does your view sync with Bobo's exactly and if not can you guys sync up before posting please?

I don't know why you think different people need to have the exact same views. I can quote you offering contrary views to yourself so maybe sync yourself first.


The fact remains that you have a child like understanding of Supply and Demand and it relationship to Production in Canada's O&G market and you believe Demand is driven primarily by cost per barrel when that is not the case at this point in time as Demand and growth is so strong that price has very little impact on Supply.

That leads you to false beliefs you are so sure of that you mock people for not understanding that 'of course higher prices will reduce supply' in Canada. It is that false premise, that so many on the left believe that makes them believe they are doing good if they stop the pipelines as that then raises prices which then cuts production... which then is saving the environment.

I can show you this over and over again and you see it but cannot comprehend it. To you it must be witch craft...




... and because you cannot believe it, you continue to fight against it.


You are not impacting that curve in any meaningful way as the price per barrel fluctuates wildly over that time frame. You can see it before your very eyes and yet you deny it as you think you 'lol, have a grasp on basic economics.... thus that graph cannot be true'. It is.

So what Canada CAN DO, is try to lower emissions and Green that supply as much as possible. That is where Cdn focus needs to be. What are the top 5 or 10 initiatives we can do to Green that energy chain. Pipelines being priority 1.

But sadly that means Cdn's need to overcome the naive people like you who have a laughably shallow comprehension of the economics and that in THIS scenario you need to see that Demand is driving supply and Production and price has little impact.

uke does not understand what he is posting. I hate to say it but he really does not.

He does not factor in that most of this world (China, India, Africa, etc) is on a massive huge growth push where their energy consumption, if they are successful, will go from near zero to 1st world levels in the coming decades.

He does not want to consider that reality in his equation and so keeps hammering this question that ASSUMES WRONGLY an economics dynamic of basically a static demand curve impacted by raising prices.

As i have said, we may see some local 'sticker shock' pull back (the principle uke thinks is a driving factor here thx to his Grade 10 like comprehension) for a short period in the hopes of a drop later, but then whatever the new normal is gets accepted.

But what uke does not understand or factor is that both energy and climate change (global warming) are global issues, not local ones.

If China, India, Africa, etc are going to continue to drive demand way up for all forms of energy including O&G, then the most responsible thing to do is support Greening those forms and not fight greening them in a belief that if you block the improvements (greening and costs) you will drive up price and thus cut demand.

That is just foolish. That is just the naive left.

Instead what happens is:

- the curve I post above but with MORE CO2 damage instead of less
- fracking and Russia and other even more polluting and worse forms also now can supply O&G world wide they could not prior
- fracking and other worse methods use this time to improve extraction methods (not necessarily green them) such that as the price drops they will still be able to sell


Every outcome is the opposite of what they left should want and yet they are the most key factors in making it a reality due to their ignorance.
it is comically sad how wrong and self destructive they are as they cheer on what they think are wins as Cdn pipelines get stopped.

Coincidentally, read this in my morning news read:https://www.reuters.com/markets/euro...nd-2022-03-08/
Admittedly we are seeing a (hopefully) localized price shock and not the long term cumulative effective of rising carbon taxes, but the point very clearly is that rising prices can indeed lead to demand destruction.

Every one of us making a myriad decisions all the time. Some are big like buying the smaller home closer to work or swapping out the ICE for an EV. Some are smaller like turning down the thermostat a couple degrees, riding our bike to pick something up locally, choosing to buy some local produce and not to buy those increasingly expensive avocados shipped from south america, decided to take our vacation in Canada and not Europe, etc etc etc. We might make those decisions for the environment, but we might also just make them because stuff that takes lots of oil is increasingly expensive and humans react to price.

Absolutley seirous question uke.

When you read an article like that, and see these 'price sensitive impacts' how do you envision it playing out in terms of the long term Demand curve and its impact on this...



and which of these do you think more reflects what the foreseeable future will look like at the time you read an article like that?






I am not asking this to mock but it seems to me you are not connecting the short term impacts of price fluctuations with the long term demand that drives actual production REGARDLESS of short term fluctuations.

it seems to me you put so much value on these blips that you cannot see that pricing will always be adjusted to, and new normals established after some sticker shock, but the overall Demand curve remains unimpacted and thus Supply keeps steadily onward and up and too the right.

As a society we will lose the Global Warming war, if we deny this reality and focus on trying to stop this curve thinking that blocking greening it as much as possible, is a win as it keeps prices higher and thinking that supply will then start on a downward right trend line.

Can you not see the fallacy in your thinking? Is any of this cutting through?

