Well I used them as an example because....wait for it....YOU BROUGHT THEM. What country was I supposed to use? Kazakhstan? Utterly bizarre how confused you are about basic conversation.

And no, you don't get to pretend I was responding to something about dependency on russian fossil fuels. I was referring to this oh-so-pithy comment where it is just true that Germany (again using this country because YOU brought it up) has a much lower GHG/capita than Canada does.

Why does Shifty continue to bring up Kazakhstan?

Hey it needs to private money investing in anything in the ways of more supply or pipelines. Not Government but government needs to stop getting in the way when companies complete the environmental requirements like with Teck.

Also if an Iran deal gets done it will only be short term as if the GOP wins the next presidency it will rip it up. It will be by executive order and not through congress

Reality is its sad that our choices of oil after a Russian embargo are Iran and Venezuela . The Saudi's are not stupid they are reaping in the rewards as they have the cheapest oil to extract

I get how folks blame Putin for our Oil price woes. It sure has helped drive up the price but it was going up way before the attack

The one thing that Canada has failed at as we see the Russia/Ukraine fiasco is our Nato commitment as well as our military commitment to protecting the north

Canada is near the bottom in its NATO commitment of 2% of GDP. This is on both governments. Heck how long ago was it that we ordered F35's (dumb plane to buy) That was scrapped and we still in limbo
Justin will not commit to anything at all instead deflects the question when asked in Europe.

Sadly the Artic is going to be a fight as to who controls it and we all know chances are its loaded with Oil

You do not think its bog news when CTV has to make that retraction and is facing a huge lawsuit from Patrick Brown?

Media should never get stories like that wrong its irresponsible

Do I think he can win the nomination ? No clue know very little about him only remember he had to drop out of the provincial race due to allegations involving young girls

You are just factually wrong on that as is most of the naïve left.

It is this misunderstanding that drives the left to believe they are scoring wins on behalf lowering consumption and the environment when they make Cdn oil more expensive and leave it more polluting. YOu are applying this locally to a World market situation.

Oil is a global commodity, so driving up Cdn oil price does NOTHING on world consumption which is the 'demand' driver here. All it does is push our missed opportunity to supply it from Canada to Shale and Russia and elsewhere. ZERO net global decrease results from the efforts or wins in slowing the Cdn Oil from getting to market or in making more expense and dirty in doing so.

You will keep arguing against this dynamic as this is ideological for the left. They simply cannot accept seeing from a pragmatic perspective that the best path is to ensure CDN oil is as cost effective and clean as possible as they see that as MORE oil, instead of understanding it just means more from Canada at the EXPENSE of shale and Russia and other areas, not more overall.

I'm endlessly amused about how you just refuse to address or even acknowledge you ever said this:

People sometimes think you are never willing to let a point go and will defend it to its death. But they are wrong. When you screw up badly enough, you actually just try to bury the idiotic statement in an avalanche of new text while refusing to ever go back and acknowledge it.

Cuepee: A world where global demand is increasing is just never going to be one where fracking - the majority of US oil today - suddenly becomes so uneconomical because the price of oil has fallen so far. This is an utter fantasy.

Duh? Increasing the price of oil in canada - say through a carbon tax as I support - accomplished reduced consumption in Canada. Nobody said it is going to have anything but maybe some tertiary effects on China.

At the end of the day you can't pump less oil by pumping more oil. You can imagine any sort of economic fantasy you wish, but you can't square that circle.

probably not. Brown was once vaguely supportive of the idea of a price on carbon. Poilievre has made this election a referendum on whether the CPC will or will not tolerate someone who tries to come up with a moderate version of tackling climate change. O'Toole had a terrible plan, but at least it was a plan. This was always against the wishes of the base who refused to even add that climate change existed in the party platform despite the feckless pleading of O'Toole. When Poilievre orchestrated O'Toole's ouster so he could take over, of all the issues he chose to center throwing out the carbon plan as the key thing. And as wrong as I think it is, I think Poilievre has read the base perfectly.

