OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Check your information as the governments are NOT telling people this.
They are still allowing them to build on ocean front.
They are still allowing them to build on ocean front.
Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands
- Thread starter Foxsea
- Start date
- Status
GLG
Well-Known Member
OBD it can't be done right? Just don't tell these folks that are doing it...
Published on Aug 25, 2014
A new solar co-operative on Gabriola Island will help the region meet greenhouse gas emission targets, and it begins with members installing solar-panels.
[frL5HGOU08w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frL5HGOU08w
Published on Aug 25, 2014
A new solar co-operative on Gabriola Island will help the region meet greenhouse gas emission targets, and it begins with members installing solar-panels.
[frL5HGOU08w]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frL5HGOU08w
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
You really need to read stuff!
Never said they or you could not.
Just showed how much it costs in relationship to other sources.
Guess lots of people in the province are happy with dams.
Never said they or you could not.
Just showed how much it costs in relationship to other sources.
Guess lots of people in the province are happy with dams.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
UoG-logoPlease register to view contact details
UK researchers show Little Ice Age was global, with implications for current Global Warming
18 November 2014 Gloucestershire, University of
Under embargo until 20 November 2014 00:01 GMT
A team of UK researchers has shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over ‘Global Warming’.
Climate sceptics and believers of Global Warming have long argued about whether the Little Ice Age (from c. early 15th to 19th Centuries) was global, its causes, and how much influence the sun has had on global climate, both during the Little Ice Age and in recent decades. This new study helps clarify those debates.
The team of researchers, from the Universities of Gloucestershire, Aberdeen and Plymouth, conducted studies on past climate through detailed laboratory examination of peat from a bog near Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego. They used exactly the same laboratory methods as have been developed for peat bogs in Europe. Two principal techniques were used to reconstruct past climates over the past 3000 years: at close intervals throughout a vertical column of peat, the researchers investigated the degree of peat decomposition, which is directly related to climate, and also examined the peat matrix to reveal the changing amounts of different plants that previously grew on the bog.
The data show that the most extreme cold phases of the Little Ice Age—in the mid-15th and then again in the early 18th centuries—were synchronous in Europe and South America. There is one stark difference: while in continental north-west Europe, bogs became wetter, in Tierra del Fuego, the bog became drier—in both cases probably a result of a dramatic equator-ward shift of moisture-bearing winds.
These extreme times coincide with periods when it is known that the sun was unusually quiet. In the late 17th to mid-18th centuries it had very few sunspots—fewer even than during the run of recent cold winters in Europe, which other UK scientists have linked to a relatively quiet sun.
Professor Frank Chambers, Head of the University of Gloucestershire’s Centre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, who led the writing of the Fast-Track Research Report, said:
“Both sceptics and adherents of Global Warming might draw succour from this work. Our study is significant because, while there are various different estimates for the start and end of the Little Ice Age in different regions of the world, our data show that the most extreme phases occurred at the same time in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. These extreme episodes were abrupt global events. They were probably related to sudden, equator-ward shifts of the Westerlies in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Atlantic depression tracks in the Northern Hemisphere. The same shifts seem to have happened abruptly before, such as c. 2800 years ago, when the same synchronous but opposite response is shown in bogs in Northwest Europe compared with southern South America.
“It seems that the sun’s quiescence was responsible for the most extreme phases of the Little Ice Age, implying that solar variability sometimes plays a significant role in climate change. A change in solar activity may also, for example, have contributed to the post Little Ice Age rise in global temperatures in the first half of the 20th Century. However, solar variability alone cannot explain the post-1970 global temperature trends, especially the global temperature rise in the last three decades of the 20th Century, which has been attributed by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
Professor Chambers concluded: “I must stress that our research findings are only interpretable for the period from 3000 years ago to the end of the Little Ice Age. That is the period upon which our research is focused. However, in light of our substantiation of the effects of ‘grand solar minima’ upon past global climates, it could be speculated that the current pausing of ‘Global Warming’, which is frequently referenced by those sceptical of climate projections by the IPCC, might relate at least in part to a countervailing effect of reduced solar activity, as shown in the recent sunspot cycle.”
UK researchers show Little Ice Age was global, with implications for current Global Warming
18 November 2014 Gloucestershire, University of
Under embargo until 20 November 2014 00:01 GMT
A team of UK researchers has shed new light on the climate of the Little Ice Age, and rekindled debate over the role of the sun in climate change. The new study, which involved detailed scientific examination of a peat bog in southern South America, indicates that the most extreme climate episodes of the Little Ice Age were felt not just in Europe and North America, which is well known, but apparently globally. The research has implications for current concerns over ‘Global Warming’.
Climate sceptics and believers of Global Warming have long argued about whether the Little Ice Age (from c. early 15th to 19th Centuries) was global, its causes, and how much influence the sun has had on global climate, both during the Little Ice Age and in recent decades. This new study helps clarify those debates.
The team of researchers, from the Universities of Gloucestershire, Aberdeen and Plymouth, conducted studies on past climate through detailed laboratory examination of peat from a bog near Ushuaia, Tierra del Fuego. They used exactly the same laboratory methods as have been developed for peat bogs in Europe. Two principal techniques were used to reconstruct past climates over the past 3000 years: at close intervals throughout a vertical column of peat, the researchers investigated the degree of peat decomposition, which is directly related to climate, and also examined the peat matrix to reveal the changing amounts of different plants that previously grew on the bog.
The data show that the most extreme cold phases of the Little Ice Age—in the mid-15th and then again in the early 18th centuries—were synchronous in Europe and South America. There is one stark difference: while in continental north-west Europe, bogs became wetter, in Tierra del Fuego, the bog became drier—in both cases probably a result of a dramatic equator-ward shift of moisture-bearing winds.
These extreme times coincide with periods when it is known that the sun was unusually quiet. In the late 17th to mid-18th centuries it had very few sunspots—fewer even than during the run of recent cold winters in Europe, which other UK scientists have linked to a relatively quiet sun.
Professor Frank Chambers, Head of the University of Gloucestershire’s Centre for Environmental Change and Quaternary Research, who led the writing of the Fast-Track Research Report, said:
“Both sceptics and adherents of Global Warming might draw succour from this work. Our study is significant because, while there are various different estimates for the start and end of the Little Ice Age in different regions of the world, our data show that the most extreme phases occurred at the same time in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres. These extreme episodes were abrupt global events. They were probably related to sudden, equator-ward shifts of the Westerlies in the Southern Hemisphere, and the Atlantic depression tracks in the Northern Hemisphere. The same shifts seem to have happened abruptly before, such as c. 2800 years ago, when the same synchronous but opposite response is shown in bogs in Northwest Europe compared with southern South America.
“It seems that the sun’s quiescence was responsible for the most extreme phases of the Little Ice Age, implying that solar variability sometimes plays a significant role in climate change. A change in solar activity may also, for example, have contributed to the post Little Ice Age rise in global temperatures in the first half of the 20th Century. However, solar variability alone cannot explain the post-1970 global temperature trends, especially the global temperature rise in the last three decades of the 20th Century, which has been attributed by the Inter-Governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.”
Professor Chambers concluded: “I must stress that our research findings are only interpretable for the period from 3000 years ago to the end of the Little Ice Age. That is the period upon which our research is focused. However, in light of our substantiation of the effects of ‘grand solar minima’ upon past global climates, it could be speculated that the current pausing of ‘Global Warming’, which is frequently referenced by those sceptical of climate projections by the IPCC, might relate at least in part to a countervailing effect of reduced solar activity, as shown in the recent sunspot cycle.”
GLG
Well-Known Member
Thanks OBD that is a very interesting article. You do realize that if the little ice age had a sun that was close to what we are seeing currently we should have temps compared to those times. That's not the case as things are much warmer today. So what happens when the sun goes back to a "normal" cycle? Would we then see a spike in temperature? That can't be good. As far as I know we are on track for 2014 being the warmest year since man walked the face of the earth. Nothing could go wrong.... right?
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Something new for you to read.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/...ineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/...ineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/bl...rets-chart-pssst-mr-harper-dont-let-obama-see
Tar Secrets Chart: Pssst, Mr Harper, don't let Obama see this ...
Barry Saxifrage Sep 18th, 2013
Our "Tar Secrets" series delivers you essential climate facts missing from government and tar sands marketing spin.
In a nutshell
What the tar sands industry says: the climate pollution from continued rapid expansion of the tar sands will be small compared to US coal-fired power plants. Even Canadian government marketing materials aimed at Americans feature this story line.
What they don't tell you: the total climate impact of the tar sands will soon rival that from US coal if the tar sands industry carries through on their expansion plans.
In perspective: US-mined coal has put more climate pollution into our atmosphere than any other source on the planet. Last year its total climate impact exceeded all the fossil fuels burned in Central and South America. It was more than were burned in all of Africa, India or the Middle East.
The issue: Should we re-create a climate disaster of that scale with the tar sands?
At a glance
My chart below lets you quickly compare the full climate impact -- from production through burning -- from three large fossil carbon deposits:
Coal mined in the USA
Coal mined in Canada
Bitumen extracted from Alberta's tar sands
Highlights:
The total climate impact from Alberta's tar sands has surged to five times its 1990 level.
In contrast, US and Canadian coal have the same climate impact today as they did in 1990.
In 1990, the tar sands total climate impact was 4% of US-mined coal.
Now it is nearly 20% of US-mined coal and 25% of US coal-fired power ... and gaining rapidly.
Carbon extraction from the tar sands tripled since 2000 -- equivalent to tripling Canada's coal mining.
The tar sands industry has announced plans to quadruple their carbon extraction capacity by 2025. This is based on the "unconstrained" scenario in a recent Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) study. (see "geeky details" at bottom for discussion)
If the industry carries through on their plans, the total climate impact of the tar sands would rival that from all the coal-fired power plants in the USA today.
The full story
The Alberta tar sands industry wants to rapidly increase the amount of fossil carbon they extract and sell.
Climate activists however argue that a safe climate future requires that we reduce the extraction of fossil carbon, not rapidly increase it. They point to government studies showing that Alberta's tar sands deposit produces one of the world's most climate-polluting sources of oil and therefore we should stop increasing the amount produced.
Industry spin: tar sands GHG small compared to US coal
In response, the Alberta tar sands industry regularly argues that their climate impact is small by comparing it to that of the gigantic USA coal industry.
For example the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) claims:
"Total oil sands GHG emissions in 2011 were 55 megatonnes. This is equivalent to 4.3% of the emissions from the U.S. coal-fired power-generation sector in 2011." -- CAPP
The federal government repeats this meme:
"Regardless of the source, GHG emissions are a shared global challenge. Coal-fired power plants make up about a quarter of U.S. GHG emissions and in 2010, these emissions were nearly 40 times greater than emissions from the oil sands." -- Government of Canada brochure
These statements are marketing spin that compare "apples to oranges." They won't help you understand the relative climate impact of the two carbon sources because they compare the impact of extracting tar sands carbon to the impact of burning US coal carbon.