I've only been skimming these posts, but I too hope gas prices continue to sky rocket to help the environment. But I also hope food prices launch to the moon bc food production and delivery pollutes so people not eating will also help the environment. Virtually everything we do is bad for the environment, so just make prices so high for everything that your average person can't even afford to pollute bc they'll be starved, frozen and inches from death. As is always the case it's the poors and lower class who get absolutely derailed and pounded everytime. Changes need to be made and those with money won't make them so who does that leave

I believe our absolute best strategy is to try and continue to offset the growing need for energy as much as we can with Renewables such that we keep fossil fuel need somewhat flat.

It will be a long, long time (many generations likely) before fossil fuel need can be meaningfully downturned. But we can maybe flatten it especially if nuclear is back in the mix which answers the question of where will EV's get their energy to drive? Nuclear could solve that easily.

Then the next priority is to Green the Fossil fuel as much as possible. That requires the left (environmentalists) to abandon a falsely held premise that the solution is halt improvements in the hopes of making it more expensive and polluting in the hopes that cuts demand.

We must not be in denial of the demand curve I show just above and must accept it. And recognize we are no where near its peak. We have a world hungry for energy. Energy is the #1 wealth creator for them and unless we want to relegate them to the 3rd world 'to save the environment', we must accept they will continue to progress and consume so much more energy that we are not turning that demand curve anytime soon.

The question is can an activist, zealot, pawn, etc do so, even to further the cause they proport to believe in? Can they shed the blinders?

If someone like uke cannot with his educational level, it is hard to see the less educated ever getting there. And thus this quandary Canada is stuck in. The saboteurs are within working against the Canadian economy and greening initiatives both, and yet think they are doing some greater good. It would be laughable, if not so sad.

As for the first point you do realize that technology on solar panels is getting better and better. Sadly they have a life span of only 25 years and their performance depletes over time. As well all the minerals that are required for the batteries and panels have to be mined. Many of the countries that have these minerals use child labor and clear cut rainforests to get at them.
There is an environmental cost to any energy source we use.
Take Gold Mining in the Yukon they clear cut areas but they have strict requirements on returning the land back to normal after they have stripped all the gold. Many countries have no regulations on that

You do realize that any energy we fail to produce we must than buy from countries that really have poor environmental regulations or care about human rights. Id rather North America be not importing any oil .

Yes to all of your questions. My understanding with solar panels is that 25-30 years is the point where their efficiency starts dropping noticeably, which doesn't render them useless immediately, but probably best to stick with 25 years when determining their feasibility. And yes, lots of environmental and labour issues around the minerals for all of our electronics. I would hope that as the technology continues to evolve, efficiency and the sustainability of resource use will improve.

It is completely obvious that many big countries will increase their energy usage as they modernize. Far from something ignored or not factored in by environmentalists, this is widely recognized as a core problem. However, you are confused if you think it cuts against my points. That total global consumption is likely to rise for some time does not mean we can not affect consumption at all. We are affecting it relatively. So for instance, if we increase the price of Canadian consumption through a carbon tax, there is lower relative consumption even if the net consumption still rises because of China and India.

Also minor note that the referenced chart shows consumption. I've noticed you've been incorrectly alternating these terms throughout and you should stop it.

I don't think you quite understand what supply and demand curves are doing. It seems like you are noticing that the shape of the consumption as a function of time graph is similar to the supply curve's price as a function of quantity graph? Those are completely different things. There isn't one of the demand or supply curves that "reflects what the foreseeable future" looks like.

The way to read say the demand curve is that the horizontal axis is quantity and the vertical axis is price. So when there is a high price, this corresponds to a lower quantity, the basic economic point I've been saying from the beginning.

I'm sorry, I don't think you understand how to interpret the demand or supply curves. No part of what you are saying connects with the idea that the demand curve is unimpacted while supply goes up to the right. To rephrase your original point, as the globe modernizes and more countries want to use lots of oil, the entire demand curve (not where you are on it, the whole curve itself) is going to shift. If you were correct and demand curve remains unimpacted, then increasing the supply (by which i presume you misspoke and meant quantity) would change the location of the equilibrium point on the intersection between the demand and supply curves.

When posters itt talking about "alternative energy" I'm assuming they don't mean natural gas, is a pretty vague term so just want to clarify.

No shifty, natural gas is obviously not included in "alternative energy". My goodness.

So thats a yes?


You are pretty opinionated for someone that has "no idea" about a lot of things. And yes the policies around green energy have been destructive and are unsustainable.


I have nothing against solar panels, I could care less if people decide to use them or drive an EV, they're cool have at it! I am against policies that mandate unrealiable energy while restricting reliable energy (it's destructive and unsustainable).