As someone who pretends to care about climate change, you must be appalled.

We did.

https://boereport.com/2021/09/13/rev...refinery-deal/

And don't forget like the old trans mountain pipe ships

Refined petroleum

Conventionally sourced crude oil

Gasoline or diesel

Refined Synthetic crude

Processed bitumen

The new pipe will do the same but the added capacity will allow export to Asia where Alberta's products have been in demand but supply constraints have prevented contracts.

We also need KXL to rise from the ashes...its a new world today.

I am just not interested in your gaslighting. You always do this. As I try to move on and not just keep addressing your silly attempts to gaslight, you then try to draw me back to repeat the same ponits over and over so you can then complain about me not 'dropping it'.

I have absolutely addressed that and yet you will keep coming back, gaslighting and pretending I did not. That comment is specific to the fracking being done by most of the bigger investor driven fracking that was not being done below a certain price threshold and how it comes back on stream when you drive prices up.

Remember you are the one arguing keeping Cdn oil more polluting and more expensive will help the climate and reduce demand and that has been proven FACTUALLY wrong. What it does is shift the supply to fracking and Russia and other. So Canada pays a cost (more polluting, less profits) and the world pays a higher price (more polluting, higher cost) and yet uke argues that is a win. Why? Because he is ignorant of 'local' versus 'macro' principles and how they apply.

This doesn't seem believable. Your article talks about short term fluctuations between public and private drillers to the demand destruction induced by the pandemic. It is a short term thing. Obviously these ebbs and flows happen, but what you were talking about before really appears to be some long term "as time passes" thing where it seemed that you believe it was magically possible to lower the price of oil so much that fracking - the majority of US oil today - would suddenly just not be viable. This is voodoo economics. Especially given your stated belief that demand is going to significantly rise, the idea that you will depress oil price so much to make high GHG/barrel sources (like the canadian tar sands) unviable is nonsense.

Of course everything you write in this paragraph about green energy is also utter nonsense. If you want to induce more green energy, then the price of conventional energy needs to be HIGH not LOW. When the price of conventional energy is high, green energy is more price competitive. You have it exactly backwards. Which makes sense because everything you've been saying is drilling (ha!) towards the fantasy that you can pump less by pumping more.

Let's try a simple thought experiment: If you can flip a switch and double the price of global oil (in the long term), does consumption go up, go down, or stay identical?

Uke we are addressing YOUR position.

You hold a belief which you stated that you laughed at as basic economic theory that if we could keep Canadian oil more expensive and dirty (block pipelines) that of course that would lead to reduced World demand as you laughed at the obviousness of higher cost, and less supply (from Canada) being an obvious trigger to reducing world demand because as you say 'supply can impact demand'.

I proved you wrong with you have quoted above and you have been desperate to recast that argument ever since.

Are you now backing away from your point that if we can keep Cdn Oil prices higher and the product dirtier that it will impact world demand and the amount of product consumed or are you standing by that shallow and wrong headed analysis based on my education of you on how the Global situation (Russia and Shale, etc filling the gap) means that while Canada loses (and you celebrate) the World gains nothing and in fact is impacted worse?

The big Shale interests are literally cheering you and the naïve left on while throwing money at you as useful idiots. They want you to block Canadian pipelines and greening and keep it as dirty and expensive as possible so their cost and environment damage does not look so bad.

What does uke do when cheered on by big Shale. He revels in it. Ya, we have Canadian oil as expensive and dirty as possible and now we have Big Shale returning to record product.

And uke says that while proclaiming that a win because he is naïve and dupe.

Ok. If you are unwilling or unable to address the glaring holes in your fantasy economic view I've quoted, that's fine. Let's just note your unwillingness to address these issues and move on.

Noting for the record....

Done! Let's move on.
What an odd strawman. Happy to address this more if and when you can find a quote of me (as I quoted you) suggesting this!

