Thanks for this particular podcast. I've long been puzzling how the looming decline in global oil demand will play out for Canada and the oil sands specifically. This podcast filled in many of the gaps including the relative importance of the oil/gas sector to Alberta's and Canada's economy. Thank-you to Andrew Leach for his thoughtful book (just ordered one). It will be telling whether the Pathways Alliance commits to its much ballyhooed plans to reduce emissions by 22Mt/year by 2030 using CCS. which as Sara points out is slightly less than the 20Mt/year reduction proposed in federal cap on GHG emissions. I also found the question from CCL and the ensuing discussion on what happens to Canadian productivity when the oilsands are eventually shut down; i.e., we lose the very high productivity of producing non-conventional ( ~$1000/hr) in an economy where the country wide average is ~$60/hr, and weakening. Good question. Good balance. Good podcast. Thanks.
To the extent we are trying to see into the future of energy and oil sands role in that future, I think it would be helpful to discuss the long-term outlooks of the Energy Information Agency and the Canadian Energy Regulator. CER's outlook last year, for example, was supposed to be a kind of pathway to net zero. As I recall, they envisioned world oil prices declining as the world reduces its demand for oil. By 2050 world oil prices are around $30/bbl oil - I am going from memory here, but I think that is more or less right. At that price, oil sands are no longer earning great income, royalties, taxes are declining and there is certainly no new investment. Andrew said he thought it possible prices could stay highish as we go through this transition. I would have liked to hear what he thought of the CER scenario and what a higher oil price pathway to net zero might look like.
They won’t last anyway, only long enough to destabilize the climate enough to make mad max look like a playground. Which means ending carbon energy in a fair and orderly fashion, as soon as possible, is a far better option than waiting as long as possible and suffering a disorderly end into an uninhabitable planet.
CO2 from burning of fossil fuels do not cause catastrophic warming of the troposphere. The troposphere is already opaque to most infrared light due to water vapor. Adding tiny amounts more to CO2 concentration will not make the troposphere more opaque. Its already opaque at like 20 meters.
" Adding tiny amounts more to CO2 concentration will not make the troposphere more opaque." - false. First, increasing a gas in the atmosphere by 1.5x is not "tiny". Additionally, you ignore that CO2 is well mixed in the atmospheric column, compared to water which precipitates out quickly with altitude. Furthermore, you have no explanation for the warming we see on record.
There absolutely is an explanation and more than that there's historical proof the temperature fluctuates with periods of highs and periods of lows. We are following the trend exactly as we should. There's a reason why the so called experts originally called it "global cooling" then years later changed it to "global warming" and now just call it "climate change" because that way no matter which way the temperature fluctuates they can blame it on "climate change". The whole thing is a horrible globalist hoax meant to give the rich and powerful control over the poor through fear. You are a cultist and can't see the forest through the trees. You want to be controlled and afraid then go for it but quit trying to force others to join your death cult.
There absolutely is an explanation and more than that there's historical proof the temperature fluctuates with periods of highs and periods of lows. We are following the trend exactly as we should. There's a reason why the so called experts originally called it "global cooling" then years later changed it to "global warming" and now just call it "climate change" because that way no matter which way the temperature fluctuates they can blame it on "climate change". The whole thing is a horrible globalist hoax meant to give the rich and powerful control over the poor through fear. You can't see the forest through the trees. You want to be controlled and afraid then go for it but quit trying to force others to join your doom cult.
There absolutely is an explanation and more than that there's historical proof the temperature fluctuates with periods of highs and periods of lows. We are following the trend exactly as we should. There's a reason why the so called experts originally called it "global cooling" then years later changed it to "global warming" and now just call it "climate change" because that way no matter which way the temperature fluctuates they can blame it on "climate change". The whole thing is a globalist power grab meant to give the rich and powerful control over the poor through fear. You can't see the forest through the trees. You want to be controlled and afraid then go for it but quit trying to force others to join your doom cult.
There absolutely is an explanation and more than that there's historical proof the temperature fluctuates with periods of highs and periods of lows. We are following the trend exactly as we should. There's a reason why the so called experts originally called it "global cooling" then years later changed it to "global warming" and now just call it "climate change" because that way no matter which way the temperature fluctuates they can blame it on "climate change". The whole thing is a power grab meant to give the rich and powerful control over the poor through fear. You can't see the forest through the trees. You want to be controlled and afraid then go for it but quit trying to force others to join your doom cult.
Masterfully confused motivations except for the bit about money. So it's not the speed (of extraction) that kills, it's the sudden stop. Replace while you can.
17:01 - 18:26 Wow ... two butthurt little cornucopian soldiers trying very hard to deny the result of a fight they lost. Pathetic and awkward ... but also, so goddamn funny that this clip is going in my treasure trove of "cognitively dissonant idiocies" (!)(Congratulations !) The lady was quite tactfully diplomatic ... lol
@@kayakMike1000 That is not what is contested here ... what is contested is the inane idea that shale plays, oil sands developments and expansion along with a plethora of other offshore fields were merely exploited (or explored) because a couple of engineers suggested bankers lend them hundreds of billions to showcase their technical prowess or something ... but absolutely not because geological constraints were materializing on the horizon, pretty damn near spot on where they were predicted to materialize (...) Sure buddy ... sure. ... because of course that would lead to questioning the dumbed down information we were being fed and the resource allocation model that governs us since WW2 which makes some people a little too uncomfortable ... Thou shall not question the Faith ! It's actually fascinating on an anthropological level ...