Why? For instance Elon Musk and Marc Andressen (2 people much smarter than me and you) want to expand and increase oil production, why do you think you are smarter then them on a subject you admittedly don't know a lot about?


Perhaps a zealot.Maybe just years of consuming propaganda and lack of critical thinking are making you not think clearly it's, hard to tell sometimes but is there really a difference?

"Gosh, I have no idea" isn't being smug?


Since you refuse to say it, in your article the 2 biggest subsidies the oil industry got was a wage subsidy for COVID-19 and the Liberal Government buying a pipeline.




You hand wave and say things like "alternative energy" without being specific, be specific that's how you solve problems. Especially important complicated ones like energy. It's most likely from years of anti fossil fuel propaganda but you should stop, it's destructive.

Green Energy (wind/solar/unreliables) require back up from reliables, that's not a false dichotomy it's fact.

Oh, how come? It drastically cut emissions switching from coal to natural gas.

Yes, natural gas is about half as bad as coal. It is still very, very bad. We still need to phase out its use.

Rich.

You are so very much the typical leftist uninformed activist on this.

You still believe 'if only we can slow Cdn oil getting to market and make it more expensive then the US and Cdn (the main markets) will actually shrink and use less O&G.

You ignore and don't address that they just ship in Russian product and Fracking ratchets back up. None of that exists in your mind as you stick your fingers in your ears saying 'nah, nah, not listening'.

You completely ignore addressing this...



...and if instead you looked at that and actually comprehended it you would be in favour of Greening as much as possible all the fossil fuels contributing to that curve instead of believing that if you keep them as polluting and expensive as possible then people will just use less.

It is exactly why Canada cannot win with such an ignorant base who deny the reality that the best thing we can do is Green everything to the maximum extent and instead they operate under a flawed belief they can slow world demand such that Russia or fracking or other forms don't just fill the gap.

I see. You mentioned Germany has a much better carbon foot print than Canada. You never answered when asked, do you want Canada to follow in their footsteps and embrace green energy the same way?

Lol at abandoning every one of those bad points about your supply and demand curves. Oopsie.

As described in my ted talk post, I fully acknowledge that we don't have pricing power on global oil, and have very little ability to influence what countries like China and India are going to do. Global consumption, as I have said (I really don't know why you suggest I ignored it) is indeed likely to increase, even if we can make relative decreases here at home. This is why I said to primarily focus first at home in Canada where we have the most influence and secondly to focus most on lowering our own consumption as opposed to restricting supply. As I explained, I'm neither generically anti-pipeline nor anti- expanding our net exports of oil.

But.

If you want to massively expand exports from Canadian tar sands, then you need to be ****ing ferocious in your home country. Not lip service to climate change. Not the occasional actions here or there. Not having the spoils flow to the mega-corporations whose lip service is even less meaningful than the government's. I want to be a shining example to the world on how to be sustainable and slash consumption at home. And I want to be tactical about it, using our leverage to pressure the world as much as possible (example the idea of carbon tariffs I talked about earlier).

If you want to open the flood gates and dump as much tar sands oil into the world hoping that some argument about relative emission per million barrels offsets the relative consumption increases from relaxed pricing pressures, well, be my guest. But that is not, and will not, be my calling card.

I think Germany has done well in some areas, but not in others. And they, like most of us, have clearly mis-stepped the geopolitical risk from Russia. But you don't actually care about any of the details, do you, this is just some lolgotcha

Oh, that's very clever.

I'll start by clarifying a couple of things:

No, that was being sarcastic. As it was when I said a similar thing ("I had no idea") in response to your "destructive and unsustainable" remark. I'll try to cut down on the sarcasm now so you'll have to come up something other than taking obvious sarcasm and making it literal. Or we could just try to discuss things civilly.

OK, ignoring the last bit, let's dig into this one. I hadn't heard this, so I just Googled it and what I found was Tweets in the last week that appear to be in response to the rising gas prices brought on by the Ukrainian situation. Is this what you're referring to? If so, it seems a little disingenuous to portray them as being in support of more oil production in general. Elon's Tweet, for example, definitely seems to be very specific to the current situation: "Hate to say it, but we need to increase oil & gas output immediately. Extraordinary times demand extraordinary measures." But If they've been advocating for greater oil production outside of the current crisis, then I'd like to learn more about this. Sincerely.

Refuse to say it? More like refuse to dig around looking for the specific information that you knew all along, that wasn't especially relevant to the discussion anyway. Again, you had suggested there was no reason there would be subsidies for oil, and both articles confirmed that oil subsidies are indeed a thing. Excluding the two biggest subsidies doesn't change that. I've never argued that oil subsidies were as large as for alternative energy; in fact, I said the opposite. Can we move on now?

