Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Saudi Arabia declares oil price war on fellow OPEC (and non OPEC)members.


Recommended Posts

11 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

Would you be okay if your taxes paid to replant the trees that loggers take out?.....

I'd prefer logging companies pay for that as well.

 

And last time I checked, this wasn't a forestry related thread.

Edited by aGENT
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

The government determined it was safe..do I really need to continue?

You're a hypocrite. 

Again, PERSONAL opinions not actual analysis done in a lab.  Not a hypocrite.   I even said I probably wouldn't drink lake water regardless of location.   Not a hypocrite.   The government analysis said it was OK.  You said you could contradict that.  All you posted was personal opinion, something you said you dont do.  So you sir are the hypocrite. 

11 hours ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

Lol ok then. You don’t have a &^@#ing clue what you’re talking about or the area in question so you should really just drop it. I don’t know anyone who goes to Quesnel lake anymore. It used to be where everyone goes until that tailings pond breach happened and sent a bunch of dead fish floating to the top. 

 

 But maybe I’ll listen to you instead of locals and people who visited it multiple times/year. Because you’re the &^@#ing expert on everything and everywhere that you’ve never been.

All I posted was a article that stated that government analysis deemed the water safe to refute Stromes earlier post.  I never made myself to be an expert.  And, yes I have been to Quesnel and the area many times.     And those people are choosing not to go there.  Personal opinions.  Post a recent analysis that demonstrates the water to be bad, then we can talk.

 

But maybe I should listen to you, the expert analyzer who knows everything about someone from a few posts.  Much of what you posted was garbage.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, RowdyCanuck said:

I do agree about worrying about spills but other provinces have taken what I would call the learning years so now our pipelines are safer then ever but sometimes it's worth the risk but don't get me wrong people in b.c don't see the benefits of oil like at all other then tourist or albertans buying vacation houses and raising their house prices but once the pipeline gets put in then b.c will benefit and see growth the same way Manitoba and s.k did......

 

also ive heard enough horror stories about can for from family and your right logging companies are suppose to replant but I know of a few whole  sides mountains clear cutted but no one cares or forces them to replant cause it's up white swan not along the road.....heck b.c even made a policy about not cutting trees to close to the road...

also logging companies have moved further north , which doesn't  hurt people but they do harm the wild life......logging is just as bad as oil but oil pays better.......It's kinda pick your poison.....

also maybe if b.c would have taken kinders money Van wouldn't be thinking about bankruptcy.....also Alberta wouldn't be entering a recession right now.....but the bubble was going to pop sooner or later though but we would have had other industries stronger and there for it would have taken some of the pain.....heck Alberta was trying to bring in tech companies......also Alberta has other industries that make more then some of provinces bigger earners......also it's going to take more then one province to make up what oil brings in but every expects Alberta to continue to be the big earner. 

 

i don't care if you take a pig from b.c or Alberta and put lip stick on it.....it's still a pig.....if you get what I mean.....

"heck b.c even made a policy about not cutting trees to close to the road..."

 

Correct, partially because it is unsightly for a few years till the new trees start growing. Also because if you cut down a bunch of trees close to the road and leave a few standing the wind just blows those down on the road, maybe killing people during windstorms.

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Again, PERSONAL opinions not actual analysis done in a lab.  Not a hypocrite.   I even said I probably wouldn't drink lake water regardless of location.   Not a hypocrite.   The government analysis said it was OK.  You said you could contradict that.  All you posted was personal opinion, something you said you dont do.  So you sir are the hypocrite. 

All I posted was a article that stated that government analysis deemed the water safe to refute Stromes earlier post.  I never made myself to be an expert.  And, yes I have been to Quesnel and the area many times.     And those people are choosing not to go there.  Personal opinions.  Post a recent analysis that demonstrates the water to be bad, then we can talk.

 

But maybe I should listen to you, the expert analyzer who knows everything about someone from a few posts.  Much of what you posted was garbage.

The entire discussion is also a complete red herring meant to distract from the original thread topic and current discussion as it relates to Canadian oil and hundreds of millions of OUR federal tax dollars once again going to pay to clean up the mess left by the already subsidized oil industry and the foreign owned shell companies who largely run and profit from it.

Edited by aGENT
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Some experts and a growing number of people think throwing money at oil right now is a losing scenario and that in country renewable expansion is a better long term venture

 

With a barrel of Canadian oil now going for the same price as a cup of coffee, some renewable energy experts say it's time for a different approach to building Canada's energy sector.

They say the massive job losses and economic turmoil hammering the oil industry could be at least partly offset by a more aggressive shift toward renewables, energy-efficiency retrofits and other sustainable infrastructure.

 

"There are very practical reasons it would make sense," said Martin Boucher, of the University of Saskatchewan's Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy.

