LOL.

Germany has the highest energy prices in the world, they have fully embraced green energy. You mention Europe then use Germany as an example for lower emissions per capita vs Canada. Implying you think Germany is doing a good job. I asked you why you chose Germany as an example and if Canada should follow in their footsteps (since you pointed out they are doing better). You've avoided actually answering the question and just say silly things like something's are good something's are bad.


So since you haven't answered my question about where the product shipped via the Trans Mountain pipeline goes. Can you answer why you think Germany is much better than Canada?

Are you just incredibly dense? YOU BROUGHT UP GERMANY. I WAS RESPONDING TO YOU AND YOUR POST ABOUT GERMANY. What country was I supposed to talk about, Kazakhstan?

Shifty, why did you bring Kazakhstan into the conversation?

Removing the politics of the extremes.


The optimal strategy seems to be a One, Two punch of accepting that Fossil Fuels will be the core energy supply for the foreseeable future and rising, while at the same time focusing on Green energy offsets, to increasingly shift the percent mix away from Fossil Fuels and more and more to Green energy.

Fighting to slow Fossil Fuel production or make it more expensive in a belief that will lower world wide consumption and demand and provide more benefits to the Environment is just not accurate in this world wide market place. The shift of people from the 3rd world to the 1st world is going to remain the key driver of demand for the foreseeable future, and impacting production to raise prices will have almost no impact on that, accept for short term. The growth curve, along with the utilization of fossil fuels will still be up and to the right.

Once one recognizes that the best play is to focus on Greening the fossil fuel as much as possible while continuing to push up the percent of Green energy. This strategy will keep the cost of energy as low as possible, which makes extraction of 'unproven reserves of fossil fuels less profitable', allowing for Green Energy to then take even more market share. As time passes, for example in the fracking industry, where they have ceased most production as they cannot achieve the profits needed, it becomes increasingly less likely that they will ever be able to harvest those resources at a profit. These resources are more likely to become 'locked' with the continuous cots improvements. This is a positive as it, again means, Green Energy becomes more competitive.

The wrong strategy is to try and keep current accessible Fossil Fuels as expensive as possible and as polluting as possible. Thus driving up prices and allowing for continual development that will continue to make unproven reserves, suddenly accessible. You are both growing and lowering the price point for recovery for this fossil fuel base, making it more competitive with Green energy in the future.

One must put aside short term economic principles of thinking a blip in todays pricing (and a blip can be years) is impacting these realities...

This is reality...



and this is reality...




And for Canadians, cutting off their nose (trying to hamper our own production and profits) to spite our face (while ignoring it just gets filled by Russia, Fracking, etc, may be for some, an ideological win, but it is not an 'environment win' and it is not a 'Canada win'.

This, unfortunately, is yet another example of 'well intentioned individuals ...pushing us down the road to hell' due to naivety and ideology and unable to step back and see the bigger picture. A bigger picture that lets Canada continue to be a leader in Greening of fossil fuel energy and also getting the full benefit of our resource wealth to improve society more broadly.

You keep saying this like you've discovered some novel truth your opponents don't agree with. It is undoubtedly true, but the debate isn't whether you can lower global consumption absolutely. It is whether you can make it relatively lower. For example, a carbon tax in Canada can make Canada's consumption relatively lower than it would have been without it, while the global consumption still goes up due to 3rd world countries etc.

You believe that g lobal demand is set to increase. Nevertheless, you seem to also believe you keep energy prices so low that the fracking industry won't be profitable and just cease most production of fracking? Sorry bud, but this just isn't happening. Like you realize the majority of us oil and gas is fracked today, right? And that Canadian tar sands GHG/barrel sucks too, right? Even if this was true, and the price of oil could be magically brought so low to make fracking (and probably canadian tar sands with it) economically non-viable, that low price would undoubtedly contribute to increased consumption because humans respond to prices. This is all just utter made up nonsense.

