Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[GLG]

OK I'm sure you've gotta be trolling me there's no way you can be missing the point over and over so I'll drop it after this. You could have solar but choose the luxury of a boat instead. I don't have a problem with it, I'm at peace with my own choice to do the same.

It never occurred to me that I would have to chose between the two.
I guess that's why I didn't pickup on your question.
If the question is pick one I would go with solar and fish with others.
Lucky for me I don't have to pick only one.
I do have money right now to go solar but I still have the problem with moving.
I have been investigating setting up a farm with a couple other guys that want to go solar.
They don't have a location at their house because of trees.
Last week we talked with a friend but he has plans of moving so his land is out.
Darn because he had the perfect spot for 75 or 100 panels.
I'll keep looking or I may slap 10 panels on my house in the spring.
Till then I will continue with other green investments.

Totally right, I feel the same and am capable of making those choices myself which is why I don't want the government getting in my affairs. sadly most of society won't do the same. When you listed all the things you did and said still not good enough you want LNG it reads like what you've done is an end game. I'd say you've got the personal impact well under control but like you said you don't have a global impact, neither does LNG production in the grand scheme of things but it can still have a net positive effect by offsetting coal usage.

You betcha it is and we do emit and will continue as long as there's a market someone will fill it. Of course it's expanding, gotta keep pace with the demands of a growing population. What was the point of your quote about my paycheck depending on not understanding? We sell to Spectra which goes straight to the lower mainland, you yourself NG was OK on the domestic level. Yes I know where Spectra stands emission wise, hard to avoid when you're the big player and feed everyone. I'm also sure they have room for improvement and as technology advances so will they.



Obviously not supporting a winner like the carbon tax that from your own link has given $500 million more back than it generated. Hint; that's more than double the discrepancy (your link again) between royalties and provincial government NG investment that you're so upset about. Factor in cost of administering the program and it stinks of failure and political pandering to the short sighted masses that won't look at the whole picture, they just hear carbon tax on the 6 o-clock news and think good screw those oil companies! Francine turn up the thermostat and grab me a cold one from the fridge. lol






Therein lies the major problem with your solutions and futility of your protest. The lack of willingness to think globally, Canada is a fart in the wind as I'm sure you're well aware. Depending on the source you want to believe We're barely in the top 10 for global emissions, #8-10 by most accounts, less than 2% globally, 1.5%-1.8% by most accounts. Drill down to where BC is, then drill farther down to where LNG is not what's required for the domestic supply you earlier said you were ok with us (but not Asia) having and it's even lower. Fractions of a percent. China alone is close to 30% of global emissions, per capita not as bad but as they start to demand a more western lifestyle and become more industrialized it's gonna compound fast. Let's not tie them to coal as they move forward. Like it or not the reality is they will move forward.

BC is in great shape, we could go to zero tomorrow and change nothing in the grand scheme of things. This isn't the place to focus if one wants to make a significant difference.

http://www.livesmartbc.ca/learn/emissions.html



Barking up the wrong tree, focusing on the wrong thing. Not sure why other than manipulation by media, social influences and lack of looking at the big picture. Increasing locally will reduce globally see my questions below for how I get to that theory.



We totally should, the extra $500 million that the government gave back to consumers in it's winning carbon tax scheme would be a great start I reckon.

I read your links on the carbon tax and am still having trouble finding the answers I seek so that's why I ask for you to explain since you've likely read way more than I, I've got to be missing something obvious as it makes no sense to me. I'll put my main questions at the bottom so they don't get lost in here.

Here's a couple questions;
If we stopped the coal/LNG train to them tomorrow do you actually think they'd stop consuming or find somewhere else to buy it?

I still don't know how much BC met coal is contributing to CO2 but for the sake of argument lets say it's a lot. If the country has not put a price on their CO2 then we need to. If all suppliers did the same then the customer would get the idea in quick time and would price it. If a supply nation refused to price it then we should not do business with them. That might get their attention. I know it's a world problem and it will take the whole world to fix it. No one want's to go first and that's not helpful. Perhaps next years talks will move us forward on this one. I'm sure deals will have to be made.