Western Canada Select crude oil has been selling for less than $5 a barrel since the coronavirus-imposed travel bans and business shutdowns caused demand to plummet more than a month ago. Even last week's deal between OPEC and other world powers to cut supply by 10 per cent failed to ignite crude prices. On Friday, WCS was listed at $2.87.

"Only gradual increases in crude oil prices are expected through all of 2020 as these factors persist, which could lead to record levels of expected global oil inventory builds in the first half of 2020," the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its most recent forecast.

Simply put, the global demand for oil has plunged and oil producers are putting it in storage in the hope of better prices. It will take a long time for that to change.

Others believe the price could go even lower, and Canada could soon see negative prices. Oil producers who've run out of space to store their nearly worthless product "will be paying people to take away our resources," Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said this month.

That may seem like good news for consumers filling their cars or trucks at the gas station for 60 cents a litre, but it's a huge loss for the oil-heavy economies of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Revenue from non-renewable resources like oil could drop as much as $1.2 billion this year in Saskatchewan alone, according to government forecasts released Friday.

Boucher and others say COVID-19 has caused this most recent price crash, but it's not the only dark cloud hanging over the industry.

Since the July 2008 peak of more than $110 per barrel, the WCS price has steadily declined. In February, before the COVID-19 restrictions were announced, WCS had already dropped to $27.

Trade wars and production increases by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Russia and other global powers, the lack of pipeline capacity in the landlocked Canadian Prairies are combining with labour-saving technology to decrease prices. That will not change in a post-coronavirus economy, they say. These aren't things anyone in Saskatchewan or Alberta can control.

That's why those urging Canada to keep tackling climate change say the post-coronavirus economy must include a more rapid transition to renewables and energy efficient upgrades.

"Stimulus and recovery measures in response to the pandemic must foster economic development and job creation, promote social equity and welfare, and put the world on a climate-safe path," Francesco La Camera, director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, said in a statement this month.

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced $1.7 billion to clean up orphan oil wells, in a move that could create up to 5,000 jobs in Alberta alone. He also announced new money for methane reduction from the oil and gas industry, which will help Canada meet its international commitment to reduce methane emissions as well as fostering environmental innovation.

Boucher, who teaches energy transition policy, said this approach will provide far more jobs per dollar invested than investing in the oil industry. He said shifting even a small percentage of the investment and government support currently going to the oil industry would make a big difference.

It could begin with more energy-efficient retrofits of homes and businesses – better windows or thicker insulation, he said. Most of this work would be labour-intensive and done by local contractors and businesses. Profits would stay in the community and homeowners would benefit from lower fuel bills.

"These are simple approaches, but they're domestic. They don't put us in a situation where we're overly exposed to the ebbs and flows of oil and gas," Boucher said.

Saskatoon energy consultant Jason Praski agreed. Praski and Boucher said Saskatchewan is increasing its renewable energy capacity, but much more could be done. Solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy from wood and crop waste could all deliver government tax revenue and jobs, they said.

"Saskatchewan's got so much potential," Praski said.

Praski said many people have already warmed to these ideas, but the ongoing coronavirus situation could help convince others.

"I think the whole pandemic is helping us pay more attention to each other and look after each other, and the climate change crisis is really a similar problem, it's just longer term," Praski said. "As we think about this whole thing, rethinking our lives, you know, it may get us all thinking a little closer toward doing the greener thing if we can."

No one from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was available for an interview.

Saskatchewan's Energy and Resources Minister Bronwyn Eyre was not available for an interview but an official sent a written statement detailing more than 500 megawatts of pending wind and solar projects across the province.

 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/04/08/opinion/lets-come-out-covid-19-new-economy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/cbc-news-poll-energy-transition-support-1.5533036

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, aGENT said:

The entire discussion is also a complete red herring meant to distract from the original thread topic and current discussion as it relates to Canadian oil and hundreds of millions of OUR federal tax dollars once again going to pay to clean up the mess left by the already subsidized oil industry and the foreign owned shell companies who largely run and profit from it.

It's not a red herring at all. Why is it alright for subsidized mining and logging companies to leave tax payers with their mess? Oh ya it's in BC..

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Some experts and a growing number of people think throwing money at oil right now is a losing scenario and that in country renewable expansion is a better long term venture

 

With a barrel of Canadian oil now going for the same price as a cup of coffee, some renewable energy experts say it's time for a different approach to building Canada's energy sector.

They say the massive job losses and economic turmoil hammering the oil industry could be at least partly offset by a more aggressive shift toward renewables, energy-efficiency retrofits and other sustainable infrastructure.

 

"There are very practical reasons it would make sense," said Martin Boucher, of the University of Saskatchewan's Johnson Shoyama Graduate School of Public Policy.