I was wondering ….
I keep hearing in many parts of Canada they are missing workers , but many business have difficulty to pay workers , etc…
Why shouldn’t the government just stop taxing overtime
( or use a weak flat tax of 5-10% (?) directed only at paying down government debts , like a fund ?)
instead of making bigger deficit by printing money (budget deficits) .
Imo productivity would increase by a good margin

I just don’t see how Canada can gain a quicker boost in productivity to help the economy than this .
I wish some governments would try it for a year and see .

You can say whatever you want the carbon tax is basically useless in combating the world climate change dilemma . We have to many people on this planet and consumption increases as the people in poverty climb more into the middle class. You have the Extreme left facing the extreme right on climate change and neither will budge. Just look at David Suzuki's position were he backs eco terrorism . Look at BC it got hotter and hotter the last few years and what ends up happening every one that can buys an air conditioner that consumes more power

Look at the Amazon rainforests were they are no longer a rain forest as they now emit more carbon and on the verge of no coming back

https://www.dailysabah.com/life/envi...int-of-die-off


I watched Bill Maher Friday night and was shocked to hear in the USA trucks outsold cars in 2020. Even Bill who is an avid climate change believer is baffled why the USA still needs to import oil. That same question goes to Canada why do we import oil

As for Supply and demand once the artic melts more and exploration opens up there which may be another war over who owns it more supply will hit the market

I'm always amazed that you think this is a good point. Like it is obviously true, Canada's 38 million will never cut our personal emissions enough to solve the global problem with 7.7 billion. Nobody denies this. But we nevertheless have a big moral imperative to act. We are heavy polluters, relatively, an incrediably rich country, and our role should be one of being a big leadership role in the global community. We should be slashing our emissions as much as possible at home, and using what leverage and influence we have to help build the multilateral programs outside of Canada.

And I will keep repeating it as the left wants you to believe they are fighting some other battle that is defined as you did by 'if i can raise Cdn O&G prices it will impact global O&G supply, and thus 'duh, help the climate;.

You thought you made a laughably obvious point and it is EXACTLY the point most on the naïve eft believe that both harms Canada and the Environment. Congrats lefties.

You are exactly the type of person on the left who should be able to see beyond the virtue signalling meaningless wins (yeah we slowed CDN oil) and see that increasing Shale and Russian OIl, etc is NOT a win.

Canada is a country we can impact. We can continue to push to lead in the Greening of all energy. And the more prominent a role we play and the more we use Canada as a block to Shale and Russia, where our influence will be zero, the better.

That is the long game the left cannot see.

Oh no question you could say well just because other countries are doing nothing doesn't mean we should not be doing nothing. Though not at the expense of destroying CDN jobs

Lets be realistic we are never hitting any of Justin's targets . Its easy to say we will do this by 2050 or 2030

Take his 2030 target that all vehicles sold will be zero emissions. Never going to happen

That's just silly. The economy is constantly evolving. The idea that we will manage a green revolution that slashes consumption of energy somehow without losing any jobs in any sectors is just not realistic. Of course there will be job losses. And job gains. How one deals with that is a different question. Contrary to some previous insinuations I've ignored, I'm quite open to an environmental justice movement that provides supports and pathways that minimize the pain from these kinds of transformations, quite the opposite of the kind of cold hand of capitalism that ignores everyone left behind by a change.

That is likely true. I think we will be much closer to hitting them than without.

Well, the Liberals only promise 50% share of EV's by 2030, a number they are likely to miss but get close to. The much harder target is 2035 which is for 100% of light vehicles.

I'm curious, in your economic fantasy land where you apparently think it is possible to lower the price of oil so much that fracking (the technique used in the majority of US oil already) becomes economically unviable, what happens to alternative energies? Does anyone bother with these when oil is so cheap? Or conversely, if the price of oil rises so all these untested oil reserves you are so worried about become viable, why do you not once mention that at these higher price points tonnes of alternative energy becomes economically viable?

This whole more-is-less theory of yours is so weird.