Imagine a tobacco company claiming that the health impacts of making their cigarettes are vastly smaller than the health impacts of smoking another company's cigars.
Such "apples to oranges" comparisons make it impossible for you to determine the relative impacts of the two sources. But maybe that is the point.
Counter-spin: US coal GHG small compared to tar sands
To highlight how misleading it is to compare extraction to burning, consider that the USA coal industry could flip the tables and say this:
"GHG emissions from Alberta's tar sands oil were six times greater than emissions from the entire USA coal industry."
Sure enough this is equally "true". Last year, burning tar sands oil (361 MtCO2) did indeed create six times the CO2 as extracting USA coal (61 MtCO2). It is "true" but also misleading.
"Apples to apples" comparison
Unlike industry marketing spin, my chart compares the same climate metric for each fossil carbon source. This allows you to quickly compare the relative climate impact of each. I've chosen the metric of "extraction CO2 + burning CO2" because it shows the full impact on our climate from the exploitation of each carbon deposit.
I also built my chart to include multiple decades. This allows you to quickly see which sources are increasing their climate impact and by how much.
Finally, I included a future projection that shows what the tar sands industry says it plans to do if unrestrained.
Here is the chart again:
The picture that emerges is one of a tar sands industry pushing hard to extract fossil carbon at a scale that will soon rival what is extracted from all the US coal deposits.
The science is clear that a safe climate requires that the amount of fossil carbon extracted each year start to decline. That is especially true for very dirty sources of electricity like US coal, and for very dirty sources of transportation fuels like Alberta's tar sands.
In my opinion, the last thing our destabilized climate needs is for the Alberta's tar sands to morph in a climate disaster on the monstrous scale of US coal.
We need to tame the US coal climate monster, not unleash another one.
Bonus chart
Here is the same data divided by the number of citizens in the extracting nation. For example, it shows each American's share of the total climate pollution from their US-mined coal. Likewise it shows each Canadian's share of the total climate pollution from their Canada-extracted tar sands.
The geeky details
TOTAL CLIMATE IMPACT -- All lines show the full climate impact of exploiting a particular carbon deposit. "USA Coal" is all coal mined in USA. Canadian coal is all coal mined in Canada. And Tar Sands is all carbon extracted from tar sands deposit. I calculated "full climate impact" by adding emissions from extraction + burning. Even the "USA coal-fired power" line includes extraction emissions.
DATA SOURCES
US COAL -- US coal production stats are from US EIA data tables. I multiplied this by 0.066 to get extraction emissions. This factor is from Canadian government's GHGenius data set for coal mining. As a confidence check I compared resulting emissions to US EPA coal mining emissions that were published for 2011 and found a very close match. I also multiplied coal tonnes by 2.088 to get burning emissions. This factor is the 2010 USA average from EPA and EIA data.
CANADIAN COAL -- Canadian coal production stats came from National Resource Canada data tables. These were multiplied by the same factors listed above for US coal. As a confidence check I compared the coal mining emissions result for 2010 against reported emissions from Canadian GHG inventory and found very close match.
TAR SANDS HISTORICAL -- Barrel production figures are from National Resources Canada, Environment Canada and CERI. These are multiplied by 0.521 to get burning emissions per barrel. This factor is from Oil Change International's "Petroleum Coke" report. Extraction emissions through 2010 are from Canada's National Inventory Report.
TAR SANDS PROJECTION TO 2025 -- The dashed line on the chart shows capacity expected to result if industry follows through on their announced plans. This is from CERI's "unconstrained" scenario in their "Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs and Development Projects (2012-2046)" may 2013 report. This level could increase if industry announces more new plans. CERI thinks this level is unlikely to be met from already announced plans because there are many constraints that might emerge. But it shows what industry says they plan to do if "unconstrained".
ALTERNATE 2025 SCENARIOS -- Here are four scenarios I calculated for 2025. Only the "unconstrained" scenario is listed on the chart. I chose that because it reflects what the industry says they want to do. You can use the y-axis to quickly see where the others fall.
1760 MtCO2 from 8.0 Mbbl/day = Dashed line on chart. Industry plans to date. This is CERI "Unconstrained scenario." If industry announces more projects this value would rise.
1500 MtCO2 from 6.9 Mbbl/day = CERI "High scenario." If industry announces more projects this value could rise.
1430 MtCO2 from 6.5 Mbbl/day = If growth rate of last 12 years (2000-2012) is repeated in next 13 years to 2025. (author's calculation)
1250 MtCO2 from 5.6 Mbbl/day = CERI "Reference scenario." If industry announces more projects this value could rise.
Tar Secrets Chart: Pssst, Mr Harper, don't let Obama see this ...
Barry Saxifrage Sep 18th, 2013
Our "Tar Secrets" series delivers you essential climate facts missing from government and tar sands marketing spin.
In a nutshell
What the tar sands industry says: the climate pollution from continued rapid expansion of the tar sands will be small compared to US coal-fired power plants. Even Canadian government marketing materials aimed at Americans feature this story line.
What they don't tell you: the total climate impact of the tar sands will soon rival that from US coal if the tar sands industry carries through on their expansion plans.
In perspective: US-mined coal has put more climate pollution into our atmosphere than any other source on the planet. Last year its total climate impact exceeded all the fossil fuels burned in Central and South America. It was more than were burned in all of Africa, India or the Middle East.
The issue: Should we re-create a climate disaster of that scale with the tar sands?
At a glance
My chart below lets you quickly compare the full climate impact -- from production through burning -- from three large fossil carbon deposits:
Coal mined in the USA
Coal mined in Canada
Bitumen extracted from Alberta's tar sands
Highlights:
The total climate impact from Alberta's tar sands has surged to five times its 1990 level.
In contrast, US and Canadian coal have the same climate impact today as they did in 1990.
In 1990, the tar sands total climate impact was 4% of US-mined coal.
Now it is nearly 20% of US-mined coal and 25% of US coal-fired power ... and gaining rapidly.
Carbon extraction from the tar sands tripled since 2000 -- equivalent to tripling Canada's coal mining.
The tar sands industry has announced plans to quadruple their carbon extraction capacity by 2025. This is based on the "unconstrained" scenario in a recent Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) study. (see "geeky details" at bottom for discussion)
If the industry carries through on their plans, the total climate impact of the tar sands would rival that from all the coal-fired power plants in the USA today.
The full story
The Alberta tar sands industry wants to rapidly increase the amount of fossil carbon they extract and sell.
Climate activists however argue that a safe climate future requires that we reduce the extraction of fossil carbon, not rapidly increase it. They point to government studies showing that Alberta's tar sands deposit produces one of the world's most climate-polluting sources of oil and therefore we should stop increasing the amount produced.
Industry spin: tar sands GHG small compared to US coal
In response, the Alberta tar sands industry regularly argues that their climate impact is small by comparing it to that of the gigantic USA coal industry.
For example the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) claims:
"Total oil sands GHG emissions in 2011 were 55 megatonnes. This is equivalent to 4.3% of the emissions from the U.S. coal-fired power-generation sector in 2011." -- CAPP
The federal government repeats this meme:
"Regardless of the source, GHG emissions are a shared global challenge. Coal-fired power plants make up about a quarter of U.S. GHG emissions and in 2010, these emissions were nearly 40 times greater than emissions from the oil sands." -- Government of Canada brochure
These statements are marketing spin that compare "apples to oranges." They won't help you understand the relative climate impact of the two carbon sources because they compare the impact of extracting tar sands carbon to the impact of burning US coal carbon.
Imagine a tobacco company claiming that the health impacts of making their cigarettes are vastly smaller than the health impacts of smoking another company's cigars.
Such "apples to oranges" comparisons make it impossible for you to determine the relative impacts of the two sources. But maybe that is the point.
Counter-spin: US coal GHG small compared to tar sands
To highlight how misleading it is to compare extraction to burning, consider that the USA coal industry could flip the tables and say this:
"GHG emissions from Alberta's tar sands oil were six times greater than emissions from the entire USA coal industry."
Sure enough this is equally "true". Last year, burning tar sands oil (361 MtCO2) did indeed create six times the CO2 as extracting USA coal (61 MtCO2). It is "true" but also misleading.
"Apples to apples" comparison
Unlike industry marketing spin, my chart compares the same climate metric for each fossil carbon source. This allows you to quickly compare the relative climate impact of each. I've chosen the metric of "extraction CO2 + burning CO2" because it shows the full impact on our climate from the exploitation of each carbon deposit.
I also built my chart to include multiple decades. This allows you to quickly see which sources are increasing their climate impact and by how much.
Finally, I included a future projection that shows what the tar sands industry says it plans to do if unrestrained.
Here is the chart again:
The picture that emerges is one of a tar sands industry pushing hard to extract fossil carbon at a scale that will soon rival what is extracted from all the US coal deposits.
The science is clear that a safe climate requires that the amount of fossil carbon extracted each year start to decline. That is especially true for very dirty sources of electricity like US coal, and for very dirty sources of transportation fuels like Alberta's tar sands.
In my opinion, the last thing our destabilized climate needs is for the Alberta's tar sands to morph in a climate disaster on the monstrous scale of US coal.
We need to tame the US coal climate monster, not unleash another one.
Bonus chart
Here is the same data divided by the number of citizens in the extracting nation. For example, it shows each American's share of the total climate pollution from their US-mined coal. Likewise it shows each Canadian's share of the total climate pollution from their Canada-extracted tar sands.
The geeky details
TOTAL CLIMATE IMPACT -- All lines show the full climate impact of exploiting a particular carbon deposit. "USA Coal" is all coal mined in USA. Canadian coal is all coal mined in Canada. And Tar Sands is all carbon extracted from tar sands deposit. I calculated "full climate impact" by adding emissions from extraction + burning. Even the "USA coal-fired power" line includes extraction emissions.
DATA SOURCES
US COAL -- US coal production stats are from US EIA data tables. I multiplied this by 0.066 to get extraction emissions. This factor is from Canadian government's GHGenius data set for coal mining. As a confidence check I compared resulting emissions to US EPA coal mining emissions that were published for 2011 and found a very close match. I also multiplied coal tonnes by 2.088 to get burning emissions. This factor is the 2010 USA average from EPA and EIA data.
CANADIAN COAL -- Canadian coal production stats came from National Resource Canada data tables. These were multiplied by the same factors listed above for US coal. As a confidence check I compared the coal mining emissions result for 2010 against reported emissions from Canadian GHG inventory and found very close match.
TAR SANDS HISTORICAL -- Barrel production figures are from National Resources Canada, Environment Canada and CERI. These are multiplied by 0.521 to get burning emissions per barrel. This factor is from Oil Change International's "Petroleum Coke" report. Extraction emissions through 2010 are from Canada's National Inventory Report.