I'll try and help you out while you are searching for a quote. I believe we have to acknowledge basic economic realities. And there isn't much more basic than that if you increase the cost, the consumption goes down (ignoring outliers like veblen goods). I can't quite tell still if you agree or disagree with this basic economic fact. Part of the problem with your posts - a common one - is that you've taken this thing I did state, but then layered on top of it all sorts of other nonsense I didn't state. For instance, you made this big deal - as if I didn't know - that due to countries like China and India we will are likely to see a net increase in consumption, a banal point that doesn't diminish the a relative reduction of consumption say in Canada due to a carbon tax. You falsely imagine that I've said something silly as an extension of the basic economic fact when pretty much everything since then, including whether you think I'm anti-pipline or not (read my ted talk post!) is a construct of your imagination.

I think the best way forward since I know you will fail to find such a quote, is to work through a simple thought experiment. If Canada floods the US with a glut of oil for the next decade, do you think that puts upward, downward, or exactly equal pressure on the price of oil? Similarly, do you think that puts upward, downward or exactly equal pressure on consumption of oil? Finally, do you think that puts upward, downward, or exactly equal pressure on the consumption of alternative energies?

If there will be any side wagering on whether he will produce an actual quote let us know. I like easy money wagers.

I don't need to go further than this as this is a restatement of the mistake you made prior and laughed about.


There is some accuracy to this but you mistake that accuracy for a truism.

Again we are talking about the impact of Cdn oil on the WORLD STAGE.

You cannot simply apply 'if i drive the Cdn price up... it therefore follows world wide consumption goes down" as you are saying here.

YOu are just flat out wrong about this and ignorant of the macro economics.

Now you will try and pivot and dodge and deflect on that point but I won't let you.

As you celebrate keeping Cdn price higher and our oil more polluting this "consumption down" is the win you (and others on the naïve left) are celebrating and hoping for. It is simply not happening a the graphic I have quoted for you prior shows.

Instead what happens is the opposite of what you want (or should want) as Shale and Russian and other sources fill the void, increasing the 'accessible oil at all price points' and adding more pollution.

But that does not keep naive lefties like you from celebrating that 'ya we drove up Cdn oil prices, and thus are decreasing world world demand'. Why? Because you remain ignorant of the macro's of this. You don't understand what is happening beyond our borders.

Oh I clearly realize other than Putin dropping nukes the climate is going to devastate the planet if we do not act. I think you would agree on this point as well.

The difference is I am willing to admit what we are doing right now as a country is next to nothing. Carbon tax has had an impact on businesses reducing carbon but little to no effect on personal consumption. Maybe $2.00 a litre gas may I do not know

I am also willing to admit the climate is really not the current governments priority when it buys a pipeline and allows USA coal to run through its ports because the USA banned it through their west coast ports. You do realize the TMX pipeline may also be a bigger financial disaster than Harper's Muskrat Falls
As well a leader who when asked what he does personally all he can say is " I use cardboard water bottles"

Bottom line unless the world as a whole treats this as an end of the world problem we are doomed . My guess 2070-2090

Yes you are right that Justin Trudeau has a better climate plan than the Conservatives but his plan is like removing a cup of water from a sinking boat and the conservatives removing a tablespoon. The boats gonna sink.

So based on all that I am not going to support destroying CDN jobs to import Oil from countries that have no climate plan and have horrible human rights issues.

Ah, excellent! I believe this is our first acknowledgment that yes there is "some" accuracy to basic economic facts. Excellent!

Now let us see how you imagine I apply that fact:
I asked you to quote me. You have once again failed. I never said this. I have said - correctly - that if we raise the canadian price through things like a carbon tax then this is likely to drive down Canadian consumption. This is a great example of how to correctly apply the economic fact mentioned above. Clearly canadian consumption can go down while global consumption goes up, a 'truism' that shouldn't need to be pointed out to you, but sadly is. Are you starting to see how you used me stating a basic economic fact to invent pure nonsense positions? This is why quoting the specific things I actually is important.

