-polluting uses of oil, it’s burning it that’s the issue. As its use as a fuel declines the oil sands is going to be left out of the market because their product won’t be able to compete with traditional crude sources.
What, you mean those traditional crude sources we keep being told are running out and getting harder and harder to find? From countries we ASSUME will keep selling us their oil? Once you ship traditional crude in a tanker it becomes more polluting that our oil sands. In fact, at the height of Alberta's oil production Canada's total GHG emissions were around 50% less than international maritime shipping. of all types.
As for Canada slitting its economic throat on the altar of climate change, to put things in perspective here, China cranks out in 3 1/2 weeks what Canada cranks out in an entire year when it comes to GHG emissions. Canada could reduce its emissions by 100% today and globally it would make about as much difference to the climate as trying to lower the level of the Great Lakes by scooping out a couple buckets of water from it.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
101,199
6,864
113
Moccasin Flats
What, you mean those traditional crude sources we keep being told are running out and getting harder and harder to find? From countries we ASSUME will keep selling us their oil? Once you ship traditional crude in a tanker it becomes more polluting that our oil sands. In fact, at the height of Alberta's oil production Canada's total GHG emissions were around 50% less than international maritime shipping. of all types.
As for Canada slitting its economic throat on the altar of climate change, to put things in perspective here, China cranks out in 3 1/2 weeks what Canada cranks out in an entire year when it comes to GHG emissions. Canada could reduce its emissions by 100% today and globally it would make about as much difference to the climate as trying to lower the level of the Great Lakes by scooping out a couple buckets of water from it.
Why are people unaware of the high demand for heavy oil feedstock? Why "chemical alley" being that demand? Why not use any old crude for feedstock?

Ask Nick.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,770
437
83
Penticton, BC
What, you mean those traditional crude sources we keep being told are running out and getting harder and harder to find? From countries we ASSUME will keep selling us their oil? Once you ship traditional crude in a tanker it becomes more polluting that our oil sands. In fact, at the height of Alberta's oil production Canada's total GHG emissions were around 50% less than international maritime shipping. of all types.
As for Canada slitting its economic throat on the altar of climate change, to put things in perspective here, China cranks out in 3 1/2 weeks what Canada cranks out in an entire year when it comes to GHG emissions. Canada could reduce its emissions by 100% today and globally it would make about as much difference to the climate as trying to lower the level of the Great Lakes by scooping out a couple buckets of water from it.
The biggest use of fossil fuels in the entire transportation sector is in small passenger vehicles. Take that out of the picture and you have a global oversupply. Competition gets stiffer as multiple producers chase after a diminishing market. 75% of Alberta’s production goes to export. How long will they last in that market. They need the TMX because that will let them get their product to the Asian market marginally cheaper than the US, whose mega tankers will not fit through the Panama Canal. But it won’t take the US long to correct that, likely with a pipeline to their own west coast.

Air travel and shipping will remain heavy consumers for some time, but when all the bigger polluters are dealt with then they become the bigger polluters. The need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels remains the constant in this discussion, and that pressure is not going to go away.
 

Twin_Moose

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 17, 2017
20,524
5,208
113
Twin Moose Creek
Little of both plus other airborne toxins are in there too like heavy metal particles. Those'll settle in the food chain more but in heavy production areas they're finding all sorts of stuff in the air.
So eliminate the building blocks of life because they are contaminating our world? Move out of the city to get away from the airborne toxins produced from heavy production.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Decapoda

Decapoda

Council Member
Mar 4, 2016
1,644
724
113
Sooner or later Oil and Gas will be dropped in favor of cleaner cheaper tech as supplies dwindle or it simply outprices itself.

Hopefully we'll be alive as a species still.
Oil and gas is not going away as long as we choose to live North of 40 deg latitude. Ever. The only thing that comes anywhere close to providing the energy required by society is nuclear, and pretty sure I can guess what your perspective is on that option.

Not that it matters anyhow, nuclear (and pretty much every other energy resource option available) would never clear Trudeau's required gender based analysis bar. the irony of all this is that Canada's continuously increasing energy costs and punitive energy taxes without a doubt have the greatest negative impact on low income Canadians. Wonder why PM banana-stuffer's assinine GBA nonsense never seems to take this into consideration.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,784
4,160
113
Olympus Mons
The biggest use of fossil fuels in the entire transportation sector is in small passenger vehicles. Take that out of the picture and you have a global oversupply. Competition gets stiffer as multiple producers chase after a diminishing market. 75% of Alberta’s production goes to export. How long will they last in that market. They need the TMX because that will let them get their product to the Asian market marginally cheaper than the US, whose mega tankers will not fit through the Panama Canal. But it won’t take the US long to correct that, likely with a pipeline to their own west coast.

Air travel and shipping will remain heavy consumers for some time, but when all the bigger polluters are dealt with then they become the bigger polluters. The need to reduce the burning of fossil fuels remains the constant in this discussion, and that pressure is not going to go away.
But there's a difference between pressure and coming up with a plan that has all the brilliance and fore thought as bombing for peace or f*cking for virginity. According to a World Bank report released in 2018 (to surprisingly little fanfare) based on the demand for elements to reach the 2050 target would require an increase in mining activity that would put us well above 100% sustainability. As of 2018 we were already at 84%. And here's the rub, NONE of the calculations even takes into account the govt mandates requiring a 100% switch to EVs, they just account for meeting the annual increased demand for power generation.
To put it as bluntly as possible, there's serious question as to whether we even HAVE enough commercially viable deposits to meet the 2050 target.

And of course NONE of this green shit takes into account that mining is THE most environmentally destructive activity we routinely engage in as a species, outside of war.
 

Jinentonix

Executive Branch Member
Sep 6, 2015
9,784
4,160
113
Olympus Mons
The biggest use of fossil fuels in the entire transportation sector is in small passenger vehicles. Take that out of the picture and you have a global oversupply.
You missed the point. Canada's TOTAL GHG emissions from ALL sources at the height of Alberta's oil production, including cars, trains, trucks, buses and aircraft, was 50% lower than international maritime shipping. Canada isn't the goddam problem.
 

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,770
437
83
Penticton, BC
You missed the point. Canada's TOTAL GHG emissions from ALL sources at the height of Alberta's oil production, including cars, trains, trucks, buses and aircraft, was 50% lower than international maritime shipping. Canada isn't the goddam problem.
Does that include GHG emissions from oil we have exported?
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
101,199
6,864
113
Moccasin Flats
That still does nothing for the oilsands, which is what I’ve been talking about.
Chemicals and esters. The money in bitumen and heavy oil is Chemicals, esters and plastics not fuel.

Is it better if the world turns to and foreve devastates the Orinoco watershed in search of heavy and bitumen?

Are you willing to let China take over the Venezuelan reserves?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Twin_Moose

Nick Danger

Council Member
Jul 21, 2013
1,770
437
83
Penticton, BC
Chemicals and esters. The money in bitumen and heavy oil is Chemicals, esters and plastics not fuel.
That would be excellent if it can be realized in quantities large enough to make it feasible. There are heavy metals that have value in the raw material as well. Just remember the whole show in the oil sands at present is geared for bitumen and synthetic crude, any shift towards different products means additional investment.