When they did find a new supplier do you think that supplier would be better or worse than Western Canada?

Hard to say as some are bad and some are good but if everyone priced it then we would not need to make that choice. I see this a mostly a US problem as they want to expand coal because they will be consuming less now that they are going clean energy with their new regulations. We see that with the big push to expand Vancouver Port to start shipping US coal. Groups down in the US have stopped the plans to ship out coal from new ports there. We need to do the same thing as this will drive up the price and perhaps kill old king coal.

Do you think it would be better for the next generation shifting the production to a different part of the planet, and once BC's emissions dropped and were shifted elsewhere would it be a win for your kids?

That's what this is all about... trying our best in all countries to make it very difficult to access more new coal. That should drive up the cost (lower the consumption) and that might be a win for our kids.

Knowing where LNG stands on a scale emission wise, and where the entire gas industry relates to feed lots and agricultural industries nationally why is this your campaign de jour? Don't say you eat less meat that doesn't answer the question.

Every industry in Canada has made strides in cutting back their CO2 except one. We both know who that is. It's the industry that Harper has promised to regulate for 6 or 7 years and it's the one that he tells us that regulation is coming at the end of the year but never does ....... Frankly it's an embarrassment on the world stage. Here is a link for you to read., lots of info there. Note that we wont be making our commitments of 17% less then 2005 level by 2020 according to the Auditor General.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/ges-ghg/default.asp?lang=En&n=83A34A7A-1

With transportation being the largest emitter in the province, why aren't you focusing on that? Don't say you bought a hybrid that doesn't answer the question.

Nope transportation is not the biggest emitter, it's big but we have regulations in place to curb that. ie. Carbon Tax and more fuel efficient standards. The trend is heading in the correct direction. Will it be enough? Not sure but we could up the carbon tax if it looks like we are not going to make it. The O&G is the problem and the trend is not good. Much work is needed and those fugitive emissions may be a lot more then what is reported. New studies suggest that we need to look at that and give it a rather large increase.

http://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/topic.page?id=50B908BE85E0446EB6D3C434B4C8C106

On carbon tax a few that I couldn't find answers for;

If it's revenue neutral and goes back to individuals and business (from your links) and doesn't drive costs up how does it curb consumption? Wouldn't it have to drive costs up to persuade people to use less?

There is a difference between cost and price. Think about it this way. The price goes up at the pump or when you pay you NG bill. That is a hit we see up front and we will make a choice if to drive less or buy an efficient car. Same thing at you house when you get your NG bill. You will turn down the heat, insulate, upgrade windows or what ever. The cost (price less rebate) is something that is paid back in the form of lower provincial tax. It's something we don't see and therefore out of mind but is none the less there.

 

[GLG]

Are you 100% sure it's the revenue neutral carbon tax and not the dramatic price increase that accounts for the miniscule drop in consumption?
Based on the consumption figures from your link, what I've found on the link below, and what you know from first hand experience it looks like fuel went up on a conservative provincial average about 70%. While usage went down less than 5%. Knowing this do we really think a neutral tax had anything to do with the drop?
http://www.bcgasprices.com/retail_price_chart.aspx

Compare the fuel in liters to other provinces and the Canada total. The other provinces had their price increase just like we did and yet they didn't decrease the liters they used. I don't have the NG numbers but reason would indicate it was the same. It's all about the price and you could call the tax by any name but using Carbon Tax has an effect.... I know it doesn't seem to make sense that a revenue neutral carbon tax would work but it does. I think it's all about the price at the pump and how we feel when we break out the wallet or pay the NG bill that effects our behavior. Economics is not a science it's an art.

Thanks for the Stern Report link, gonna read up on that and see what it says compared to the Google study linked earlier in this thread.