Western Canada Select crude oil has been selling for less than $5 a barrel since the coronavirus-imposed travel bans and business shutdowns caused demand to plummet more than a month ago. Even last week's deal between OPEC and other world powers to cut supply by 10 per cent failed to ignite crude prices. On Friday, WCS was listed at $2.87.

"Only gradual increases in crude oil prices are expected through all of 2020 as these factors persist, which could lead to record levels of expected global oil inventory builds in the first half of 2020," the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its most recent forecast.

Simply put, the global demand for oil has plunged and oil producers are putting it in storage in the hope of better prices. It will take a long time for that to change.

Others believe the price could go even lower, and Canada could soon see negative prices. Oil producers who've run out of space to store their nearly worthless product "will be paying people to take away our resources," Alberta Premier Jason Kenney said this month.

That may seem like good news for consumers filling their cars or trucks at the gas station for 60 cents a litre, but it's a huge loss for the oil-heavy economies of Saskatchewan, Alberta and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Revenue from non-renewable resources like oil could drop as much as $1.2 billion this year in Saskatchewan alone, according to government forecasts released Friday.

Boucher and others say COVID-19 has caused this most recent price crash, but it's not the only dark cloud hanging over the industry.

Since the July 2008 peak of more than $110 per barrel, the WCS price has steadily declined. In February, before the COVID-19 restrictions were announced, WCS had already dropped to $27.

Trade wars and production increases by the U.S., Saudi Arabia, Russia and other global powers, the lack of pipeline capacity in the landlocked Canadian Prairies are combining with labour-saving technology to decrease prices. That will not change in a post-coronavirus economy, they say. These aren't things anyone in Saskatchewan or Alberta can control.

That's why those urging Canada to keep tackling climate change say the post-coronavirus economy must include a more rapid transition to renewables and energy efficient upgrades.

"Stimulus and recovery measures in response to the pandemic must foster economic development and job creation, promote social equity and welfare, and put the world on a climate-safe path," Francesco La Camera, director-general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, said in a statement this month.

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced $1.7 billion to clean up orphan oil wells, in a move that could create up to 5,000 jobs in Alberta alone. He also announced new money for methane reduction from the oil and gas industry, which will help Canada meet its international commitment to reduce methane emissions as well as fostering environmental innovation.

Boucher, who teaches energy transition policy, said this approach will provide far more jobs per dollar invested than investing in the oil industry. He said shifting even a small percentage of the investment and government support currently going to the oil industry would make a big difference.

It could begin with more energy-efficient retrofits of homes and businesses – better windows or thicker insulation, he said. Most of this work would be labour-intensive and done by local contractors and businesses. Profits would stay in the community and homeowners would benefit from lower fuel bills.

"These are simple approaches, but they're domestic. They don't put us in a situation where we're overly exposed to the ebbs and flows of oil and gas," Boucher said.

Saskatoon energy consultant Jason Praski agreed. Praski and Boucher said Saskatchewan is increasing its renewable energy capacity, but much more could be done. Solar, wind, geothermal and biomass energy from wood and crop waste could all deliver government tax revenue and jobs, they said.

"Saskatchewan's got so much potential," Praski said.

Praski said many people have already warmed to these ideas, but the ongoing coronavirus situation could help convince others.

"I think the whole pandemic is helping us pay more attention to each other and look after each other, and the climate change crisis is really a similar problem, it's just longer term," Praski said. "As we think about this whole thing, rethinking our lives, you know, it may get us all thinking a little closer toward doing the greener thing if we can."

No one from the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers was available for an interview.

Saskatchewan's Energy and Resources Minister Bronwyn Eyre was not available for an interview but an official sent a written statement detailing more than 500 megawatts of pending wind and solar projects across the province.

 

https://www.nationalobserver.com/2020/04/08/opinion/lets-come-out-covid-19-new-economy

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/cbc-news-poll-energy-transition-support-1.5533036

Some "renewable energy experts."

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Ryan Strome said:

Pipelines to each coast would sure help.

One minute you guys cry about a low dollar now you cry about a high dollar. But again the booming oil industry far makes up for it.

How come you never cry about paying for tailings pond cleanups in BC? Or logging site cleanups?

We are stating the truth, again I said it puts people to work but it wasn't the best plan.

Excuse when did BC or anyone else contribute 650 billion?

Actually there is a point but it's a few of you that can't admit Alberta has done more for Canada than any other province. We have provinces dependent on Alberta blocking projects that hurt all Canadians while continuing to want Alberta for help. Do you realise how many BC pipelines run through Alberta? You want subsidized fuel can we have subsidized lumber for our homes? You guys always want freebies from us and we gave it for so long but if you want to block us and hurt us then let us go.

but Alberta hasn't "done more for Canada" thats just ridiculous. How you can say that and mean it is whats at the core of the problem. Sure, 4 million Albertans collectively "do more" than the other 33 million of us :picard:

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

It's not a red herring at all. Why is it alright for subsidized mining and logging companies to leave tax payers with their mess? Oh ya it's in BC..

