Oh look another Con child.
Why don't you give a counter argument a try instead of resorting to your typical caustic insults and silly political bigotry. You may actually be taken somewhat seriously instead of looking like a childish partisan moron. There's enough idiocy around already, why follow that crowd?
And to think it has me ignore because it calls me childish.
One thing I learned, if you really wanna trigger and piss off a leftard, just play their games right back at them. They're not going to listen to facts or reason anyway because their precious Marxist-feminist-CRT jabberwocky has all the answers, as unproven as those idiotic theories are,
Hate to break it to you toots, but my post was fairly straightforward and pretty easy to understand. Your lack of comprehension is on you, educate yourself.
I actually wasn't trying to trigger anyone. I thought they might be here for more than just the familiar trollish drive bys and virtuous self-righteous preaching. Guess I was wrong.
In fact it does. There's an organization that tracks the global power supply from resource extraction all the way to final use. Unfortunately their name escapes me as it was a few years ago when I stumbled upon them by accident in a search engine but the info stuck. They also debunked the claim that Canada's oil sands are 3X more carbon intensive than traditional oil deposits. Because of the technology being used in the Canadian oil patch, from well to wheel it's about 1.5 times as carbon intensive as "traditional" oil. For some perspective on that, bio-plastics are 1.7X more carbon intensive than petroleum-based plastics made from "traditional" oil.
Whoever it is, is just a rehash of Tyger-not-too-bright. Same syntax, very similar insults and wording.
According to BP (and perhaps other companies) who need to constantly re-evaluate oil reserves, we have at least 50+ years of oil available at current usage and maybe more. Unfortunately, the people who were screaming about running out of oil in what, the 70's or 80's were wrong. Technology has since improved, and better ways of getting at the oil have improved both economically & environmentally for the oil companies involved and which we all benefit from. The oil sands are proof that we can improve our GHG over a period of time and we will do so even more as technology improves.
Be nice if we could get our product to the East Coast where there is a refinery that we could easily use. Too many heads with their butts up their a$$ especially if they're pockets aren't lined enough!!
Not to mention our efficiency in consumption of oil and gas products. This is something that didn't seem to factor into the "peak oil" equation.
"Peak oil", another term altered from its original meaning to fit a narrative. "Peak oil" originally signified the low hanging fruit. The shit that was quick and easy to get at, ie: the most profitable deposits. That is what was meant by peak oil, peak profitability. The term was never intended to describe actual global usage.
Isn't that the same ones that said Canada is actually a sink for Carbon due to our vast forests and grasslands?
Why should I bother you and others here are crystal clear to what the results would be.
Toots?
I never said it was, but it is part of the problem in that it is an oil user and an oil exporter, and burning oil has been getting enough bad press that a significant part of the world is working to limit its use.
Do you have an example of an energy source that can go head to head with O&G for bare market price, availability, and reliability?
Would you like to put a price on a healthy future for the planet ? They’ve been pushing the science at us for decades and we wouldn’t listen, now we’re coming up on do-or-die. It’s not about the money any more.
OK, maybe I was trying to trigger someone a little. Figure I'd try your game since you were having some trouble keeping up.
So that's a no from you? Why don't you quit your job? You make your current living supporting workers in Ft. Mac. in the dirty Oilsands
It is indeed Bailey Summers aka Tyger Butt