Thanks for this particular podcast. I've long been puzzling how the looming decline in global oil demand will play out for Canada and the oil sands specifically. This podcast filled in many of the gaps including the relative importance of the oil/gas sector to Alberta's and Canada's economy. Thank-you to Andrew Leach for his thoughtful book (just ordered one). It will be telling whether the Pathways Alliance commits to its much ballyhooed plans to reduce emissions by 22Mt/year by 2030 using CCS. which as Sara points out is slightly less than the 20Mt/year reduction proposed in federal cap on GHG emissions. I also found the question from CCL and the ensuing discussion on what happens to Canadian productivity when the oilsands are eventually shut down; i.e., we lose the very high productivity of producing non-conventional ( ~$1000/hr) in an economy where the country wide average is ~$60/hr, and weakening. Good question. Good balance. Good podcast. Thanks.
To the extent we are trying to see into the future of energy and oil sands role in that future, I think it would be helpful to discuss the long-term outlooks of the Energy Information Agency and the Canadian Energy Regulator. CER's outlook last year, for example, was supposed to be a kind of pathway to net zero. As I recall, they envisioned world oil prices declining as the world reduces its demand for oil. By 2050 world oil prices are around $30/bbl oil - I am going from memory here, but I think that is more or less right. At that price, oil sands are no longer earning great income, royalties, taxes are declining and there is certainly no new investment.
Andrew said he thought it possible prices could stay highish as we go through this transition. I would have liked to hear what he thought of the CER scenario and what a higher oil price pathway to net zero might look like.
If you truly wish to see a Mad Max world, end fossil fuels.
They won’t last anyway, only long enough to destabilize the climate enough to make mad max look like a playground. Which means ending carbon energy in a fair and orderly fashion, as soon as possible, is a far better option than waiting as long as possible and suffering a disorderly end into an uninhabitable planet.
CO2 from burning of fossil fuels do not cause catastrophic warming of the troposphere. The troposphere is already opaque to most infrared light due to water vapor. Adding tiny amounts more to CO2 concentration will not make the troposphere more opaque. Its already opaque at like 20 meters.
" Adding tiny amounts more to CO2 concentration will not make the troposphere more opaque." - false. First, increasing a gas in the atmosphere by 1.5x is not "tiny". Additionally, you ignore that CO2 is well mixed in the atmospheric column, compared to water which precipitates out quickly with altitude. Furthermore, you have no explanation for the warming we see on record.
There absolutely is an explanation and more than that there's historical proof the temperature fluctuates with periods of highs and periods of lows. We are following the trend exactly as we should. There's a reason why the so called experts originally called it "global cooling" then years later changed it to "global warming" and now just call it "climate change" because that way no matter which way the temperature fluctuates they can blame it on "climate change". The whole thing is a horrible globalist hoax meant to give the rich and powerful control over the poor through fear. You are a cultist and can't see the forest through the trees. You want to be controlled and afraid then go for it but quit trying to force others to join your death cult.
There absolutely is an explanation and more than that there's historical proof the temperature fluctuates with periods of highs and periods of lows. We are following the trend exactly as we should. There's a reason why the so called experts originally called it "global cooling" then years later changed it to "global warming" and now just call it "climate change" because that way no matter which way the temperature fluctuates they can blame it on "climate change". The whole thing is a horrible globalist hoax meant to give the rich and powerful control over the poor through fear. You can't see the forest through the trees. You want to be controlled and afraid then go for it but quit trying to force others to join your doom cult.
There absolutely is an explanation and more than that there's historical proof the temperature fluctuates with periods of highs and periods of lows. We are following the trend exactly as we should. There's a reason why the so called experts originally called it "global cooling" then years later changed it to "global warming" and now just call it "climate change" because that way no matter which way the temperature fluctuates they can blame it on "climate change". The whole thing is a globalist power grab meant to give the rich and powerful control over the poor through fear. You can't see the forest through the trees. You want to be controlled and afraid then go for it but quit trying to force others to join your doom cult.
There absolutely is an explanation and more than that there's historical proof the temperature fluctuates with periods of highs and periods of lows. We are following the trend exactly as we should. There's a reason why the so called experts originally called it "global cooling" then years later changed it to "global warming" and now just call it "climate change" because that way no matter which way the temperature fluctuates they can blame it on "climate change". The whole thing is a power grab meant to give the rich and powerful control over the poor through fear. You can't see the forest through the trees. You want to be controlled and afraid then go for it but quit trying to force others to join your doom cult.
Masterfully confused motivations except for the bit about money.
So it's not the speed (of extraction) that kills, it's the sudden stop. Replace while you can.
We are STILL coming out of an Ice Age.
Here we go...
Ed's been drinking too much NDP kool-aid
17:01 - 18:26
Wow ... two butthurt little cornucopian soldiers trying very hard to deny the result of a fight they lost.
Pathetic and awkward ... but also, so goddamn funny that this clip is going in my treasure trove of "cognitively dissonant idiocies" (!)(Congratulations !)
The lady was quite tactfully diplomatic ... lol
Climate doesn't really make much difference in fossil fuel use. See all the oil and coal that China uses.
@@kayakMike1000 That is not what is contested here ... what is contested is the inane idea that shale plays, oil sands developments and expansion along with a plethora of other offshore fields were merely exploited (or explored) because a couple of engineers suggested bankers lend them hundreds of billions to showcase their technical prowess or something ... but absolutely not because geological constraints were materializing on the horizon, pretty damn near spot on where they were predicted to materialize (...)
Sure buddy ... sure.
... because of course that would lead to questioning the dumbed down information we were being fed and the resource allocation model that governs us since WW2 which makes some people a little too uncomfortable ... Thou shall not question the Faith !
It's actually fascinating on an anthropological level ...