TAR SANDS PROJECTION TO 2025 -- The dashed line on the chart shows capacity expected to result if industry follows through on their announced plans. This is from CERI's "unconstrained" scenario in their "Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs and Development Projects (2012-2046)" may 2013 report. This level could increase if industry announces more new plans. CERI thinks this level is unlikely to be met from already announced plans because there are many constraints that might emerge. But it shows what industry says they plan to do if "unconstrained".
ALTERNATE 2025 SCENARIOS -- Here are four scenarios I calculated for 2025. Only the "unconstrained" scenario is listed on the chart. I chose that because it reflects what the industry says they want to do. You can use the y-axis to quickly see where the others fall.
1760 MtCO2 from 8.0 Mbbl/day = Dashed line on chart. Industry plans to date. This is CERI "Unconstrained scenario." If industry announces more projects this value would rise.
1500 MtCO2 from 6.9 Mbbl/day = CERI "High scenario." If industry announces more projects this value could rise.
1430 MtCO2 from 6.5 Mbbl/day = If growth rate of last 12 years (2000-2012) is repeated in next 13 years to 2025. (author's calculation)
1250 MtCO2 from 5.6 Mbbl/day = CERI "Reference scenario." If industry announces more projects this value could rise.
Attachments
http://www.vancouverobserver.com/bl...2-what-percentage-canadas-gdp-comes-tar-sands
Tar Secret #2: What percentage of Canada's GDP comes from the tar sands?
Barry Saxifrage Sep 26th, 2013
The "Tar Secrets" series delivers you essential climate facts missing from government and tar sands marketing spin. Last week we compared tar sands climate impact to US coal. This week we hunt down one of the most elusive facts of all: what percentage of GDP comes from tar sands. Any guesses?
In a nutshell
What the tar sands industry says -- Rapid expansion of bitumen extraction from the tar sands should be a "nation-building" priority. The many thorny climate, environmental, social-license and First Nations issues should not be allowed to significantly impede the industry because rapid expansion offers hundreds of billions of dollars to Canada's GDP over the next 25 years.
What they leave out -- How do the tar sands compare to other industries? Missing from the discussion is this needed piece of information: the percent of GDP that comes from the tar sands.
In years of researching the tar sands I've only seen this basic data point published once. Seven years ago the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) estimated that the tar sands and related activities were around 1.5% of GDP in 2000. Since then...radio silence.
If the Canadian public can't compare the economic impact of different industries how can they possibly make informed decisions on which -- if any -- deserve priority status, "nation-building" trump cards and special exemptions?
In an effort to provide you with this essential "tar secret" I dug into several data sources and made my best effort at calculating it. (Note: for details on data sources and calculations see the "geeky details" section at the bottom of this article).
My calculations show the tar sands provide roughly 2% of Canada's GDP today. For every province outside Alberta the impact is less than one half of one percent of their GDP.
What about the future?
CERI estimates that if the tar sands industry is allowed to triple carbon extraction it could provide up to $2,106 billion in GDP over the next 25 years. But, again they don't tell you how that compares to the other parts of our huge economy. My calculations show that this would represent ~3.7% of Canada's $57 trillion dollars of GDP over that time. The province that would see the largest percentage impact outside Alberta would be BC at ~0.4% of our provincial GDP.
At a glance
My two charts below let you quickly see the relative contributions of the tar sands to our national and provincial GDPs.
Highlights:
Statistics Canada data shows that "non-conventional oil extraction" provided 1.6% of Canada's GDP in 2012. Hey, did you guess the correct slice?
In addition, "support activities" for all mining, conventional oil and gas, and non-conventional oil extraction added another 0.7%.
So perhaps 2% of GDP is a good ballpark estimate from tar sands extraction and support activities
Over 90% of the economic benefit goes to Alberta. For provinces outside Alberta the tar sands contribute an average of 0.2% of GDP.
What about the future impact from a "nation building" effort to push past all the objections and roadblocks and thereby triple bitumen extraction? My next chart shows the percent of GDP resulting from the $2,106 billion that CERI's estimates could result from this over the next 25 years.
Highlights:
A tripling of tar sands could contribute ~3.7% of Canadian GDP over those 25 years.
According to CERI, around 94% of benefits would go to Alberta, producing perhaps a third of their province's GDP.
The remaining 6% of benefits would be spread out over the rest of Canada, producing less then one half of one percent of GDP for any other province.
CERI says "Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec receive the highest impact" outside Alberta. BC would see the highest percent of GDP from tripling bitumen extraction: 0.4% of GDP.
Nation-building?
Here are some comparisons. In Norway the oil and gas sector produces 23% of GDP. In the UK the financial services sector produces 10% of GDP. In Canada, a sector like "Professional, scientific and technical services" produces 5% of GDP.
An effort that results in less than one half of one percent of GDP in all provinces outside Alberta just doesn't say "nation-building" to me.
There will be costs and benefits to Canadians from a rapid tripling of tar sands extraction. These need to be weighed against each other if we are to make informed decisions.
BENEFITS: As shown above, the economic benefits for every provincial economy outside Alberta would be a very tiny slice of GDP. Not to say that the impact is trivial, but it does not reach a level that I think justifies any special status, priority or exceptions. In every province but Alberta that is a long line up of other industries that contribute far more than the tar sands.
COSTS: I see many significant and troubling costs starting to emerge from a push to rapidly triple tar sands extraction:
A climate impact that could rival US coal
Abandonment our nation's climate targets
Scraping and weakening major environmental laws
Restricting of public-funded science
Restricting of public input on new projects
Ignoring the need for social licence in other provinces
Demonizing concerned Canadians as "radicals"
Bypassing First Nations' objections
Downplaying the risks of building bitumen pipelines across thousands of streams and running thousands of super-tankers through the wild coastal waters of BC
Are we going to go down this path and grant some of these extraordinary exceptions for an industry that provides 2% to 4% of national GDP and less than 1% to every provincial GDP but Alberta's? And if we do, aren't we opening Pandora's Box in which all the much bigger players in our huge economy can insist on their own list of exceptions?
Whatever Canadians decide, at a minimum they should be given the basic information -- such as percentage of GDP from the tar sands industry plans -- so they can make informed cost-benefit decisions.
Bonus graphic
In the graphic below, both maps show the same thing -- how much a tripling of tar sands extraction might add to certain provincial GDPs over 25 years.
The top version comes from Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) website. It shows a 25 year total dollar amount.
The bottom version I created to show the same dollar amounts as a percentage of provincial GDP. In my version the tar sands contribution is shown as a bright red pie slice. For Quebec and Manitoba the contribution is not visible at the scale of the graphic.
The top version shows the potential dollars are not trivial. The bottom version shows that even a tripling of tar sands production is not expected to generate a significant share of GDP for any of these provinces.
Even CERI?
On a side note, one of the most interesting aspects to me of this particular "tar secret" is why CERI seems to have stopped publishing the tar sands' percentage of GDP.
Years ago they published an estimate of ~1.5% of GDP in 2000. They said that it might rise as high as 3% by 2020. Since then I've seen nothing from them on this.
For example, I just finished reading a 70 page tome from CERI: Economic Impacts of New Oil Sands Projects in Alberta (2010-*‐2035). It covered every financial aspect of tar sands you could imagine from "induced jobs in New Brunswick" to "Matrix with q‐m on the diagonal". They calculate dollars added to GDP for provinces and the nation. And yet nowhere do they report percent of GDP. I would expect it to be in the executive summary on page one and at least one simple pie chart.
Last month I read CERI's more recent 146-page tar sands economic geekout: Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs And Development Projects (2012-2046). Once again there are pages and pages and pages of tables and charts about projected economic impact from different levels of tar sands extraction. Completely missing is the Econ-101 fundamental: percent of GDP.
Odd.
The geeky details
PERCENT OF GDP NOW -- I used two Statistics Canada (StatCan) tables. Table 379-0031 Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Table 380-0064 Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based.
StatCan industry category "non-conventional oil extraction" is defined as: "This Canadian industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in producing crude oil from surface shales or tar sands or from reservoirs in which the hydrocarbons are semisolids and conventional production methods are not possible."
SIZE OF CANADIAN GDP OVER NEXT 25 YEARS -- I used StatCan Table 380-0064 Gross domestic product, expenditure-based for the years 1990 to 2012. From this I calculated the average annual GDP growth rate of 2.35%. I applied this growth rate to current GDP for 25 years. A sum of these years yielded $54.3 trillion.
SIZE OF PROVINCIAL GDP OVER NEXT 25 YEARS -- I used current GDP values from StatCan Table 384-0038 Gross domestic product, expenditure-based, provincial and territorial. I then applied the national average annual GDP growth rate of 2.35% (discussed above) to estimate 25 year GDP for each province.
TAR SAND 25-YEAR GDP -- I used CERI's Economic Impacts of New Oil Sands Projects in Alberta (2010-*‐2035) for 25-year GDP contribution from their reference scenario of tripling carbon extraction rates. These are the figures sited by CAPP and the Alberta government. CERI lists estimated tar sands GDP contribution in this scenario for all of Canada and per province. CERI lists values in "2010 dollars" while StatCan tables use "2007 dollars". I used StatCan official multiplier of 1.043 to adjust 2007 dollar figures to 2010 dollar equivalents.
Tar Secret #2: What percentage of Canada's GDP comes from the tar sands?
Barry Saxifrage Sep 26th, 2013
The "Tar Secrets" series delivers you essential climate facts missing from government and tar sands marketing spin. Last week we compared tar sands climate impact to US coal. This week we hunt down one of the most elusive facts of all: what percentage of GDP comes from tar sands. Any guesses?
In a nutshell
What the tar sands industry says -- Rapid expansion of bitumen extraction from the tar sands should be a "nation-building" priority. The many thorny climate, environmental, social-license and First Nations issues should not be allowed to significantly impede the industry because rapid expansion offers hundreds of billions of dollars to Canada's GDP over the next 25 years.
What they leave out -- How do the tar sands compare to other industries? Missing from the discussion is this needed piece of information: the percent of GDP that comes from the tar sands.
In years of researching the tar sands I've only seen this basic data point published once. Seven years ago the Canadian Energy Research Institute (CERI) estimated that the tar sands and related activities were around 1.5% of GDP in 2000. Since then...radio silence.
If the Canadian public can't compare the economic impact of different industries how can they possibly make informed decisions on which -- if any -- deserve priority status, "nation-building" trump cards and special exemptions?
In an effort to provide you with this essential "tar secret" I dug into several data sources and made my best effort at calculating it. (Note: for details on data sources and calculations see the "geeky details" section at the bottom of this article).
My calculations show the tar sands provide roughly 2% of Canada's GDP today. For every province outside Alberta the impact is less than one half of one percent of their GDP.
What about the future?
CERI estimates that if the tar sands industry is allowed to triple carbon extraction it could provide up to $2,106 billion in GDP over the next 25 years. But, again they don't tell you how that compares to the other parts of our huge economy. My calculations show that this would represent ~3.7% of Canada's $57 trillion dollars of GDP over that time. The province that would see the largest percentage impact outside Alberta would be BC at ~0.4% of our provincial GDP.