Now here is the big question.

 

Where, does ANYONE say, claim or state that it is ok based on provincial boundaries?

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Some "renewable energy experts."

 

VS

 

Strome, the guy who doesn't understand equalization and still thinks Alberta does it all, has done it all and will continue to do it all for 11 other provinces or territories.

 

Quality response and rebuttal to their statements though.  *slow clap*

Edited by Warhippy
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Now here is the big question.

 

Where, does ANYONE say, claim or state that it is ok based on provincial boundaries?

Can't find any posts of you guys crying about it just crying about Alberta. 

6 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

VS

 

Strome, the guy who doesn't understand equalization and still thinks Alberta does it all, has done it all and will continue to do it all for 11 other provinces or territories.

 

Quality response and rebuttal to their statements though.  *slow clap*

Lol I was correcting your misleading post. As for not understanding, we explained equalization to you. I also educated you on trans Canada and countless other things, son.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Compelling analysis there.  Well sourced and researched.   Like a lot of your posts, empty on all accounts. 

Correcting his misleading title. Continue telling us how you know more than the locals because the government said so. Its hilarious you didn't even get my point last night. If a right wing government says it's safe you say it isn't. You're a hypocrite. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Renewable energy, retrofits touted as job-creating alternative to oil sector devastation

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5537310

 

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced $1.7 billion to clean up orphan oil wells, in a move that could create up to 5,000 jobs in Alberta alone. He also announced new money for methane reduction from the oil and gas industry, which will help Canada meet its international commitment to reduce methane emissions as well as fostering environmental innovation.

 

 

 

Why is Canada cleaning up corporate messes in Alberta???

  • Thanks 1
  • Hydration 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, BPA said:

Renewable energy, retrofits touted as job-creating alternative to oil sector devastation

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5537310

 

Last week, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced $1.7 billion to clean up orphan oil wells, in a move that could create up to 5,000 jobs in Alberta alone. He also announced new money for methane reduction from the oil and gas industry, which will help Canada meet its international commitment to reduce methane emissions as well as fostering environmental innovation.

 

 

 

Why is Canada cleaning up corporate messes in Alberta???

Who even knows.  Canada hates Alberta after all we keep hearing.

 

To be honest, the money going in to clean up the mess of resource exploration that Alberta has effectively said is acceptable plus the money going to pay large oil companies that have decided to not work in Alberta while working in other more lucrative markets SHOULD be going towards the people to retrofit their homes and to create that green infrastructure.


But whatever, green sucks.  Everyone hates Alberta, Alberta is the way.

Edited by Warhippy
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

It's not a red herring at all. Why is it alright for subsidized mining and logging companies to leave tax payers with their mess? Oh ya it's in BC..

Not one person has argued that. Find a quote.

 

Text book red herring.

  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

Correcting his misleading title. Continue telling us how you know more than the locals because the government said so. Its hilarious you didn't even get my point last night. If a right wing government says it's safe you say it isn't. You're a hypocrite. 

Opinions vs scientific analysis.   You think opinions trumps scientific analysis.   If you or I wish to refute said governmental analysis, you or I would require analysis that says otherwise.   

 

How can I be a hypocrite without some right wing government saying something is safe that I can then say it isn't.  I would provide some evidence that it wasn't safe.  Unlike you, who only provides personal opinions.   Something you said you don't do.  In other words, it is you who is the hypocrite. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, aGENT said:

Not one person has argued that. Find a quote.

 

Text book red herring.

Not one person from you guys ever mention it. Only Alberta for you guys.

5 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Opinions vs scientific analysis.   You think opinions trumps scientific analysis.   If you or I wish to refute said governmental analysis, you or I would require analysis that says otherwise.   

 

How can I be a hypocrite without some right wing government saying something is safe that I can then say it isn't.  I would provide some evidence that it wasn't safe.  Unlike you, who only provides personal opinions.   Something you said you don't do.  In other words, it is you who is the hypocrite. 

I believe right wing governments said TMX was safe but you didn't believe it.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Warhippy said:

Who even knows.  Canada hates Alberta after all we keep hearing.

 

To be honest, the money going in to clean up the mess of resource exploration that Alberta has effectively said is acceptable plus the money going to pay large oil companies that have decided to not work in Alberta while working in other more lucrative markets SHOULD be going towards the people to retrofit their homes and to create that green infrastructure.


But whatever, green sucks.  Everyone hates Alberta, Alberta is the way.

Please show that money.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...