The false dichotomy is putting energy into two groups of reliable and unreliable. Yes, fossil fuels are more reliable, but they aren't 100%, as Texas can tell you. And solar panels in Hawaii or Arizona, combined with ways to store energy, are pretty damn reliable. A solar panel or wind turbine in Vancouver - not so much. Your general point about reliability, though, I don't disagree with - that's why I don't see fossil fuel use disappearing any time soon. If ever.

I'm no expert on any of this, and my mind is open to different ideas. As for being a zealot, against any investment in oil, etc., I'll take you back to the first post of mine you replied to in this conversation:

Happy to discuss further, but there's not much point if you're going to continue to misrepresent my positions.

Shifty just do not connect oil with climate change danger .
It isn’t about the efficiency of oil the problem , even tho he keep hammering unlimited uses and Investment In oil , trying to convince us that oil is the most efficient energy source .
Yes we know ….


Shifty is the definition of a conservative pure at heart .
We see it again with this leadership races.
They again change a chief , thinking the problem it’s their leader image and messages ( cult ?) , not realizing it isn’t the chief the problem , it’s the message of pure conservatism that will never result in a majority by themselves …
Regardless who’s your leader .
But conservatism do not like or want compromise , they want it all , their way and no other way ….

Than why under Trump did the USA lower emissions? They converted many coal plants to natural gas .

Just out of curiosity which do you think is a greener energy Electricity or Natural Gas . Though I do realize that many electrical stations are powered by natural gas .

As well it is so easy to say look at this country in Europe that has gone green. They have a land mass 1/2 the size of Alberta.

Im curious how the reaction to Climate change policies on the west coast is as gas hits $2.25 a litre ?

I would agree with you on the state of the Conservative party. Though do you really believe Justin Trudeau is a Climate PM . Other than the carbon tax which has little effect on emissions and using cardboard water bottles at home his policies are minimalist at best.

As for your bolded statement id say the environmentalists want that as well

I want Bobo and others to see how uke is so desperate to goad into me into a recycling and repeating of points ad infinite by labelling them abandoned.

Uke if you want me to restate and restate and restate the same points over and over just say so and I i will accommodate. I have them on the clip board ready to go. YOu can then switch to complaining about that.

I am trying to distill this down to the bigger issues to focus upon. we can debate the price and supply elasticity in a theoretical sense but that is not going anywhere. This part of the talk has been going somewhere.

So it seems to me you do understand that the Demand curve is what is driving Supply currently and for many years to come. Maybe generations to come as China, India, Africa, all seek to elevate their people and Green Energy ramps up. If accurate that is a good thing and I am glad I got you there. The idea you pushed that is was 'duh, of course Canada not having pipelines will raise the price and thus cut demand world wide' was just astoundingly dumb. So i'll take that victory.

Now it seems what you want is basically symbolic. You realize Canadian actions, pipeline or not, are going to have any real impact on that Demand curve. You recognize (I think) that Russia and Shale, etc will just fill that gap. But you celebrate Canada not getting pipelines anyway.

So what are you celebrating when you do that? Less revenue for the Canadian gov't and more Global Warming from Canadian product getting to market. So what is our win again? What is the World win from that?

Do you understand that as price drives up and Shale production increases they focus on those learnings and lower their cost of production and thus increase their accessible reserves that can be extracted at lowering future prices?

What do you think of that byproduct to your symbolic move? That as you take money out of the Canadian coffers you put right into Shale and other producers who can then expand their accessible reserves? Do you calculate that in?

While I won't deny this exists I think it far more a factor on the Left and in Quebec.

This battle against Canadian resource energy is absolutely a ideological battle with zero compromise for so many Cdns (the biggest concentration in Quebec). You could explain to them that shutting down Cdn pipelines results in more C02 and not less and they would say 'don't care, shut it anyway'. You could say every drop of lost Cdn production will be replaced by Russian and Shale at worse environmental cost and lost revenue to Canadians who lead the way in Greening these types of resources and they would say 'don't care. Shut it down'.

They simply are incapable of taking a pragmatic stance, even when it would help the environment and help Canada. Why? Because they hate the industry so much that they will take a symbolic win. If they can feel they stopped a pipeline or reduced Canadian production they will take that and just not look at the other side of the ledger that it resulted in more Russian and more shale and net more C02. You only know the last part if you allow your mind to consider it. If you don't you can revel in ignorance and celebrate your symbolic win as uke did when the pipelines were blocked.