At a glance
My two charts below let you quickly see the relative contributions of the tar sands to our national and provincial GDPs.
Highlights:
Statistics Canada data shows that "non-conventional oil extraction" provided 1.6% of Canada's GDP in 2012. Hey, did you guess the correct slice?
In addition, "support activities" for all mining, conventional oil and gas, and non-conventional oil extraction added another 0.7%.
So perhaps 2% of GDP is a good ballpark estimate from tar sands extraction and support activities
Over 90% of the economic benefit goes to Alberta. For provinces outside Alberta the tar sands contribute an average of 0.2% of GDP.
What about the future impact from a "nation building" effort to push past all the objections and roadblocks and thereby triple bitumen extraction? My next chart shows the percent of GDP resulting from the $2,106 billion that CERI's estimates could result from this over the next 25 years.
Highlights:
A tripling of tar sands could contribute ~3.7% of Canadian GDP over those 25 years.
According to CERI, around 94% of benefits would go to Alberta, producing perhaps a third of their province's GDP.
The remaining 6% of benefits would be spread out over the rest of Canada, producing less then one half of one percent of GDP for any other province.
CERI says "Ontario, British Columbia, and Quebec receive the highest impact" outside Alberta. BC would see the highest percent of GDP from tripling bitumen extraction: 0.4% of GDP.
Nation-building?
Here are some comparisons. In Norway the oil and gas sector produces 23% of GDP. In the UK the financial services sector produces 10% of GDP. In Canada, a sector like "Professional, scientific and technical services" produces 5% of GDP.
An effort that results in less than one half of one percent of GDP in all provinces outside Alberta just doesn't say "nation-building" to me.
There will be costs and benefits to Canadians from a rapid tripling of tar sands extraction. These need to be weighed against each other if we are to make informed decisions.
BENEFITS: As shown above, the economic benefits for every provincial economy outside Alberta would be a very tiny slice of GDP. Not to say that the impact is trivial, but it does not reach a level that I think justifies any special status, priority or exceptions. In every province but Alberta that is a long line up of other industries that contribute far more than the tar sands.
COSTS: I see many significant and troubling costs starting to emerge from a push to rapidly triple tar sands extraction:
A climate impact that could rival US coal
Abandonment our nation's climate targets
Scraping and weakening major environmental laws
Restricting of public-funded science
Restricting of public input on new projects
Ignoring the need for social licence in other provinces
Demonizing concerned Canadians as "radicals"
Bypassing First Nations' objections
Downplaying the risks of building bitumen pipelines across thousands of streams and running thousands of super-tankers through the wild coastal waters of BC
Are we going to go down this path and grant some of these extraordinary exceptions for an industry that provides 2% to 4% of national GDP and less than 1% to every provincial GDP but Alberta's? And if we do, aren't we opening Pandora's Box in which all the much bigger players in our huge economy can insist on their own list of exceptions?
Whatever Canadians decide, at a minimum they should be given the basic information -- such as percentage of GDP from the tar sands industry plans -- so they can make informed cost-benefit decisions.
Bonus graphic
In the graphic below, both maps show the same thing -- how much a tripling of tar sands extraction might add to certain provincial GDPs over 25 years.
The top version comes from Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) website. It shows a 25 year total dollar amount.
The bottom version I created to show the same dollar amounts as a percentage of provincial GDP. In my version the tar sands contribution is shown as a bright red pie slice. For Quebec and Manitoba the contribution is not visible at the scale of the graphic.
The top version shows the potential dollars are not trivial. The bottom version shows that even a tripling of tar sands production is not expected to generate a significant share of GDP for any of these provinces.
Even CERI?
On a side note, one of the most interesting aspects to me of this particular "tar secret" is why CERI seems to have stopped publishing the tar sands' percentage of GDP.
Years ago they published an estimate of ~1.5% of GDP in 2000. They said that it might rise as high as 3% by 2020. Since then I've seen nothing from them on this.
For example, I just finished reading a 70 page tome from CERI: Economic Impacts of New Oil Sands Projects in Alberta (2010-*‐2035). It covered every financial aspect of tar sands you could imagine from "induced jobs in New Brunswick" to "Matrix with q‐m on the diagonal". They calculate dollars added to GDP for provinces and the nation. And yet nowhere do they report percent of GDP. I would expect it to be in the executive summary on page one and at least one simple pie chart.
Last month I read CERI's more recent 146-page tar sands economic geekout: Canadian Oil Sands Supply Costs And Development Projects (2012-2046). Once again there are pages and pages and pages of tables and charts about projected economic impact from different levels of tar sands extraction. Completely missing is the Econ-101 fundamental: percent of GDP.
Odd.
The geeky details
PERCENT OF GDP NOW -- I used two Statistics Canada (StatCan) tables. Table 379-0031 Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) and Table 380-0064 Real gross domestic product, expenditure-based.
StatCan industry category "non-conventional oil extraction" is defined as: "This Canadian industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in producing crude oil from surface shales or tar sands or from reservoirs in which the hydrocarbons are semisolids and conventional production methods are not possible."
SIZE OF CANADIAN GDP OVER NEXT 25 YEARS -- I used StatCan Table 380-0064 Gross domestic product, expenditure-based for the years 1990 to 2012. From this I calculated the average annual GDP growth rate of 2.35%. I applied this growth rate to current GDP for 25 years. A sum of these years yielded $54.3 trillion.
SIZE OF PROVINCIAL GDP OVER NEXT 25 YEARS -- I used current GDP values from StatCan Table 384-0038 Gross domestic product, expenditure-based, provincial and territorial. I then applied the national average annual GDP growth rate of 2.35% (discussed above) to estimate 25 year GDP for each province.
TAR SAND 25-YEAR GDP -- I used CERI's Economic Impacts of New Oil Sands Projects in Alberta (2010-*‐2035) for 25-year GDP contribution from their reference scenario of tripling carbon extraction rates. These are the figures sited by CAPP and the Alberta government. CERI lists estimated tar sands GDP contribution in this scenario for all of Canada and per province. CERI lists values in "2010 dollars" while StatCan tables use "2007 dollars". I used StatCan official multiplier of 1.043 to adjust 2007 dollar figures to 2010 dollar equivalents.
Attachments
Last edited by a moderator:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141120112237.htm
Opinion poll: Canada’s climate change consensus confronts Keystone
Date: November 20, 2014
Source: University of Montreal
Summary: Despite the fact that 81% of Canadians accept that temperature on Earth is increasing, researchers have revealed that Canadians are generally misinformed about the science of climate change and are divided over the construction of new oil pipelines.
Despite the fact that 81% of Canadians accept that temperature on Earth is increasing, Université de Montréal researchers have revealed that Canadians are generally misinformed about the science of climate change and are divided over the construction of new oil pipelines. The researchers' study also found that 70% of Canadians perceive significant changes in weather where they live; 60% believe that weather in Canada has been getting more extreme; and 87% believe these changes are somewhat or very likely the consequence of a warming planet.
The nationally representative telephone survey interviewed 1401 adult Canadians during the month of October, yielding a margin of error of +/- 2.6% in 19 of 20 samples. The study, run concurrently with researchers at the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College in the US, highlights a stark contrast between the views of Canadians and Americans on the existence of climate change and support for pipelines, yet remarkable convergence on perceptions of weather and climate-related knowledge.
Hardly opinions based in fact
80% of Canadians, versus 60% of Americans, believe there is solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has increased over the past four decades. This figure was significantly lower in Alberta (72%) and the Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 60%.)
Of those who perceive an increase in temperature, 61% attribute the warming to human causes, compared to only 45% in the US. The figure was significantly higher in Quebec, at 71%, and significantly lower in Alberta, at 41%.
70% of Canadians perceive significant changes in weather patterns where they live, with 60% of Canadians perceive national weather is becoming more extreme, with highest figures in Ontario and on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These figures were 58% and 68% respectively for Americans.
Extreme weather is either somewhat (40%) or very (47%) likely the result of global warming, according to 87% of Canadians (and 68% of Americans.) Moreover, 59% of Canadians believe climate change will begin to harm people living in Canada within the next 10 to 25 years. A plurality of Canadians (35%) believe it already is.
Finally, two out of three Canadians (67%) believe the government is either not too prepared (34%) or not at all prepared (33%) for the consequences of a warming planet
Despite all this, more Americans (35%) than Canadians (30%) know that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, while 60% of Canadians (and 45% of Americans) believe that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.
Pipelines and politics
Canadians are more likely to oppose (44%) than support (36%) the Keystone XL energy pipeline, while 20% have a neutral opinion. The opposite is true on the other side of the border: the figures are 34%, 52% and 14%, respectively. However, support is highest among self-identified supporters of the federal Conservative Party of Canada (55%), mirroring the polarized situation in the United States, where 72% of Republicans support the project against 39% of Democrats.
Within Canada, support for Keystone XL was highest in Alberta (58%). At 50%, Trans Canada's Energy East project has greater support than Keystone XL, but opinions vary substantially across regions. At the high end, 68% of citizens in Alberta support the project, compared to a low of 33% of citizens in Quebec.
Finally, support for a system of cap and trade in Canada has increased to 60% in 2014, and continues to be more popular among Canadians than a carbon tax (48%).
"When you dig into the data, you see that Canadians are beginning to connect the dots between the notion of 'climate change' and observable changes in weather where they live. However, Canadians lack a certain degree of climate literacy, and it would be a mistake to assume that all Canadians are on the same page when it comes to fundamental climate science," explained Erick Lachapelle, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Montreal and principal investigator for the Canadian portion of the study. "The public is not as informed as perhaps they should be about this important issue, and there continues to be wide variation across the country, in terms of perceptions, beliefs, and preferences. The division over pipelines is a case in point."
About the poll
The National Survey of Canadian Public Opinion on Climate Change was designed by Erick Lachapelle (Université de Montréal), Chris Borick (Muhlenberg College) and Barry Rabe (University of Michigan). The survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of 1,401 Canadians aged 18 and over. All interviews were conducted via telephone in English and French from 6 October 2014 to 27 October 2014. Calls were made using both landline and mobile phone listings. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.6% in 19 of 20 samples. Regional margins of error vary according to subsample size. Results reported here are weighted according to gender, age, language and region to reflect the latest population estimates from Statistics Canada (Census 2011).
Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Montreal. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Opinion poll: Canada’s climate change consensus confronts Keystone
Date: November 20, 2014
Source: University of Montreal
Summary: Despite the fact that 81% of Canadians accept that temperature on Earth is increasing, researchers have revealed that Canadians are generally misinformed about the science of climate change and are divided over the construction of new oil pipelines.
Despite the fact that 81% of Canadians accept that temperature on Earth is increasing, Université de Montréal researchers have revealed that Canadians are generally misinformed about the science of climate change and are divided over the construction of new oil pipelines. The researchers' study also found that 70% of Canadians perceive significant changes in weather where they live; 60% believe that weather in Canada has been getting more extreme; and 87% believe these changes are somewhat or very likely the consequence of a warming planet.
