[Gunnair]

kilroy kilroy:

Gunnair Gunnair:

kilroy kilroy:

Tough to go farther than that Gunnair? C'mon man give it a shot. Let's compare these costs we speak of. A wind farm uses less land than a hydro project to generate equal amounts of power.

Solar housing doesn't have to have photovoltaic to be much more efficient and therefore less costly than Natural gas generation.

Aside from the pollution associated with lung cancer, building deterioration, water use and the cost of using a non-renewable energy source like oil, we are bringing on climate change. It is true that I don't know what those costs are per litre of gasoline. But I am somewhat accepting of my ignorance because no one else does either. Time to do that homework.

I know you tap out quick these days, but I submitted that Green projects had environmental costs and you ignored that.

Are you positing that Green energy has zero environmental cost?

I have said it before Gunnair, if you can't keep up to what is being said why don't you find a thread more to your liking?

Wow because the credibility you are bringing here is so respected in the forums...

[Caelon]

kilroy kilroy:

Caelon Caelon:

Are you really that naive?? First tell me one time in the last billion years there has not been climate change. It has been much colder and much warner than current temperatures no matter where you currently reside. Adaptation has been the rule for all biological entities.

Are you really that ignorant?? First tell me of one time in the last billion years when the climate change has been as fast as it is projected to occur over the next hundred years if we don't do anything about it. Adaptation for humans in the last hundred thousand years has been rather unforgiving, even at the relatively slow rate of change we experienced prior to this.

Well how about all the times when climate change was much faster than the current slow change. In recent history check out Krakatoa. Going a little farther back check what happens when a meteor of 100 meteres or more in diameter has struck the earth. Species that adapted survived and new biodiversity happened. It is preety naive to expect the world to have a climate that you think you remember from a few decades ago to carry on in perpetuity.

kilroy kilroy:

Caelon Caelon:

Next test. As you are sitting infront of your computer reach out with both arms. Tell me one thing you can physically touch that did not depend on petroleum. Come on just one thing. I will even let you walk from room to room in your home. Found anything yet?

This is a good point, and a tough one to find answers for. I don't think it negates the value of the argument I was making however that we would be well advised to use our petroleum resources as wisely an efficiently as we can. In fact it justifies my argument very nicely, thank you.

What it points out that for all your posturing you are totally dependent on petroleum products. All your speaches on conservation and alternative energy mean nothing as you do not make it part of your daily life. You claim to be a farmer. Well here is a challenge. In 2013 cut your fuel consumption in half. So half the fuel for crops you used in 2012 and half the fuel for livestock. Practice what you preach. Don't tell me you say you cannot do it? It has to be easy. If you were taking 8 passes over the land cut it down to 4. Lead by example.

[kilroy]

Caelon Caelon:

kilroy kilroy:

Caelon Caelon:

Are you really that naive?? First tell me one time in the last billion years there has not been climate change. It has been much colder and much warner than current temperatures no matter where you currently reside. Adaptation has been the rule for all biological entities.

Are you really that ignorant?? First tell me of one time in the last billion years when the climate change has been as fast as it is projected to occur over the next hundred years if we don't do anything about it. Adaptation for humans in the last hundred thousand years has been rather unforgiving, even at the relatively slow rate of change we experienced prior to this.

Well how about all the times when climate change was much faster than the current slow change. In recent history check out Krakatoa. Going a little farther back check what happens when a meteor of 100 meteres or more in diameter has struck the earth. Species that adapted survived and new biodiversity happened. It is preety naive to expect the world to have a climate that you think you remember from a few decades ago to carry on in perpetuity.

Large meteors are a case in point. Mass extinctions resulted, and yes, life did carry on. But it is hardly the kind of consolation I want to give to my grandchildren. We still have the threat of a meteor or volcano causing havoc. Is this in some way a justification for the fact that we are doing it to ourselves?

kilroy kilroy:

Caelon Caelon:

Next test. As you are sitting infront of your computer reach out with both arms. Tell me one thing you can physically touch that did not depend on petroleum. Come on just one thing. I will even let you walk from room to room in your home. Found anything yet?

This is a good point, and a tough one to find answers for. I don't think it negates the value of the argument I was making however that we would be well advised to use our petroleum resources as wisely an efficiently as we can. In fact it justifies my argument very nicely, thank you.