Your welcome. There have been more reports since then and some of the new IPCC reports have more info. Here is the bottom line..... It's cheaper to do something now to slow/stop our CO2 then it is to wait and pay for the damage that it's currently doing and the future damage that will come. The longer we wait the more expensive it is to fix. It's all about the amount of CO2 in ppm in the air.

I'm not big on regulations but they are needed or else it would be a free for all out there. I am big on setting a price on CO2 as that seem to the most fair and transparent way of doing things. You know the price and you act accordingly. Let's the market do what it does best without having the government telling me what to do.

 

[GLG]

[s7LuIvvCE64]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7LuIvvCE64

Published on Dec 23, 2014
DeSmogCAST 5 "Fossil Fuels at COP20 and What Lies Behind New York's Fracking Ban"

In this episode of DeSmogCAST host Farron Cousins joins DeSmog cast Carol Linnitt and Steve Horn to discuss the recent COP20 climate negotiations in Lima, Peru and the controversy caused by the fossil fuel's attendance. Next Steve Horn takes us beyond the news of New York's fracking ban for a closer look at how a new defense bill could actually mean major increases in fracking in the U.S.

See below for articles mentioned in this episode:

Fossil Fuel Industry Arguments for Carbon Sequestration Cause Uproar at COP20 UNFCCC Climate Talks:
http://www.desmog.ca/2014/12/10/fossi...

Shell’s Top Climate Advisor Says Company “Values” Relationship with Climate-Denying ALEC at COP20:
http://www.desmog.ca/2014/12/09/shell...

10 Things Canada Would Be Doing if We Were Serious About Climate Change:
http://www.desmog.ca/2014/12/13/10-th...

New York Governor Cuomo to Ban Fracking in State, Citing Health Threats:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/17/...

Not Just Public Lands: Defense Bill Also Incentivizes Fracked Gas Vehicles:
http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/12/18/...
--

DeSmogCAST is a weekly online show that features DeSmog writers, experts and guests covering breaking news and in-depth analysis on politics, energy and environment issues in the U.S., Canada and around the world.

For more visit DeSmogBlog.com, DeSmog.ca, and DeSmog.uk.

DeSmogCAST is a joint project of DeSmogBlog, DeSmog Canada and DeSmogUK.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/energy-and-resources/more-methane-surprises
More Methane Surprises
High concentrations of methane plumes found rising from the floor of the East Siberian Arctic Ocean and along the US Atlantic Coast.
BY Janet Kimantas
Dec 2014 | Water 40.5

Methane has been in the news for some time now as a source of climate alarm. The potential release of this powerful greenhouse gas from melting Arctic permafrost had considerable traction in the news over the last year.

The impact of methane on climate change is more than 20 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time frame, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In July of this year, researchers from Stockholm University investigated plumes of methane rising from the floor of the East Siberian Arctic Ocean. The plumes themselves were not a surprise to the scientists, but their high concentration was unexpected.

Chief scientist Örjan Gustafsson speculates that the gas may be coming from collapsing methane hydrates – pockets of methane that are trapped in frozen water. Fears of methane release have most often focused on melting permafrost releasing the gas byproducts of rotting organic matter. Methane also leaks from vents and fissures in the seabed.

Methane hydrate pockets form under highly specific conditions of high water pressure and low temperature, where they generally remain stable. Gustafsson explains that a tongue of Atlantic water may have warmed up enough in recent years to start destabilizing the hydrates.

Methane hydrates have recently become the focus of efforts by India, Japan and Korea to develop as a source of future energy. There could potentially be more fossil fuel in them than there is in conventional reserves of coal, oil and gas. But if climate warming causes them to destabilize they could escape directly into the atmosphere.

Jason Box, a climatologist at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, was closely following the research expedition. He was moved to tweet that “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d.”

In August, researchers released a report describing the discovery of hundreds of methane plumes seeping from organic sediments along the US Atlantic coast. They also found patches of methane hydrate. This was quite unexpected for this particular environment and the scientists speculated that if the East Coast could harbour so many methane pits, there could be tens of thousands more awaiting discovery.