The nationally representative telephone survey interviewed 1401 adult Canadians during the month of October, yielding a margin of error of +/- 2.6% in 19 of 20 samples. The study, run concurrently with researchers at the University of Michigan and Muhlenberg College in the US, highlights a stark contrast between the views of Canadians and Americans on the existence of climate change and support for pipelines, yet remarkable convergence on perceptions of weather and climate-related knowledge.
Hardly opinions based in fact
80% of Canadians, versus 60% of Americans, believe there is solid evidence that the average temperature on Earth has increased over the past four decades. This figure was significantly lower in Alberta (72%) and the Prairies (Manitoba and Saskatchewan, 60%.)
Of those who perceive an increase in temperature, 61% attribute the warming to human causes, compared to only 45% in the US. The figure was significantly higher in Quebec, at 71%, and significantly lower in Alberta, at 41%.
70% of Canadians perceive significant changes in weather patterns where they live, with 60% of Canadians perceive national weather is becoming more extreme, with highest figures in Ontario and on the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. These figures were 58% and 68% respectively for Americans.
Extreme weather is either somewhat (40%) or very (47%) likely the result of global warming, according to 87% of Canadians (and 68% of Americans.) Moreover, 59% of Canadians believe climate change will begin to harm people living in Canada within the next 10 to 25 years. A plurality of Canadians (35%) believe it already is.
Finally, two out of three Canadians (67%) believe the government is either not too prepared (34%) or not at all prepared (33%) for the consequences of a warming planet
Despite all this, more Americans (35%) than Canadians (30%) know that methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, while 60% of Canadians (and 45% of Americans) believe that carbon dioxide emissions are responsible for the hole in the ozone layer.
Pipelines and politics
Canadians are more likely to oppose (44%) than support (36%) the Keystone XL energy pipeline, while 20% have a neutral opinion. The opposite is true on the other side of the border: the figures are 34%, 52% and 14%, respectively. However, support is highest among self-identified supporters of the federal Conservative Party of Canada (55%), mirroring the polarized situation in the United States, where 72% of Republicans support the project against 39% of Democrats.
Within Canada, support for Keystone XL was highest in Alberta (58%). At 50%, Trans Canada's Energy East project has greater support than Keystone XL, but opinions vary substantially across regions. At the high end, 68% of citizens in Alberta support the project, compared to a low of 33% of citizens in Quebec.
Finally, support for a system of cap and trade in Canada has increased to 60% in 2014, and continues to be more popular among Canadians than a carbon tax (48%).
"When you dig into the data, you see that Canadians are beginning to connect the dots between the notion of 'climate change' and observable changes in weather where they live. However, Canadians lack a certain degree of climate literacy, and it would be a mistake to assume that all Canadians are on the same page when it comes to fundamental climate science," explained Erick Lachapelle, Assistant Professor of Political Science at the University of Montreal and principal investigator for the Canadian portion of the study. "The public is not as informed as perhaps they should be about this important issue, and there continues to be wide variation across the country, in terms of perceptions, beliefs, and preferences. The division over pipelines is a case in point."
About the poll
The National Survey of Canadian Public Opinion on Climate Change was designed by Erick Lachapelle (Université de Montréal), Chris Borick (Muhlenberg College) and Barry Rabe (University of Michigan). The survey was administered to a nationally representative sample of 1,401 Canadians aged 18 and over. All interviews were conducted via telephone in English and French from 6 October 2014 to 27 October 2014. Calls were made using both landline and mobile phone listings. The margin of sampling error for the full sample is plus or minus 2.6% in 19 of 20 samples. Regional margins of error vary according to subsample size. Results reported here are weighted according to gender, age, language and region to reflect the latest population estimates from Statistics Canada (Census 2011).
Story Source: The above story is based on materials provided by University of Montreal. Note: Materials may be edited for content and length.
Last edited by a moderator:
http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/11/22/B...ce=daily&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=221114
BC Oil and Gas Tax Breaks Top $1 Billion. How Much Profit Flows Back? Unknown
Government lacks revenue figures, so we sought out potential comparisons.
By Dene Moore, Today, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Gas_Pipes
The BC government can't say how much of the profits from natural gas sales come back to the province. Gas pipeline photo via Shutterstock.
Related
Tax Breaks for BC Frackers Reach over $1 Billion
Auditor general report details provincial incentives to largely foreign-owned gas giants.
'Difficult' Oil Faces Difficult Future, Predict New Reports
Why the forecast for extreme hydrocarbons may be shorter than advertised.
Andrew Nikiforuk Breaks Down the Global Oil Price Slump
What's causing it. What it means. Why it's political dynamite.
Read more: Energy,
British Columbia Auditor General Carol Bellringer raised eyebrows earlier this month when she pointed out that the province has extended more than $1 billion in tax credits to natural gas companies over the past two years.
But amid all the discussion of liquefied natural gas tax rates, industry tax credits and potential gas revenues, one figure is conspicuously absent. "Government take" is a key consideration for industry in any investment decision. How much of the profit from the sale of natural gas does a government take?
Unfortunately, the B.C. Ministry of Natural Gas Development could not provide the provincial revenues as a percentage of the net revenues from gas sales. So we asked the current leader in natural gas production in Canada. But Alberta Energy couldn’t provide that figure, either.
However, a 2009 report prepared for Alberta Energy by PriceWaterhouseCoopers did look at fiscal regimes around the world. It compared the total "government take," as well as political climate, geography, ease of extraction and other factors.
The report found that the U.S., the Middle East, China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Norway and Russia all had a higher government take than Alberta.
Canada's 'take' is low
A 2010 report by consulting firm IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates for Noble Energy echoed those results. It determined that Canada had the lowest government take of Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, the United States, Ghana, United Kingdom, Tunisia, Australia, Egypt, Norway, Libya, and Israel.
It also noted, however, that recent efforts by Alaska, Alberta, Russia and Nigeria to increase their percentage of natural gas revenue resulted in immediate reductions in investment.
Marc Lee, a senior economist with Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the co-director of the Climate Justice Project, said the B.C. regime is not intended to maximize the return for British Columbians, who own the resource. ''It's designed to share risk with the private sector in developing that resource,'' he said.
Lee said very little of the price of LNG in Asia will come back to British Columbians. ''If I sold your car for you and I sold it for $10,000, what share would be fair for you to get?
''How about $50? That's kind of what the B.C. regime looks like.''
In June 2011, a report by the New West Partnership (the economic agreement between B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan) compared oil and gas fiscal regimes across Western Canada.
The report found that B.C.'s royalty rates range between 12 and 27 per cent, before tax credits. Alberta's rate is as low as five per cent, depending on production levels and price.
Comparing royalty findings, the report noted:
British Columbia
Total direct government revenue from oil and gas was $1.401 billion in 2013/14: $794.2 million for the auction of Crown subsurface petroleum and natural gas rights, $543.2 million in oil and gas royalties (primarily natural gas) and $63.9 million in fees and rentals.
For wells drilled after June 1998, royalties are between 12 per cent and 27 per cent, depending on the price.
For wells drilled before June 1, 1998, royalties are between 15 per cent and 25 per cent.
More than 90 per cent of producers accessed a royalty credit program -- 105 of 116 companies in 2012/2013 -- for either low productivity, marginal or deep wells, an infrastructure credit, or deductions for high-risk or high-cost developments.
Alberta
In 2013/14, Alberta collected $1.1 billion in natural gas and by-product royalties.
There is a minimum five per cent and a maximum 36 per cent royalty rate for natural gas, depending on price and production levels.
Alberta offers similar royalty credit programs to British Columbia, including for deep shale gas wells.
Saskatchewan
For wells drilled prior to October 2002, royalty rates range from 20 per cent of the first $35 of the price and 45 per cent of the remaining to 15 per cent of the first $50 and 35 per cent of the rest.
Gas from wells drilled since October 2002, the royalty formula retains five per cent of the first $50 and 30 per cent of the rest.
Manitoba
Manitoba takes 12.5 per cent of monthly sales. The province does not offer royalty credit programs on natural gas.
Federal government
Ottawa collects royalties from oil and gas producers in Nunavut, N.W.T., and from reserve lands.
Royalty consists of one per cent on gross revenue at start-up, increasing by one per cent every 18 production months to a maximum of five per cent or until payout is reached. After payout, the royalty is calculated as the greater of 30 per cent of net profit or five per cent of gross revenues.
Royalty regimes are a delicate balance. Too high, and investors choose other jurisdictions. Too low, and the Crown loses out on revenues for a non-renewable natural resource.
When he announced $120 million in infrastructure royalty credits earlier this fall, B.C. Natural Gas Minister Rich Coleman said such incentives attract investment.
There are currently 18 liquefied natural gas proposals at various stages of development in B.C. If five plants are constructed by 2024, it would result in a total projected investment of $175 billion, he said, creating long-term jobs in the north
BC Oil and Gas Tax Breaks Top $1 Billion. How Much Profit Flows Back? Unknown
Government lacks revenue figures, so we sought out potential comparisons.
By Dene Moore, Today, TheTyee.ca
Share article via email Print this article
Gas_Pipes
The BC government can't say how much of the profits from natural gas sales come back to the province. Gas pipeline photo via Shutterstock.
Related
Tax Breaks for BC Frackers Reach over $1 Billion
Auditor general report details provincial incentives to largely foreign-owned gas giants.
'Difficult' Oil Faces Difficult Future, Predict New Reports
Why the forecast for extreme hydrocarbons may be shorter than advertised.
Andrew Nikiforuk Breaks Down the Global Oil Price Slump
What's causing it. What it means. Why it's political dynamite.
Read more: Energy,
British Columbia Auditor General Carol Bellringer raised eyebrows earlier this month when she pointed out that the province has extended more than $1 billion in tax credits to natural gas companies over the past two years.
But amid all the discussion of liquefied natural gas tax rates, industry tax credits and potential gas revenues, one figure is conspicuously absent. "Government take" is a key consideration for industry in any investment decision. How much of the profit from the sale of natural gas does a government take?
Unfortunately, the B.C. Ministry of Natural Gas Development could not provide the provincial revenues as a percentage of the net revenues from gas sales. So we asked the current leader in natural gas production in Canada. But Alberta Energy couldn’t provide that figure, either.
However, a 2009 report prepared for Alberta Energy by PriceWaterhouseCoopers did look at fiscal regimes around the world. It compared the total "government take," as well as political climate, geography, ease of extraction and other factors.
The report found that the U.S., the Middle East, China, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Norway and Russia all had a higher government take than Alberta.
Canada's 'take' is low
A 2010 report by consulting firm IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates for Noble Energy echoed those results. It determined that Canada had the lowest government take of Ireland, Italy, New Zealand, the United States, Ghana, United Kingdom, Tunisia, Australia, Egypt, Norway, Libya, and Israel.