You do realize it is more just a supply and demand issue. You have to factor in market manipulation that goes on by OPEC and other nations and the traders. Look at almost 18months to 2 years ago Oil was worth nothing

I am not interested in your lies and spin and games uke. That is the second time you have called factual reports fantasy. There are not 'my' anything.

Big corporate Shale interests and their investors need to get the cost of recovery down to make the product viable. All their efforts currently are requiring them to re-invest everything to those ends and if they cannot do that, that product will remain in the ground.

Lmao. You (sometimes) manage to state a few facts half right. But the narrative you have built around them is pure fantasy.

You believe (correctly, at this point) that demand for oil and gas is going to increase dramatically as 3rd world countries modernize. Yet, you seem to believe it is possible to lower the price of oil so much that things like fracking become economically unviable. Dude, the majority of US oil is fracked today. The majority of US Oil is shale today. This is before any price increases from all that demand. And throughout your magical economic "analysis" you just seemed to complete forget that alternative energy was a thing, and your fearmongering about price increases driving shale oil production also has other effects like decreased relative consumption and increases in alternate energy supplies as well. Nobody is denying ebbs and flows like in your article where demand destruction during the pandemic leads to shifts in which type of companies are increasing production, but that doesn't save your narrative one iota.

Big picture: You won't pump less by pumping more. You can't flood the market with (high GHG/barrel tar sand) oil and expect that the result is lowered consumption because you've magically made shale or fracking economically not viable. You've largely articulated these poorly, but even when there is some tertiary effects that work against it, the primary effect of you flooding the market with Canadian oil is more oil is consumed, not less.

Indeed. As mentioned repeatedly, Canada doesn't have pricing power on global oil prices because it can't turn the spiggot up the way say SA can. But we're not talking about the short term ebbs and flows as dictated by those with pricing power, we are talking about the kind of scenario where Canada, say, doubles or triples its oil output and does it consistently for a decade or two. We can do that, and if we did, we will influence prices.

More drivel and nonsense from you.

I am saying you are doing NOTHING by fighting against Canadian pipelines to curtail Supply and create a planetary environmental win. It is all just performative.

The only thing you can do is shift some of the supply from Canada to Shale or Russia or elsewhere while pointing solely at slowing Canada as the win and ignoring the rest.


it is performative at the expense of us Greening our industry. It is performative at the expense of Cdn tax payers.


But people on the left like you, feel so powerless in ability to get wins in these areas you will take it. You would cheer on these pipelines being blocked again tomorrow even as Big Shale was announcing 'don't worry, we got this'.

It is the 'blinders on' short sightedness of the left that so harms Canadian interest.s

I for one am super excited for the amazing fantasy land future where we pump so much oil that despite inevitable increases in global demand, the majority of US oil that is fracked magically stops being economically viable as the price of oil is so low.

I'd jump on your bandwagon if I believed that. But it is economic nonsense that you can result in less consumption by pumping a tonne of high GHG/barrel tar sand oil.

Nice strawman uke.

While certainly higher prices only help US fracking, as they say and you denied until I educated you, that is not the point.

The point is your glee at stopped CDn pipelines in your prior stated belief (you have now backed off from) that it has to raise prices and thus cut demand was foolish. You were foolish and very wrong but I am glad instead you switch to a strawman of 'ya well allowing Cdn oil won't slow US fracking' as if that was my argument and moreso that some how that is a win for your argument.

Fact is it is all incremental, and the more Green energy, the more Cdn Oil, and hte more OTHER sources coming in at lower prices, the less fracking investors will fund excavation and improvements.

So your glee when Cdn pipelines are blocked are just the stuff of the performative and ignorant left, Perfect for Cdn academy sadly (and you are proof of that) but in reality harmful in every way to Cdns and the world climate overall. But at least you get your virtue signalling which, often is the left only real goal.

See here is the issue I am a bit puzzled on

Once TMX if ever completed it starts to ship Alberta Crude that is clearly going to the coast to be shipped and not refined

If Keystone was built that oil will go to the South to be refined.

Reality is Alberta made some huge mistakes 10- 15 years ago when it did not add more refining capacity.