The Atlantic methane mostly dissolves in the ocean and doesn’t release to the atmosphere, but it still adds to the ocean’s carbon content. Some of the difficulties in predicting the behaviour of these phenomena include the rate at which the climate is changing in the Arctic, the unprecedented nature of the unfolding processes and the complex combinations of rapidly changing events. Peter Wadhams, internationally renowned Arctic expert and head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, points out that climate models need to represent very fine-scale processes to include all the possible effects. These effects include the break-up of sea ice due to unusually large waves that develop on newly ice-free Arctic water, and surface meltwater pools that melt all the way through ice sheets. Only with sophisticated models like this, he says, can we accurately see the possibilities of offshore permafrost melt – including methane hydrates.

Methane hydrate, also known as methane clathrate, is ice composed of crystalline cages called clathrates that trap methane gas molecules. Hydrates form when temperatures are cold enough and/or pressure is high enough, as in deep water. The source of the methane can be either thermogenic – created by deep-earth heating, or biogenic – created by microbial action in top layers of sediment and in soil. When clathrates melt, they release their trapped methane from the ground, or from bubble plumes when underwater. In the Arctic, clathrates also form on land both above and below the permafrost line.

Janet Kimantas
Janet Kimantas is A\J's associate editor, and a lifelong environmentalist and artist.

 

[triplenickel]

It never occurred to me that I would have to chose between the two.
I guess that's why I didn't pickup on your question.
If the question is pick one I would go with solar and fish with others.
Lucky for me I don't have to pick only one.
I do have money right now to go solar but I still have the problem with moving.
I have been investigating setting up a farm with a couple other guys that want to go solar.
They don't have a location at their house because of trees.
Last week we talked with a friend but he has plans of moving so his land is out.
Darn because he had the perfect spot for 75 or 100 panels.
I'll keep looking or I may slap 10 panels on my house in the spring.
Till then I will continue with other green investments.

You make me chuckle, the time frame has moved way up for you all of a sudden. You don't have to make the choice however that's not the point I was trying to make, the point was the world isn't buying the solutions you're selling hence the futility of skipping the bridge fuel. Personal priorities still remain the same people don't actually want the big change no matter what they say. If you don't believe it ask yourself how many other good hearted volunteers like yourself show up to do the good things you listed earlier. What 10, 20, 50 100 people from a valley full of people with attitudes predominantly slanted to the green side?

I still don't know how much BC met coal is contributing to CO2 but for the sake of argument lets say it's a lot

But it's not, the entire country is well under 2% of global emissions, and again there's bigger fish to fry than these 2 industries that provide us with what we want, need, can't and aren't willing to give up.

If the country has not put a price on their CO2 then we need to. If all suppliers did the same then the customer would get the idea in quick time and would price it. If a supply nation refused to price it then we should not do business with them. That might get their attention.

It probably would but what's the point in even talking about it, ya think we're gonna get China, Russia, Venezuela, the Middle East etc to buy in? Wanna get in a trade war with China? lol Ideals vs reality again. Totally unrealistic that it will happen and it's not a partisan issue, voting Green or NDP won't change it. If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle!

Hard to say as some are bad and some are good but if everyone priced it then we would not need to make that choice. I see this a mostly a US problem as they want to expand coal because they will be consuming less now that they are going clean energy with their new regulations. We see that with the big push to expand Vancouver Port to start shipping US coal. Groups down in the US have stopped the plans to ship out coal from new ports there. We need to do the same thing as this will drive up the price and perhaps kill old king coal.

Nope it would just hit people in the pocketbook for necessities and have an almost zero effect like the 70% increase in fuel did on consumption as evidenced in our previous posts. We're not talking about strictly luxury items people are just gonna do with out all of a sudden. It would just shift production elsewhere by giving companies the price they needed to develop new unconventional, dirtier, more expensive and energy intensive plays.

Also who's cleaner that has the export capacity to fill the gaps that us pulling out would create? No one that I'm aware of. Beginning to see the big picture and the reality yet? Skip the feel good about having no choice, saying that isn't a plausible plan that's just BAU!