It also noted, however, that recent efforts by Alaska, Alberta, Russia and Nigeria to increase their percentage of natural gas revenue resulted in immediate reductions in investment.
Marc Lee, a senior economist with Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the co-director of the Climate Justice Project, said the B.C. regime is not intended to maximize the return for British Columbians, who own the resource. ''It's designed to share risk with the private sector in developing that resource,'' he said.
Lee said very little of the price of LNG in Asia will come back to British Columbians. ''If I sold your car for you and I sold it for $10,000, what share would be fair for you to get?
''How about $50? That's kind of what the B.C. regime looks like.''
In June 2011, a report by the New West Partnership (the economic agreement between B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan) compared oil and gas fiscal regimes across Western Canada.
The report found that B.C.'s royalty rates range between 12 and 27 per cent, before tax credits. Alberta's rate is as low as five per cent, depending on production levels and price.
Comparing royalty findings, the report noted:
British Columbia
Total direct government revenue from oil and gas was $1.401 billion in 2013/14: $794.2 million for the auction of Crown subsurface petroleum and natural gas rights, $543.2 million in oil and gas royalties (primarily natural gas) and $63.9 million in fees and rentals.
For wells drilled after June 1998, royalties are between 12 per cent and 27 per cent, depending on the price.
For wells drilled before June 1, 1998, royalties are between 15 per cent and 25 per cent.
More than 90 per cent of producers accessed a royalty credit program -- 105 of 116 companies in 2012/2013 -- for either low productivity, marginal or deep wells, an infrastructure credit, or deductions for high-risk or high-cost developments.
Alberta
In 2013/14, Alberta collected $1.1 billion in natural gas and by-product royalties.
There is a minimum five per cent and a maximum 36 per cent royalty rate for natural gas, depending on price and production levels.
Alberta offers similar royalty credit programs to British Columbia, including for deep shale gas wells.
Saskatchewan
For wells drilled prior to October 2002, royalty rates range from 20 per cent of the first $35 of the price and 45 per cent of the remaining to 15 per cent of the first $50 and 35 per cent of the rest.
Gas from wells drilled since October 2002, the royalty formula retains five per cent of the first $50 and 30 per cent of the rest.
Manitoba
Manitoba takes 12.5 per cent of monthly sales. The province does not offer royalty credit programs on natural gas.
Federal government
Ottawa collects royalties from oil and gas producers in Nunavut, N.W.T., and from reserve lands.
Royalty consists of one per cent on gross revenue at start-up, increasing by one per cent every 18 production months to a maximum of five per cent or until payout is reached. After payout, the royalty is calculated as the greater of 30 per cent of net profit or five per cent of gross revenues.
Royalty regimes are a delicate balance. Too high, and investors choose other jurisdictions. Too low, and the Crown loses out on revenues for a non-renewable natural resource.
When he announced $120 million in infrastructure royalty credits earlier this fall, B.C. Natural Gas Minister Rich Coleman said such incentives attract investment.
There are currently 18 liquefied natural gas proposals at various stages of development in B.C. If five plants are constructed by 2024, it would result in a total projected investment of $175 billion, he said, creating long-term jobs in the north
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
google-greenA research effort by Google corporation to make renewable energy viable has been a complete failure, according to the scientists who led the programme. After 4 years of effort, their conclusion is that renewable energy “simply won’t work”.
According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;
“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.
The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
According to the IEEE article;
“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”
I must say I’m personally surprised at the conclusion of this study. I genuinely thought that we were maybe a few solar innovations and battery technology breakthroughs away from truly viable solar power. But if this study is to be believed, solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy.
According to an interview with the engineers, published in IEEE;
“At the start of RE<C, we had shared the attitude of many stalwart environmentalists: We felt that with steady improvements to today’s renewable energy technologies, our society could stave off catastrophic climate change. We now know that to be a false hope …
Renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach.”
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energy/renewables/what-it-would-really-take-to-reverse-climate-change
There is simply no getout clause for renewables supporters. The people who ran the study are very much committed to the belief that CO2 is dangerous – they are supporters of James Hansen. Their sincere goal was not to simply install a few solar cells, but to find a way to fundamentally transform the economics of energy production – to make renewable energy cheaper than coal. To this end, the study considered exotic innovations barely on the drawing board, such as self erecting wind turbines, using robotic technology to create new wind farms without human intervention. The result however was total failure – even these exotic possibilities couldn’t deliver the necessary economic model.
The key problem appears to be that the cost of manufacturing the components of the renewable power facilities is far too close to the total recoverable energy – the facilities never, or just barely, produce enough energy to balance the budget of what was consumed in their construction. This leads to a runaway cycle of constructing more and more renewable plants simply to produce the energy required to manufacture and maintain renewable energy plants – an obvious practical absurdity.
According to the IEEE article;
“Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear. All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.”
I must say I’m personally surprised at the conclusion of this study. I genuinely thought that we were maybe a few solar innovations and battery technology breakthroughs away from truly viable solar power. But if this study is to be believed, solar and other renewables will never in the foreseeable future deliver meaningful amounts of energy.
GLG
Well-Known Member
Record North Pacific temperatures threatening B.C. marine species
Scientists say new temperature pattern raising serious concerns
CBC News Posted: Nov 21, 2014 9:11 PM PT Last Updated: Nov 22, 2014 10:34 AM PT
The North Pacific Ocean is setting record high temperatures this year and raising concerns about the potential impact on cold water marine species along the B.C. coast, including salmon.
Ocean surface temperatures around the world this year reached the highest temperature ever recorded, due in large part to the normally chilly North Pacific, which was three to four degrees above average — far beyond any recorded value.
Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the warmth along the North Pacific coast is very unusual.
"We've never seen this before. It's beyond anyone's experience and this is why it's puzzling," he said.
To further complicate the picture, Peterson says an El Niño warm water ocean current should arrive in about a month.
"We'll have what we call a double whammy," he said. "It's already very warm up north, up here. If we get an extra push of super warm water from the tropics, we could possibly have a big disaster on our hands, ecologically speaking."
Invasive species on the rise
Richard Dewey, an associate director with the ocean observatory operator Ocean Networks Canada in Victoria, said scientists are still trying to figure out what's happening.
nusual and invasive species have already headed north including:
Sunfish, normally found in tropical or temperate waters, which have been seen off the Alaska panhandle.
Thresher sharks, which rarely travel past Vancouver.
There's also concern that Humboldt squid, which voraciously eat juvenile salmon, could make their way north again, after first being spotted off Alaska in 2005.
"So the worries with this is our local species having to work harder," Dewey said. "They're competing for the food they're after."
This can't be good..... Hey OBD.... nothing could go wrong...right?
Scientists say new temperature pattern raising serious concerns
CBC News Posted: Nov 21, 2014 9:11 PM PT Last Updated: Nov 22, 2014 10:34 AM PT
The North Pacific Ocean is setting record high temperatures this year and raising concerns about the potential impact on cold water marine species along the B.C. coast, including salmon.
Ocean surface temperatures around the world this year reached the highest temperature ever recorded, due in large part to the normally chilly North Pacific, which was three to four degrees above average — far beyond any recorded value.
Bill Peterson, an oceanographer with the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, said the warmth along the North Pacific coast is very unusual.
"We've never seen this before. It's beyond anyone's experience and this is why it's puzzling," he said.
To further complicate the picture, Peterson says an El Niño warm water ocean current should arrive in about a month.
"We'll have what we call a double whammy," he said. "It's already very warm up north, up here. If we get an extra push of super warm water from the tropics, we could possibly have a big disaster on our hands, ecologically speaking."
Invasive species on the rise
Richard Dewey, an associate director with the ocean observatory operator Ocean Networks Canada in Victoria, said scientists are still trying to figure out what's happening.
nusual and invasive species have already headed north including:
Sunfish, normally found in tropical or temperate waters, which have been seen off the Alaska panhandle.
Thresher sharks, which rarely travel past Vancouver.
There's also concern that Humboldt squid, which voraciously eat juvenile salmon, could make their way north again, after first being spotted off Alaska in 2005.
"So the worries with this is our local species having to work harder," Dewey said. "They're competing for the food they're after."
This can't be good..... Hey OBD.... nothing could go wrong...right?
GLG
Well-Known Member
So... if LNG goes as planned how will it affect what we pay for Nat. gas here in BC. Do we need a crystal ball or is there an example that we can look at to see how it's working out.......Australia
Gas prices will explode due to Queensland exports, says Grattan Institute
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/gas-...-institute-20141019-1172ev.html#ixzz3JqGuhIVc
Larger households that use gas for cooking, hot water and heating will be hit with a yearly bill increase of up to $435 in the eastern states and the government should do nothing to intervene, the Grattan Institute has said.
In the next two to three years, high gas users in Sydney will face a $255 increase while, in Melbourne, where 90 per cent of homes are connected to mains gas, users will see a $435 jump, according to the think tank's new report [PDF, 733 KB].http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/817-gas-at-the-crossroads.pdf
The increases are linked with the launch of gas exports in Queensland early next year that will expose Australian families and businesses to high global prices. The Grattan Institute based its calculations on the forecast that wholesale gas prices will double to $9 a gigajoule.
Calls are mounting for the government to shield Australian users from rocketing prices by reserving a percentage of gas for domestic use.
But Tony Wood, energy program director at the institute and the report's author, is opposed to all forms of government intervention that may hinder investment and therefore "economic benefits" such as jobs.
He said governments should avoid imposing a cost, or "an implicit tax", on companies in a bid to help poor and disadvantaged people already struggling with soaring energy bills.
"If the prices impact people on low incomes, then the way to fix that is through existing welfare provisions," he said.
Cassandra Goldie, chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service, said the smallest of price rises would disproportionately hit the most vulnerable groups.
"The big problem is the existing welfare provisions are not enough for people to meet the cost of essentials, including energy prices," she said.
"We know the Newstart Allowance hasn't increased in real terms for over 20 years and the indexation, which is linked with the CPI, is nowhere near adequate to cover the prices of the essentials increasing at a far higher rate."
Mr Wood said the government should not reserve a portion of gas, nor apply a national interest test to ensure local supply, subsidise domestic prices, nor subsidise one energy form over another.
"More than $63 billion is being invested in LNG export projects in Queensland, leading to almost 30,000 jobs during the construction phase and up to 17,000 ongoing jobs from 2020 when the projects are fully operational," he said in the report.
"This investment will increase Australian LNG exports, currently worth $14.5 billion a year to over $60 billion in 2017-18."
Scott McDine, national secretary of the Australian Workers Union and spokesman for the Reserve Our Gas campaign, said beliefs that gas reservation or a national interest test would "spook" investment was "demonstrably false".
"The same multinational gas companies extracting our gas are doing business all over the world," he said. "They've just somehow convinced Australia to give them a special deal."