I ask again: If Canada floods the US with a glut of oil for the next decade, do you think that puts upward, downward, or exactly equal pressure on the price of oil? Similarly, do you think that puts upward, downward or exactly equal pressure on consumption of oil? Finally, do you think that puts upward, downward, or exactly equal pressure on the consumption of alternative energies? Hopefully you will be able to provide clear answers to these basic questions.

It's truly bizarre to see the folks ITT utterly convinced that people won't change their consumption based on prices. Like why on earth would this commodity suddenly be immune to basic economics?

For instance, searches for EV are doubled right now with the price shock. When prices go up, people change their behaviours, at least in aggregate.

My mother once told me when I tried to describe online poker that taking money from a fish is unethical.

Your mother is incorrect on this. If we do not take it from them then someone else will, so since the end outcome will be the same - why not help the donks/derps etc. get to their promised land in as efficient a manner as possible.

Yes folks search for EV's . Sadly the supply is extremely limited. As well they see the price. At about $1.50 to $1.75 it just didn't seem like folks were changing their habits.

Trust me I have considered a Toyota Matrix for all the driving I do for work were I do not need a truck. Than I see that new Bronco and think Hmmmm

I've educated you on that prior. You are just slow on uptake. That statement is not me realizing, and is me explaining to you your mistake.


I'm not interested in playing the quote waste of time game only for you to hand wave and deflect. That quote I instead, is the same point (and mistake) you have made numerous times.

Again above you are misunderstanding the Macro's here.

CDn product will have no impact over all on the DEMAND for oil in the US. US energy policy and the continued deployment of Renewables will, over time drive that and NOT CDN prices. Can i MAKE YOU comprehend that?

So if you keep Cdn oil more expensive and dirtier all you do is shift their SUPPLY to meet whatever their demand is, to Shale and Russia and other sources. Can I MAKE YOU comprehend that?

Uke you are not scoring any win by making CDN oil more expensive and dirty. You are not achieving your fantasy of slowing US consumption and changing US demand when you fight to do that. That is the lie the left has told itself and you have swallowed and believe, wrongly.

Were Canada can have some impact is on what SOURCES that supply comes from. We can Green our source as much as possible (but you fight against that) and we can keep the money in CDN pockets instead of Russian or Frackers (but you fight against that).

Those are the realities in a pragmatic real world and not your fantasy based one were Cdn is shifting US oil demand be3cause uke fought against pipelines. 'ohhh look at uke and how virtuous and good he is. Even if he is doing nothing in reality but harm, at least he is trying,'

Imho , again …
Conservatives should stop looking around them to see how people do thing and just be leaders and do the right thing right away ….

That is what I personally mean being a cult and conservatism voters loves strong leaders , they just following others (and orders) ….

Always put your house in order first before bothering about others .

Fwiw, yes at beginning it does cost jobs but in the end it will build a much stronger and sustainable economy while being less dependent on foreigners energy .

Always find fascinating the right thinks it’s ok to let fail companies (and so jobs) to build a stronger economy but it isn’t so to save the entire planet …
It’s hard to have an economy without a planet .

Just seeing how the cost is to society with 3-4 millions Ukrainian migrating will be in nearby countries , just imagine couple hundreds millions immigrants moving due to raise of sea level in a couple decades .

Oh I do agree on a lot of what your saying but do you honestly believe the liberals have a strong climate strategy? Or even that they will hit any of their goals they have projected for 2030, 2035 or 2050?

I keep hearing about the sea levels rising yet both John Kerry and Obama bought ocean side property in Martha's Vineyard. Though you are climate refugees numbers will be staggering.

John Kerry and Obama aren’t financial genius either .
When u speak to real wealth managers , they buy farmlands away from sea coast .

Does not mean u can’t buy a little get away house for near time enjoyment .

If liberals would go as hard as u wish they would with climate changes , they wouldn’t be elected .
U seem to be in the side of pipeline being build yet u condemn trudeau for not being hardcore climate change fighter to ban pipeline all together .
I have trouble following the hate on trudeau here .

His trying to do both at the same time .
Fighting climate change through prices (carbon tax) while letting the economy roll with the necessity of oil being needed for couple decades still .