Every industry in Canada has made strides in cutting back their CO2 except one. We both know who that is. It's the industry that Harper has promised to regulate for 6 or 7 years and it's the one that he tells us that regulation is coming at the end of the year but never does ....... Frankly it's an embarrassment on the world stage. Here is a link for you to read., lots of info there. Note that we wont be making our commitments of 17% less then 2005 level by 2020 according to the Auditor General.

Not 100% true, the energy sector has made leaps and bounds in terms of efficiency and emissions and we work diligently everyday to do it better. The price on carbon is the third largest cost driver in the company I work for, it's only natural for us to do our best to reduce it. It might not be fast enough for you, that's fair but what you said in the first sentence is blatantly misleading or a lie because I think you're informed enough to know better.

Just so I'm clear on the answer to my question about why this is your campaign instead of the actual big players (that's your full answer minus a web link above). Is it because you're mad at Harper? That was all I could get out of your reply. Speaking of Harper, I'm pretty shocked to hear his latest approval ratings.

There is a difference between cost and price. Think about it this way. The price goes up at the pump or when you pay you NG bill. That is a hit we see up front and we will make a choice if to drive less or buy an efficient car. Same thing at you house when you get your NG bill. You will turn down the heat, insulate, upgrade windows or what ever. The cost (price less rebate) is something that is paid back in the form of lower provincial tax. It's something we don't see and therefore out of mind but is none the less there.

I see what you're saying, it's in the same vein as my (rather cynical) rants about society in general not being able to get their brain around the big picture the government is counting on us being dummies . Just like my coworkers wanking on about taxes paid on a good overtime check even though it comes back at the end of the year. Another thing I was thinking about last night in the spirit of shifting costs to the end user like the carbon tax does why not reassign the emissions from the energy sector to the end users as well? It's not like we do it for our own benefit. Like I've said before everyone owns a piece of it and if they could actually see how much they're responsible for. Like yourself 2 days ago claiming you'd been off NG for a decade until it was pointed out otherwise, and you're one of the informed ones. It's so short sighted and narrow minded to just blame the mining, forest, and energy industries they all only exist for one reason and it's not their fault. It's not their fault anymore than it's a policeman's fault for the cost of law enforcement or the doctors and hospitals for healthcare.

I'm still not buying the tax is responsible for the fuel consumption numbers when price at the pump went up 70% in the same time frame. There's no way you could sanely argue that if price remained at 2008 levels and only the carbon tax was applied it would have had an effect.

Here's something I hadn't thought about, but got me thinking for sure. Hopefully people are smart enough (not likely) to realize that our control of forest fires is at least as much a part of the pine beetle problem as climate change is.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/l...forests-alarming-environmental-group-1.792564

Barking up the wrong trees (good pun eh) boys. There's far bigger emitters than the LNG side of the industry (assuming you're still ok with domestic NG today) like agriculture and possibly transport. Transport is often shown as the biggest depending on the source and accounting method you choose to believe even different government sources contradict each other. Forget the social programming and go after the big ones. Speaking of social programming I laughed when I read DeSmog calling NG vehicles "fracked gas vehicles" first deniers instead of skeptics now this. lol The propaganda is so rampant on both sides, not a big deal some may think but when you consider how easily the bulk of the population is manipulated and influenced by this stuff it kind of is. NG is a great alternative to gasoline and diesel especially in the heavy truck transport sector but now they'll ensure people develop a falsely negative view. Brilliant work, and so inline with their goals. Like the saying goes "none of us are as stupid as all of us."