He said Western Australia introduced a gas reservation policy in 2006 and had since attracted $88 billion in gas production investment.
A BIS Shrapnel report showed rising gas prices would lead to one in five heavy manufacturers shutting down within five years and total manufacturing production being reduced by 15.4 per cent by 2023, cutting 91,300 industry jobs.
In June, energy retailers received the green light to increase gas prices by an average 17.8 per cent over the next two years.
Outgoing Energy and Water Ombudsman Clare Petre expects gas pricing to "emerge as an issue during 2014-15" as electricity price increases ease.
So there you go...... we should expect LNG to add $5.00 for every person in BC as a social dividend with only a cost of $200 to $500 on your yearly gas bill. Something only a wingnut would think is fair....
Gas prices will explode due to Queensland exports, says Grattan Institute
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/gas-...-institute-20141019-1172ev.html#ixzz3JqGuhIVc
Larger households that use gas for cooking, hot water and heating will be hit with a yearly bill increase of up to $435 in the eastern states and the government should do nothing to intervene, the Grattan Institute has said.
In the next two to three years, high gas users in Sydney will face a $255 increase while, in Melbourne, where 90 per cent of homes are connected to mains gas, users will see a $435 jump, according to the think tank's new report [PDF, 733 KB].http://grattan.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/817-gas-at-the-crossroads.pdf
The increases are linked with the launch of gas exports in Queensland early next year that will expose Australian families and businesses to high global prices. The Grattan Institute based its calculations on the forecast that wholesale gas prices will double to $9 a gigajoule.
Calls are mounting for the government to shield Australian users from rocketing prices by reserving a percentage of gas for domestic use.
But Tony Wood, energy program director at the institute and the report's author, is opposed to all forms of government intervention that may hinder investment and therefore "economic benefits" such as jobs.
He said governments should avoid imposing a cost, or "an implicit tax", on companies in a bid to help poor and disadvantaged people already struggling with soaring energy bills.
"If the prices impact people on low incomes, then the way to fix that is through existing welfare provisions," he said.
Cassandra Goldie, chief executive of the Australian Council of Social Service, said the smallest of price rises would disproportionately hit the most vulnerable groups.
"The big problem is the existing welfare provisions are not enough for people to meet the cost of essentials, including energy prices," she said.
"We know the Newstart Allowance hasn't increased in real terms for over 20 years and the indexation, which is linked with the CPI, is nowhere near adequate to cover the prices of the essentials increasing at a far higher rate."
Mr Wood said the government should not reserve a portion of gas, nor apply a national interest test to ensure local supply, subsidise domestic prices, nor subsidise one energy form over another.
"More than $63 billion is being invested in LNG export projects in Queensland, leading to almost 30,000 jobs during the construction phase and up to 17,000 ongoing jobs from 2020 when the projects are fully operational," he said in the report.
"This investment will increase Australian LNG exports, currently worth $14.5 billion a year to over $60 billion in 2017-18."
Scott McDine, national secretary of the Australian Workers Union and spokesman for the Reserve Our Gas campaign, said beliefs that gas reservation or a national interest test would "spook" investment was "demonstrably false".
"The same multinational gas companies extracting our gas are doing business all over the world," he said. "They've just somehow convinced Australia to give them a special deal."
He said Western Australia introduced a gas reservation policy in 2006 and had since attracted $88 billion in gas production investment.
A BIS Shrapnel report showed rising gas prices would lead to one in five heavy manufacturers shutting down within five years and total manufacturing production being reduced by 15.4 per cent by 2023, cutting 91,300 industry jobs.
In June, energy retailers received the green light to increase gas prices by an average 17.8 per cent over the next two years.
Outgoing Energy and Water Ombudsman Clare Petre expects gas pricing to "emerge as an issue during 2014-15" as electricity price increases ease.
So there you go...... we should expect LNG to add $5.00 for every person in BC as a social dividend with only a cost of $200 to $500 on your yearly gas bill. Something only a wingnut would think is fair....
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Been warm here before. Will be again.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
China’s New Energy Plan Forecasts Big Rise In CO2 Emissions
Paul Homewood / 7 hours ago November 22, 2014
By Paul Homewood
News from Enerdata that China has published a new Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014-2020), presumably following on from the US-China agreement last week.
The State Council of China has unveiled a new Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014-2020) focusing on the development of renewables and capping primary energy consumption at 4.8 Gtce/year until 2020, i.e. limiting the primary energy consumption growth rate to 3.5%/year until 2020. China aims to limit coal consumption to 4.2 Gt/year until 2020, a 16% increase over the 2013 consumption level of 3.6 Gt. China will also target a reduction of coal in the primary energy mix to under 62% by 2020, to the advantage of non-fossil fuels (15% by 2020 and 20% by 2030, from about 10% in 2013) and gas (10% by 2020). By 2020, the installed nuclear power capacity is expected to reach 58 GW, with an additional 30 GW under construction; inland nuclear power projects will be studied, while the construction of nuclear reactors on coastal areas will begin “at a proper time”. China targets an installed hydropower capacity of 350 GW by 2020, with wind and solar capacities reaching 200 GW and 100 GW respectively. Shale gas and coalbed methane production should reach 30 bcm by 2020 and the energy self-sufficiency rate will be boosted to about 85%.
http://www.enerdata.net/enerdatauk/...gy-capping-annual-coal-consumption_30723.html
A number of things stand out here:
1) Capping primary energy consumption at 4.8 Gtce/year until 2020
This refers to “Gigatonnes Carbon Equivalent”. Provisional figures for 2013, from CDIAC, give carbon emissions as 2.7Gtce, so China are allowing themselves a substantial amount of headroom to continue growing emissions.
There should be no surprise here. As I pointed out a year ago, China’s promise to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP were actually likely to lead to a doubling of emissions, dependent on economic growth.
As their commitment is to peak emissions by 2030, we can expect the figure of 4.8Gtce to continue to rise through the 2020’s.
2) China aims to limit coal consumption to 4.2 Gt/year until 2020, a 16% increase over the 2013 consumption level of 3.6 Gt
No sign of any cuts in coal use then.
3) China will also target a reduction of coal in the primary energy mix to under 62% by 2020
While the proportion of coal within the overall mix is forecast to decline from 69% in 2011, the actual amount used will increase, as total energy consumption rises.
4) By 2020, the installed nuclear power capacity is expected to reach 58 GW, with an additional 30 GW under construction; inland nuclear power projects will be studied, while the construction of nuclear reactors on coastal areas will begin “at a proper time”. China targets an installed hydropower capacity of 350 GW by 2020, with wind and solar capacities reaching 200 GW and 100 GW respectively.
Although China has promised to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in the energy mix to 20% by 2030. what is less well known is that hydro and other non-fossil fuels were already contributing 8% in 2011, according to the EIA, or approximately 20% of electricity output. This figure will have grown since then, with extra hydro coming on stream. It is likely that non-fossil sources will be supplying around 10% by the end of this year.
Moreover, with new nuclear and hydro capacity already under construction or with planning approved, electricity generation from nuclear and hydro will likely more than triple from 772 TWh in 2011 to around 2500 TWh by 2025.
None of this increase in capacity is happening as a result of any agreement with Obama. Instead it has been planned for several years.
It also needs to be pointed out that China’s massive switch to hydro power has had highly damaging side effects, such as the displacement of as many as 23 million people, according to figures from the International Business Times.
5) Wind and solar reaching 200 GW and 100 GW by 2020
Capacities were 75 GW and 3GW respectively in 2013. In terms of output, by 2020 wind/solar should be supplying around 500 TWh pa, about 10% of China’s electricity needs. Nothing fantastic there then, and certainly nothing approaching UK targets.
Perhaps the real story behind all of this is that China will continue to consume ever greater amounts of energy, as its economy continues to grow, something that won’t stop any time soon.
The EIA show how this will carry on growing even after 2030, and how the use of fossil fuels will carry on growing in the meantime.
China-electricity-forecastSource: http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CH
The idea that China’s CO2 emissions will drop below today’s levels in my lifetime is sheer fantasy.
About these ads
12 Votes
GoogleTwitter37Facebook50StumbleUponRedditEmail
November 22, 2014 in Energy.
Paul Homewood / 7 hours ago November 22, 2014
By Paul Homewood
News from Enerdata that China has published a new Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014-2020), presumably following on from the US-China agreement last week.
The State Council of China has unveiled a new Energy Development Strategy Action Plan (2014-2020) focusing on the development of renewables and capping primary energy consumption at 4.8 Gtce/year until 2020, i.e. limiting the primary energy consumption growth rate to 3.5%/year until 2020. China aims to limit coal consumption to 4.2 Gt/year until 2020, a 16% increase over the 2013 consumption level of 3.6 Gt. China will also target a reduction of coal in the primary energy mix to under 62% by 2020, to the advantage of non-fossil fuels (15% by 2020 and 20% by 2030, from about 10% in 2013) and gas (10% by 2020). By 2020, the installed nuclear power capacity is expected to reach 58 GW, with an additional 30 GW under construction; inland nuclear power projects will be studied, while the construction of nuclear reactors on coastal areas will begin “at a proper time”. China targets an installed hydropower capacity of 350 GW by 2020, with wind and solar capacities reaching 200 GW and 100 GW respectively. Shale gas and coalbed methane production should reach 30 bcm by 2020 and the energy self-sufficiency rate will be boosted to about 85%.
http://www.enerdata.net/enerdatauk/...gy-capping-annual-coal-consumption_30723.html
A number of things stand out here:
1) Capping primary energy consumption at 4.8 Gtce/year until 2020
This refers to “Gigatonnes Carbon Equivalent”. Provisional figures for 2013, from CDIAC, give carbon emissions as 2.7Gtce, so China are allowing themselves a substantial amount of headroom to continue growing emissions.
There should be no surprise here. As I pointed out a year ago, China’s promise to reduce CO2 emissions per unit of GDP were actually likely to lead to a doubling of emissions, dependent on economic growth.
As their commitment is to peak emissions by 2030, we can expect the figure of 4.8Gtce to continue to rise through the 2020’s.
2) China aims to limit coal consumption to 4.2 Gt/year until 2020, a 16% increase over the 2013 consumption level of 3.6 Gt
No sign of any cuts in coal use then.
3) China will also target a reduction of coal in the primary energy mix to under 62% by 2020
While the proportion of coal within the overall mix is forecast to decline from 69% in 2011, the actual amount used will increase, as total energy consumption rises.
4) By 2020, the installed nuclear power capacity is expected to reach 58 GW, with an additional 30 GW under construction; inland nuclear power projects will be studied, while the construction of nuclear reactors on coastal areas will begin “at a proper time”. China targets an installed hydropower capacity of 350 GW by 2020, with wind and solar capacities reaching 200 GW and 100 GW respectively.
Although China has promised to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in the energy mix to 20% by 2030. what is less well known is that hydro and other non-fossil fuels were already contributing 8% in 2011, according to the EIA, or approximately 20% of electricity output. This figure will have grown since then, with extra hydro coming on stream. It is likely that non-fossil sources will be supplying around 10% by the end of this year.