Caelon Caelon:

What it points out that for all your posturing you are totally dependent on petroleum products. All your speaches on conservation and alternative energy mean nothing as you do not make it part of your daily life. You claim to be a farmer. Well here is a challenge. In 2013 cut your fuel consumption in half. So half the fuel for crops you used in 2012 and half the fuel for livestock. Practice what you preach. Don't tell me you say you cannot do it? It has to be easy. If you were taking 8 passes over the land cut it down to 4. Lead by example.

Not a problem, I have been practising and working with energy conservation, around my farm and home and business. You are big on challenges, here is one for you, once the oil is gone, what are you going to use to replace it in all the things within your reach? I use solar energy and wind energy to supplement my conservation efforts. The things that are within reach of me are less than what would have been if I lived less up to my standards. I don't need most of the junk that petroleum is used to produce.

[Canadian_Mind]

kilroy kilroy:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I would LOVE to see this go through for several reasons:

Alberta would be able to sell oilsands crude for more than they do now across the board (supply and demand), and the refineries would be able to purchase it for less than the world prices they pay now.

This, in turn, would make fuel in eastern Canada cheaper, way cheaper. To the order of 500 million+ dollars people can spend elsewhere in the economy. This would provide a much-needed bump to the service industry and personal savings.

Do you have any stats for that, or is it wishful thinking? What is the price in the maritimes for gasoline? What makes you think that as mentioned earlier the Irvings won't simply pocket the differnce?

Actually I do. The average difference between "Western Canada Select" (what we produce) and "Brent Crude" (what the Arabs export) is 50 dollars: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/crude-discount-seen-continuing-for-canadian-producers/article6500167/

As of the close on Thursday (most recent info I could find), Western Canada Select is $65.94 per barrel
Brent Crude is currently sitting at $116.76 per barrel http://www.oil-price.net/

Currently Brent Crude is $50.62 more expensive than Western Canada select; nearly double. Note that in the link West Texas Light is sitting at $97.61. While irrelevant to this current discussion, this is the oil blend most commonly referred too when newspapers and news networks refer to when they talk about the price of oil. It is also still $31.67 more than Western Canada Select.

For ease, I'll use New Brunswick as my example. The current regular gasoline prices in NB range from 123.9c to 135.0c per litre, and the vast majority of the fuel comes from Eastern Canadian refineries.

Albertan regular gasoline prices currently range from 92.9c to 115.9c per litre, and the vast majority of fuel comes from refineries who process Western Canada Select.

For the sake of ease, I'm not factoring in supply/demand, shipping costs, etc. But the variance in price within each province is mostly because of those factors. So I will take the average and compare them. Average NB price is 127.5c per litre and average AB price is 104.4c per litre. a 23.1c per litre difference.

In my original statement, I said the price would be somewhere in the middle. Assuming Western Canada Select will sell for more because of higher demand, transportation costs, and Irving skimming some extra dough off the side, I consider halfway a fair assessment. While fuel prices aren't parallel to oil prices, the change in both is close enough to warrant the assumption that fuel prices would follow the same logic. Half of 23.1 is approximately 11.6c per litre.

According to this articlein the Globe and Mail, we use approximately 38 BILLION litres of gasoline annually: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-drive/driving-it-home/canadian-gas-consumption-declines-but-dont-thank-fuel-sipping-auto-makers-just-yet/article4240079/. That's approximately 1 100 litres per person annually. Looking back at NB population of approximately 756 000, it is reasonable to deduce that 831 600 000 litres of fuel is used in the province annually. At 11.6 cents per litre, that comes out to approximately 9 147 600 000 cents, or $91 476 000 annually that could be saved in the province of New Brunswick alone.

Now think about the savings realised for the fuel purchased in the other Atlantic provinces, the majority of Quebec, and some of Ontario. I'll admit I pulled the $500 million figure out of my ass before. But frankly I low-balled it. There is potential for a billion dollars or more to be saved annually by the residents of Eastern and Central Canada by building this pipeline. And the best part about it is that not only are we saving that much money to spend elsewhere in the economy, but there is potential for $30 billion or more to be made by getting the price of Western Canada Select higher. Not only that, but by cutting the oil we import, we're increasing the amount of money in this country, making us as a whole more wealthy and well off.