 

[triplenickel]

Along with giving emerging economies (the largest global emitters) a realistic option to use greener fuels and other western resources (unarguably the best in the world) some other ideas I'd like to see would be the government making the carbon tax a traditional non neutral tax so it has maximum effect. Not like they're running it properly if it's a $500 million deficit anyways that's so far from neutral. If that $500 million is gonna be taken from other social programs this seems like a good one to give it to instead. Use that revenue instead of the measly $25 million Innovative Clean Energy Fund to reinvest in alternatives or subsidies like you've suggested. Don't **** around either, don't spend the next 10 years and hundreds of millions on studies and crap pick a spot, stick to it and get right to building. No more infighting, people don't want to hear or see windmills, worried about birds or animal migration corridors from the wind and solar farms, that's just too damn bad. Get on with the tidal energy too, just go already we can afford it. We could also follow Edmonton's lead on a bigger scale and use the methane generated in our dumps to power electricity generation. There will be some c02 but it's still better than ch4. Build more hydro electric up our export capacity to ship it east and south to relieve dependence on coal and nuke power plants. Also ramp up CCS on a big scale. Subsidize the manufacturing sector some more and bring those jobs back from China where they can be done in an ethical way but compete pricewise. Less emissions, human rights issues and more jobs for us. Simple viable solutions. Just shutting down LNG which was where this thread started is laughable at best, it's a barely audible fart in the wind. Realistically giving it a thumbs up will also drive domestic cost up so that will reduce consumption here, that's what we want right? Conversion to alternatives on a scale big enough to have an impact is by most accounts decades away, 40 years seems to be the average. How dirty do we want to be in the meantime?

 

[triplenickel]

http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/energy-and-resources/more-methane-surprises
More Methane Surprises
High concentrations of methane plumes found rising from the floor of the East Siberian Arctic Ocean and along the US Atlantic Coast.
BY Janet Kimantas
Dec 2014 | Water 40.5

Methane has been in the news for some time now as a source of climate alarm. The potential release of this powerful greenhouse gas from melting Arctic permafrost had considerable traction in the news over the last year.

The impact of methane on climate change is more than 20 times greater than carbon dioxide over a 100-year time frame, according to the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

In July of this year, researchers from Stockholm University investigated plumes of methane rising from the floor of the East Siberian Arctic Ocean. The plumes themselves were not a surprise to the scientists, but their high concentration was unexpected.

Chief scientist Örjan Gustafsson speculates that the gas may be coming from collapsing methane hydrates – pockets of methane that are trapped in frozen water. Fears of methane release have most often focused on melting permafrost releasing the gas byproducts of rotting organic matter. Methane also leaks from vents and fissures in the seabed.

Methane hydrate pockets form under highly specific conditions of high water pressure and low temperature, where they generally remain stable. Gustafsson explains that a tongue of Atlantic water may have warmed up enough in recent years to start destabilizing the hydrates.

Methane hydrates have recently become the focus of efforts by India, Japan and Korea to develop as a source of future energy. There could potentially be more fossil fuel in them than there is in conventional reserves of coal, oil and gas. But if climate warming causes them to destabilize they could escape directly into the atmosphere.

Jason Box, a climatologist at the Geological Survey of Denmark and Greenland, was closely following the research expedition. He was moved to tweet that “If even a small fraction of Arctic sea floor carbon is released to the atmosphere, we’re f’d.”

In August, researchers released a report describing the discovery of hundreds of methane plumes seeping from organic sediments along the US Atlantic coast. They also found patches of methane hydrate. This was quite unexpected for this particular environment and the scientists speculated that if the East Coast could harbour so many methane pits, there could be tens of thousands more awaiting discovery.

The Atlantic methane mostly dissolves in the ocean and doesn’t release to the atmosphere, but it still adds to the ocean’s carbon content. Some of the difficulties in predicting the behaviour of these phenomena include the rate at which the climate is changing in the Arctic, the unprecedented nature of the unfolding processes and the complex combinations of rapidly changing events. Peter Wadhams, internationally renowned Arctic expert and head of the Polar Ocean Physics Group at Cambridge University, points out that climate models need to represent very fine-scale processes to include all the possible effects. These effects include the break-up of sea ice due to unusually large waves that develop on newly ice-free Arctic water, and surface meltwater pools that melt all the way through ice sheets. Only with sophisticated models like this, he says, can we accurately see the possibilities of offshore permafrost melt – including methane hydrates.