Moreover, with new nuclear and hydro capacity already under construction or with planning approved, electricity generation from nuclear and hydro will likely more than triple from 772 TWh in 2011 to around 2500 TWh by 2025.
None of this increase in capacity is happening as a result of any agreement with Obama. Instead it has been planned for several years.
It also needs to be pointed out that China’s massive switch to hydro power has had highly damaging side effects, such as the displacement of as many as 23 million people, according to figures from the International Business Times.
5) Wind and solar reaching 200 GW and 100 GW by 2020
Capacities were 75 GW and 3GW respectively in 2013. In terms of output, by 2020 wind/solar should be supplying around 500 TWh pa, about 10% of China’s electricity needs. Nothing fantastic there then, and certainly nothing approaching UK targets.
Perhaps the real story behind all of this is that China will continue to consume ever greater amounts of energy, as its economy continues to grow, something that won’t stop any time soon.
The EIA show how this will carry on growing even after 2030, and how the use of fossil fuels will carry on growing in the meantime.
China-electricity-forecastSource: http://www.eia.gov/countries/cab.cfm?fips=CH
The idea that China’s CO2 emissions will drop below today’s levels in my lifetime is sheer fantasy.
About these ads
12 Votes
GoogleTwitter37Facebook50StumbleUponRedditEmail
November 22, 2014 in Energy.
OldBlackDog
Well-Known Member
Google Engineers give up on renewables fixing the climate (but they still miss the point)
Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?“
Two engineers who worked on the Google RE<C project admit with candour that they used to think that renewable technologies could help prevent climate change, but they now know that was wrong, saying “Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?” The brutal answer eventually is “we don’t know”. The RE<C project started in 2007 and was buried in 2011. Google invested $850 million in clean energy. (For a tiny $100,000 I could have saved Google $850 million dollars. If they only asked skeptics instead of Al Gore…)
Ross Koningstein & David Fork admit with admirable honesty that their assumptions about renewables were wrong. But they still haven’t realized their assumptions about climate models are wrong too. Next year perhaps?
Most of their article is about the engineering hurdles of dispatchable and distributed energy. But they also talk about the Google time management philosophy, their 70-20-10 rule (70% core work, 20% cutting edge but viable, 10% “crazy” possibilities). What they don’t seem to realize 70:20:10 is pointless if 100% of their time is spent solving a problem that doesn’t exist. The Google innovation approach is a pot-luck dip. Five percent of any project — and it’s the first 5% — should be about testing all the assumptions and right back to the very first one. If Google did this research it would have been obvious, and years ago, that not only were renewables unlikely to reduce CO2, but that reducing CO2 was pointless, and indeed, probably counter productive.
It’s not just about wasting time and money. What if you spend years trying to improve the weather, and not only failed to do that, but had the perverse side-effect of reductions in crop growth, and increases in food and energy prices? What if your main success was to increase the size of deserts — CO2 feeds plants and extra CO2 has the biggest effect on plants in arid zones. How would you feel if you tried to hold back the tide (which is barely rising) but children died of starvation instead?
For the record, the assumptions they should have tested were 1/ whether climate models are better at predicting the climate than any roulette wheel. 2/ whether there is any empirical evidence that climate feedbacks (especially water vapor in the upper atmosphere) are positive and amplify the effect of CO2 (they aren’t and they don’t). The evidence has been there for years that temperatures drive carbon dioxide, and that if carbon dioxide amplifies the temperature the effect is so small it can’t be measured with modern technology and the best data we have.
Spectrum IEEE
Google’s boldest energy move was an effort known asRE<C, which aimed to develop renewable energy sources that would generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power plants do. The company announced that Google would help promising technologies mature by investing in start-ups and conducting its own internal R&D. Its aspirational goal: to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades.
As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach. So we’re issuing a call to action.
The two engineers treat Hansens aim of getting global CO2 back to 350ppm, and try to make it work.
We decided to combine our energy innovation study’s best-case scenario results with Hansen’s climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold. Our calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones, freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among others. Our reckoning showed that reversing the trend would require both radical technological advances in cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering the carbon.
Those calculations cast our work at Google’s RE<C program in a sobering new light.
Consider an average U.S. coal or natural gas plant that has been in service for decades; its cost of electricity generation is about 4 to 6 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. Now imagine what it would take for the utility company that owns that plant to decide to shutter it and build a replacement plant using a zero-carbon energy source. The owner would have to factor in the capital investment for construction and continued costs of operation and maintenance—and still make a profit while generating electricity for less than $0.04/kWh to $0.06/kWh.
Dispatchable” power, which can be ramped up and down quickly, fetches the highest market price. Distributed power, generated close to the electricity meter, can also be worth more, as it avoids the costs and losses associated with transmission and distribution. Residential customers in the contiguous United Statespay from $0.09/kWh to $0.20/kWh, a significant portion of which pays for transmission and distribution costs. And here we see an opportunity for change. A distributed, dispatchable power source could prompt a switchover if it could undercut those end-user prices, selling electricity for less than $0.09/kWh to $0.20/kWh in local marketplaces. At such prices, the zero-carbon system would simply be the thrifty choice.
The world doesn’t need disruptive technologies as much as it needs impeccable logic and reason.
Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?“
Two engineers who worked on the Google RE<C project admit with candour that they used to think that renewable technologies could help prevent climate change, but they now know that was wrong, saying “Today’s renewable energy technologies won’t save us. So what will?” The brutal answer eventually is “we don’t know”. The RE<C project started in 2007 and was buried in 2011. Google invested $850 million in clean energy. (For a tiny $100,000 I could have saved Google $850 million dollars. If they only asked skeptics instead of Al Gore…)
Ross Koningstein & David Fork admit with admirable honesty that their assumptions about renewables were wrong. But they still haven’t realized their assumptions about climate models are wrong too. Next year perhaps?
Most of their article is about the engineering hurdles of dispatchable and distributed energy. But they also talk about the Google time management philosophy, their 70-20-10 rule (70% core work, 20% cutting edge but viable, 10% “crazy” possibilities). What they don’t seem to realize 70:20:10 is pointless if 100% of their time is spent solving a problem that doesn’t exist. The Google innovation approach is a pot-luck dip. Five percent of any project — and it’s the first 5% — should be about testing all the assumptions and right back to the very first one. If Google did this research it would have been obvious, and years ago, that not only were renewables unlikely to reduce CO2, but that reducing CO2 was pointless, and indeed, probably counter productive.
It’s not just about wasting time and money. What if you spend years trying to improve the weather, and not only failed to do that, but had the perverse side-effect of reductions in crop growth, and increases in food and energy prices? What if your main success was to increase the size of deserts — CO2 feeds plants and extra CO2 has the biggest effect on plants in arid zones. How would you feel if you tried to hold back the tide (which is barely rising) but children died of starvation instead?
For the record, the assumptions they should have tested were 1/ whether climate models are better at predicting the climate than any roulette wheel. 2/ whether there is any empirical evidence that climate feedbacks (especially water vapor in the upper atmosphere) are positive and amplify the effect of CO2 (they aren’t and they don’t). The evidence has been there for years that temperatures drive carbon dioxide, and that if carbon dioxide amplifies the temperature the effect is so small it can’t be measured with modern technology and the best data we have.
Spectrum IEEE
Google’s boldest energy move was an effort known asRE<C, which aimed to develop renewable energy sources that would generate electricity more cheaply than coal-fired power plants do. The company announced that Google would help promising technologies mature by investing in start-ups and conducting its own internal R&D. Its aspirational goal: to produce a gigawatt of renewable power more cheaply than a coal-fired plant could, and to achieve this in years, not decades.
As we reflected on the project, we came to the conclusion that even if Google and others had led the way toward a wholesale adoption of renewable energy, that switch would not have resulted in significant reductions of carbon dioxide emissions. Trying to combat climate change exclusively with today’s renewable energy technologies simply won’t work; we need a fundamentally different approach. So we’re issuing a call to action.
The two engineers treat Hansens aim of getting global CO2 back to 350ppm, and try to make it work.
We decided to combine our energy innovation study’s best-case scenario results with Hansen’s climate model to see whether a 55 percent emission cut by 2050 would bring the world back below that 350-ppm threshold. Our calculations revealed otherwise. Even if every renewable energy technology advanced as quickly as imagined and they were all applied globally, atmospheric CO2 levels wouldn’t just remain above 350 ppm; they would continue to rise exponentially due to continued fossil fuel use. So our best-case scenario, which was based on our most optimistic forecasts for renewable energy, would still result in severe climate change, with all its dire consequences: shifting climatic zones, freshwater shortages, eroding coasts, and ocean acidification, among others. Our reckoning showed that reversing the trend would require both radical technological advances in cheap zero-carbon energy, as well as a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering the carbon.
Those calculations cast our work at Google’s RE<C program in a sobering new light.
Consider an average U.S. coal or natural gas plant that has been in service for decades; its cost of electricity generation is about 4 to 6 U.S. cents per kilowatt-hour. Now imagine what it would take for the utility company that owns that plant to decide to shutter it and build a replacement plant using a zero-carbon energy source. The owner would have to factor in the capital investment for construction and continued costs of operation and maintenance—and still make a profit while generating electricity for less than $0.04/kWh to $0.06/kWh.
Dispatchable” power, which can be ramped up and down quickly, fetches the highest market price. Distributed power, generated close to the electricity meter, can also be worth more, as it avoids the costs and losses associated with transmission and distribution. Residential customers in the contiguous United Statespay from $0.09/kWh to $0.20/kWh, a significant portion of which pays for transmission and distribution costs. And here we see an opportunity for change. A distributed, dispatchable power source could prompt a switchover if it could undercut those end-user prices, selling electricity for less than $0.09/kWh to $0.20/kWh in local marketplaces. At such prices, the zero-carbon system would simply be the thrifty choice.
The world doesn’t need disruptive technologies as much as it needs impeccable logic and reason.
GLG
Well-Known Member
A better web.
Better for the environment.
At Google, we've worked hard to minimize the environmental impact of our services. In fact, when we provide an active user one month of Google services, we use less energy than driving a car one mile. If you add in our renewable energy and offsets, our footprint is zero. And we continue to find new ways to reduce our impact even further. Learn more about our efforts below.
http://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/
Better for the environment.
At Google, we've worked hard to minimize the environmental impact of our services. In fact, when we provide an active user one month of Google services, we use less energy than driving a car one mile. If you add in our renewable energy and offsets, our footprint is zero. And we continue to find new ways to reduce our impact even further. Learn more about our efforts below.
http://www.google.com/green/bigpicture/
GLG
Well-Known Member
Nothing could go wrong... Right?
Now you're making stuff up again. Never in the time humans have walked the earth has it been this warm.....never..... find something to prove your point or quit making stuff up.
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status
Similar threads