Strawman? I quoted you. You hilariously seem to believe that it is possible to have prices so low that fracking ceases production because it is economically unviable. You said that. Own it. Personally I think you just didn't know that fracking was something that was the majority of oil and gas today, and presumed it was some speculative far out thing that would only occur at much higher prices. It is the only explanation for such a nonsensical statement. And lol at "until I educated you", as if I have ever (quote me!) said anything denying that higher prices induces increased production.

You are still using demand and consumption interchangeably. Stop that. They mean different things. I am pointing out the basic economic fact that increased prices lead to reduced consumption. The demand curve isn't changing. But the price point changes where on the demand curve you are. And lol at glee, you are making up my position again, see my ted talk post for the fulerl context.


You are saying a lot of the right words, but have the logic backwards in your head. If we are going to reduce oil dependency, and have lots of green energy, we need HIGH prices for oil not LOW prices for oil. When the price of oil is high, then the market can adjust by seeking out more alternative, green energies and reducing their consumption. Of course you are not wrong that there will be substitutions as well (new oil sources coming online to replace ones going offline), that is absolutely part of it, but your problem is the utter ignoring of these other effects. It isn't equal.

At the end of the day you can't pump less by pumping more. You can't square that circle.

If a Canadian refinery is to be built, it probably makes more sense to build it in Burnaby. A lot of fluster is made about this point about limited Canadian refinery capacity, but mostly this is as consequence of a fairly globalized supply chain so countries that are net exporters are typically not sort of absolute exporters with zero imports at all, it's a function of these globalized supply chains. We have seen with Russia (and also the pandemic before that) that perhaps there is more geopolitical risk to globalized supply chains than the globalists of the 1990s and 2000s would have thought. But regardless, I find this talking point to be largely a rounding error in the larger energy equation.

Patrick Brown, who believes he is a new man again based on the CTV retraction, has entered the CPC leadership race. In an odd place to start, he gets his first dig in against Poilievre dredging up the dark days of the Harper era islamophobia and tieing Poilievre to it. Those were bad days indeed, but um....is this really the topical issues of 2022 that is going to win him the election? Hard to imagine. Brown is much better than Poilievre - he supports a carbon tax of some form, for instance - but this is not the way to win. It isn't even clear you can win the CPC nomination while advocating to do anything at all about climate change, but this has to be one of the worst ways to try.

https://nationalpost.com/news/politi...gn-credentials

Boom !


Btw I follow u 3-4 go at it , u know oil price can drop massively in a very short period of time depending how the Ukraine crisis gets resolves ?

I would not invest billions of dollars during uncertainty events that is hugely volatile as much to the upside and the downside oil prices .

2 years ago oil was negative because of oversupply …..
We probably entering into a recession in the near future , killling demands for a lot of stuff .
Big shift are happening in the workforce (more Work at home , less oil needed)
Almost the entire world as massive debts . (Resolved with inflation or restructuring debts)
We got currency wars .
A possible redirection of globalisation toward less globalize trades (less oil consumption) .
A possible new axis of trade flows .
Environment issues .

About we just take 2 big breathing seconds and see in couple weeks/months , how all of it will get resolved or not before throwing 10-50 billions of oil investments when we’re not even sure it will be used that much .

Iran probably coming online when they get a deal with US ( a big finger in the face of Russian from Iran imo ) increasing already I think 3 millions barrel of oil (30% Russian production) and the ending of covid and a probable increase of oil from other countries too .

Your guys dreaming if u think Canada would be able to take huge amounts of market shares without a fight by the major players around the world ….
That is how shale oil got busted by Saudi In 2015 .

No reasons to get this upset and yell!

I mentioned Germany because their policies are terrible which caused an energy crises and for them to be completely reliant on Russian fossil fuels. You replied by saying Europeans are better then Canada and used Germany as an example of that, when Germany is a perfect example of what not to do. So yes it's bizarre to me why you would choose Germany as an example of how Europeans are better than Canada, and I wonder why.