Are those good enough numbers for you?

$1:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

You would also see an increase in blue collar jobs, and sustainment. Oil is not going away any time soon. So there is a gaurunteed career for some guy working at a refinery. He'd be more inclined to purchase a home, make investments, savings, etc. Not to mention that with the cheaper oil, the refineries wont have as much difficulty hiring. They know the money is there.

If enough demand is there for this new supply, they may even open previously closed refineries. More jobs.

More jobs than what? Conservation has the potential to create way more jobs than a few possible extra jobs at a refinery. Solar energy has a lot of good blue collar jobs jut waiting to be brought on. As I understand it the Alberta government aren't into building a pipeline anywhere unless they think they can get world price for oil. And can you imagine the uproar if someone starts staking out a right of way through cottage country?

I showed you my numbers. Show me yours. How many more jobs will conservation create than more refining jobs. Not only do I want numbers, but I want sources for your numbers just like I gave you sources for my numbers.

$1:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

Being in-house (we process our own and use our own oil), the only people we have to worry about dropping the "dirty oil" bomb on us is us. We can safely export ALL of our light sweet crude at top dollar and use the cheaper stuff for ourselves.

All this would lead to a more balanced national economy and bring us together as a country. Yes Western Canada still sees the most benifit, but now we reap the rewards of oil nationwide.

The only potential danger is a pipeline break, but that rarely occurs, and there are so many checks in place along a pipeline that any environmental damage would be minimal. I could also see this temporarily hurting the rail industry with the new demand for shipping oil via rail car, but if keystone doesn't go through, there will be plenty of demand for the service there.

I really hope this goes through, and the sooner the better. We all could use the benifit.

So how do you feel about dropping the dirty oil bomb on ourselves? There are benefits to the idea, keeping it in Canada etc, but there are also costs which haven't been completely worked out yet. Shouldn't there be an analysis like that before we get all hyped up about it?

I know the reality of "dirty oil." I live 45 minutes northeast of Hardisty, where all the oilsands oil and light sweet crude is mixed to make the Western Canadian Standard before it is shipped off elsewhere. I am in the middle of the oil industry out here in Wainwright, Alberta, and the skies are the clearest and most blue I have ever seen, the farmers fields have full yields, the air is clean, fresh, and the days are bright. There is nothing anymore dirty about the way oil is produced in Alberta than the way it is produced in the Middle East, no dirtier then the pollutants that come out of chemical factories for your household cleaners, your paints, and your electronics, and no dirtier than the way we process our garbage, sewage, and other wastes we toss into the environment. You want to clean up the planet you live on, walk through your local park and pick up all the trash you run into, then hand-deliver it to the dump.

[bootlegga]

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I know the reality of "dirty oil." I live 45 minutes northeast of Hardisty, where all the oilsands oil and light sweet crude is mixed to make the Western Canadian Standard before it is shipped off elsewhere. I am in the middle of the oil industry out here in Wainwright, Alberta, and the skies are the clearest and most blue I have ever seen, the farmers fields have full yields, the air is clean, fresh, and the days are bright. There is nothing anymore dirty about the way oil is produced in Alberta than the way it is produced in the Middle East, no dirtier then the pollutants that come out of chemical factories for your household cleaners, your paints, and your electronics, and no dirtier than the way we process our garbage, sewage, and other wastes we toss into the environment. You want to clean up the planet you live on, walk through your local park and pick up all the trash you run into, then hand-deliver it to the dump.

+5 for doing math!

In fairness to Kilroy, Tar sands oils is 'dirty' oil compared to the stuff that comes from Saudi Arabia. That oil needs very little refining and according to some industry types, is almost good enough to go straight into your gas tank. Not only that, but it comes out of the ground with ease and doesn't need SAGD or strip mining to get it out of the ground. Refining tar sands oil actually takes the energy equivalent of on barrel to refine five barrels, so when compared with Saudi oil (or West Texas or Brent Light (which take next to no energy in comparison to refine), ours truly is dirty oil.

However, and this a huge however, while environmentalists like to point out how nasty looking some tar sands mines are, they ignore the reality in EVERYTHING our society produces.

That reality is that the metal and all the rare earths their precious Toyota Prius, CFL light bulbs, solar panels and wind turbines came from the ground in exactly the same way - and in many cases, from countries with far worse environmental standards than us (China is the world's largest rare earth producer).

[Zipperfish]

Caelon Caelon:

Are you really that naive?? First tell me one time in the last billion years there has not been climate change.

I think it's pretty clear that he's implying anthropogenic climate change.

$1:

It has been much colder and much warner than current temperatures no matter where you currently reside. Adaptation has been the rule for all biological entities.

Adaptation has a cost. The concern is that the cost could be quite high.

$1:

Next test. As you are sitting infront of your computer reach out with both arms. Tell me one thing you can physically touch that did not depend on petroleum. Come on just one thing. I will even let you walk from room to room in your home. Found anything yet?

The necessity of petroelum to our prosperity does not mean that we shouldn't consider its effect on the environment, which is also a necessity for our prosperity and our conttinued existence.

[Gunnair]

bootlegga bootlegga:

Canadian_Mind Canadian_Mind:

I know the reality of "dirty oil." I live 45 minutes northeast of Hardisty, where all the oilsands oil and light sweet crude is mixed to make the Western Canadian Standard before it is shipped off elsewhere. I am in the middle of the oil industry out here in Wainwright, Alberta, and the skies are the clearest and most blue I have ever seen, the farmers fields have full yields, the air is clean, fresh, and the days are bright. There is nothing anymore dirty about the way oil is produced in Alberta than the way it is produced in the Middle East, no dirtier then the pollutants that come out of chemical factories for your household cleaners, your paints, and your electronics, and no dirtier than the way we process our garbage, sewage, and other wastes we toss into the environment. You want to clean up the planet you live on, walk through your local park and pick up all the trash you run into, then hand-deliver it to the dump.

+5 for doing math!

In fairness to Kilroy, Tar sands oils is 'dirty' oil compared to the stuff that comes from Saudi Arabia. That oil needs very little refining and according to some industry types, is almost good enough to go straight into your gas tank. Not only that, but it comes out of the ground with ease and doesn't need SAGD or strip mining to get it out of the ground. Refining tar sands oil actually takes the energy equivalent of on barrel to refine five barrels, so when compared with Saudi oil (or West Texas or Brent Light (which take next to no energy in comparison to refine), ours truly is dirty oil.

However, and this a huge however, while environmentalists like to point out how nasty looking some tar sands mines are, they ignore the reality in EVERYTHING our society produces.

That reality is that the metal and all the rare earths their precious Toyota Prius, CFL light bulbs, solar panels and wind turbines came from the ground in exactly the same way - and in many cases, from countries with far worse environmental standards than us (China is the world's largest rare earth producer).

Green energy has little green cost according to some. I'd take a diesel Smart Car over a hybrid any day as far as the lesser of the two green evils.

[andyt]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The necessity of petroelum to our prosperity does not mean that we shouldn't consider its effect on the environment, which is also a necessity for our prosperity and our conttinued existence.

Of course. But it's sort of like "meaningful consultation" with FNs. We'll consider it, we'll make very small changes to behavior or deal with immediate effects (smog say) but I don't see the world ever doing enough to reverse the rise in CO2 emissions. Too many people wanting stuff and too much money to be made now to have people voluntarily start harming their economies, which is would in the short term for sure. And Canada would be a real sucker if we shut down or limit the oilsands while the rest of the world keeps on spewing, using coal, etc etc. We'd make a minuscule difference to CO2 levels but get to join our FN brothers and sisters as to lifestyle.

[Gunnair]

andyt andyt:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The necessity of petroelum to our prosperity does not mean that we shouldn't consider its effect on the environment, which is also a necessity for our prosperity and our conttinued existence.

Of course. But it's sort of like "meaningful consultation" with FNs. We'll consider it, we'll make very small changes to behavior or deal with immediate effects (smog say) but I don't see the world ever doing enough to reverse the rise in CO2 emissions. Too many people wanting stuff and too much money to be made now to have people voluntarily start harming their economies, which is would in the short term for sure. And Canada would be a real sucker if we shut down or limit the oilsands while the rest of the world keeps on spewing, using coal, etc etc. We'd make a minuscule difference to CO2 levels but get to join our FN brothers and sisters as to lifestyle.

Well the demand for stuff aside, we have developed a society around the car - urban sprawl, lack of mass transit infrastructure etc. the cost to get people out of their cars is massive and there is not enough public buy in to result in political will.

[andyt]

That, judging by Vancouver will actually happen more and more. We have more trips in and to Vancouver, but less by car. People are taking transit, even biking and walking. It takes time, yes, there's resistance, but as traffic gets worse it will happen. It's not nearly enough to just change to transit to make a huge dent in our CO2 output. Transit and trucks also use fuel, and we're very truck dependent. In the 1980's, in fact, I read about a study that said if everybody just drove civics (what was their mileage in the 80's?) it would save more fuel than everybody using buses (not trolleys). Meanwhile, Vancouver, with it's vaunted infrastructure to take more and more immigrants (vaunted by you, nobody else) is getting more and more plugged up. And all those people want crap and food delivered to them by trucks and that crap takes a lot of oil to produce, as does the food, etc.

[saturn_656]

Gunnair Gunnair:

andyt andyt:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The necessity of petroelum to our prosperity does not mean that we shouldn't consider its effect on the environment, which is also a necessity for our prosperity and our conttinued existence.

Of course. But it's sort of like "meaningful consultation" with FNs. We'll consider it, we'll make very small changes to behavior or deal with immediate effects (smog say) but I don't see the world ever doing enough to reverse the rise in CO2 emissions. Too many people wanting stuff and too much money to be made now to have people voluntarily start harming their economies, which is would in the short term for sure. And Canada would be a real sucker if we shut down or limit the oilsands while the rest of the world keeps on spewing, using coal, etc etc. We'd make a minuscule difference to CO2 levels but get to join our FN brothers and sisters as to lifestyle.

Well the demand for stuff aside, we have developed a society around the car - urban sprawl, lack of mass transit infrastructure etc. the cost to get people out of their cars is massive and there is not enough public buy in to result in political will.

In a country as large and sprawled out as ours building a society around the personal automobile was/is inevitable. Public transit is fine and dandy for cities, but it usually doesn't take you beyond your own metropolitan area. Then there's those areas where public transit doesn't exist and never will.

[andyt]

But there's not many people living in the boonies, so it's not much of a problem. Most of Canada's population is deemed urban, so public transit to some degree or other would be feasible. As I say tho, it's not a panacea for CO2 emissions.

[bootlegga]

andyt andyt:

But there's not many people living in the boonies, so it's not much of a problem. Most of Canada's population is deemed urban, so public transit to some degree or other would be feasible. As I say tho, it's not a panacea for CO2 emissions.

What Saturn said was sprawl, not rural. Take a look at most North American cities and they extend out, not up (like European and Asian cities do). Extremely dense cities like New York are the exception here, while cities like Edmonton, Toronto and Vancouver are the general rule.

Public transit is fine in theory, but getting from one end of Edmonton to the other on public transit is a time-consuming affair. That's fine if you've got time to spare (like students and maybe the retired), but if you want to commute, it actually takes far less time in your car than it does on public transit (I can get to work in 25 minutes vs. 45 by transit).

Even once they build their dream LRT system here in Edmonton (map below), times won't shrink that much.



And the cost of that system in in the Billions - probably $10-15 by the time they finish the whole thing. If they went underground/elevated like some proponents wanted, the cost would be even higher. Tack on a time frame of a decade and a half, and it'll be a long time before Edmonton is ever really capable of converting to a city that is truly feasible for the masses.

[andyt]

Cities are going to have to change to mass transit just because they are being choked by the car. It has nothing to do with CO2, but just having the space for all those cars. Even LA is starting to, as is a city flooded with immigrants like Metro Vancouver. Also, having diverse business centers so everybody is not trying to get to the same small area. That's happening in Vancouver with Surrey. I'm sure little Edmonchuck will follow behind at some point.

[bootlegga]

Sure, we can build a few LRT/subway lines around our cities and serve those that live relatively close to them, but the majority of people live too far away from them to use them effectively. Even channeling busloads of people into them isn't very efficient because those buses have to travel circuitous routes to pick up those passengers for the train.

My point is that Edmonton and most North American cities have far too low population density for public transit to serve us as effectively as it does elsewhere in the world. Maybe in a couple of generations (after our cities start building up, not out) our cities will get to that point where they will be efficient at moving large numbers of people around, but right now, we're too spread out.