Methane hydrate, also known as methane clathrate, is ice composed of crystalline cages called clathrates that trap methane gas molecules. Hydrates form when temperatures are cold enough and/or pressure is high enough, as in deep water. The source of the methane can be either thermogenic – created by deep-earth heating, or biogenic – created by microbial action in top layers of sediment and in soil. When clathrates melt, they release their trapped methane from the ground, or from bubble plumes when underwater. In the Arctic, clathrates also form on land both above and below the permafrost line.

Janet Kimantas
Janet Kimantas is A\J's associate editor, and a lifelong environmentalist and artist.

I know a way to relieve the subterranean pressure, slow the release and convert it into less harmful c02, jobs, opportunities, and products needed everyday. lol
If anyone is interested they don't form only underwater, they form anywhere the pressure and temperature parameters are just right such as pipelines and process equipment. Statistically more dangerous than h2s.

 

[GLG]

I know a way to relieve the subterranean pressure, slow the release and convert it into less harmful c02, jobs, opportunities, and products needed everyday. lol
If anyone is interested they don't form only underwater, they form anywhere the pressure and temperature parameters are just right such as pipelines and process equipment. Statistically more dangerous than h2s.

You have never been on a drill rig that has to worry about this have you?
I have and it's no joking matter.
Drilled in Tuc and Beaufort and this was a danger we had to look out for all the time.
They lost rigs, before my time, due to it being so close to the surface.
It would not be a big deal if the hydrates were buried deep but they are not.
Your flippant remark about harvesting them is not well conceived.
What would you do stick a great big funnel over them and suck off the CH4?

Im not sure how much danger this represents but we should take this very seriously.
If the hydrates start melting out and we don't get control of our temp it's game over.

 

[GLG]

3X5 so lets cut everything down to the bone of your argument.
You want LNG because you think it's a bridge fuel.
You want continued coal because Canada is a small player.
You don't think Carbon Tax works because of 2008.
You don't think BC or Canada should do anything to our CO2 emissions because we are only 2%
Your proof is you think no one cares so carry on with BAU

Correct me if I'm wrong.

One more thing where did you get that 500 million number on the Carbon tax ?
My info say's 20 million
http://www.fin.gov.bc.ca/tbs/tp/climate/carbon_tax.htm

 

[GLG]

Along with giving emerging economies (the largest global emitters) a realistic option to use greener fuels and other western resources (unarguably the best in the world) some other ideas I'd like to see would be the government making the carbon tax a traditional non neutral tax so it has maximum effect. Not like they're running it properly if it's a $500 million deficit anyways that's so far from neutral. If that $500 million is gonna be taken from other social programs this seems like a good one to give it to instead. Use that revenue instead of the measly $25 million Innovative Clean Energy Fund to reinvest in alternatives or subsidies like you've suggested. Don't **** around either, don't spend the next 10 years and hundreds of millions on studies and crap pick a spot, stick to it and get right to building. No more infighting, people don't want to hear or see windmills, worried about birds or animal migration corridors from the wind and solar farms, that's just too damn bad. Get on with the tidal energy too, just go already we can afford it. We could also follow Edmonton's lead on a bigger scale and use the methane generated in our dumps to power electricity generation. There will be some c02 but it's still better than ch4. Build more hydro electric up our export capacity to ship it east and south to relieve dependence on coal and nuke power plants. Also ramp up CCS on a big scale. Subsidize the manufacturing sector some more and bring those jobs back from China where they can be done in an ethical way but compete pricewise. Less emissions, human rights issues and more jobs for us. Simple viable solutions. Just shutting down LNG which was where this thread started is laughable at best, it's a barely audible fart in the wind. Realistically giving it a thumbs up will also drive domestic cost up so that will reduce consumption here, that's what we want right? Conversion to alternatives on a scale big enough to have an impact is by most accounts decades away, 40 years seems to be the average. How dirty do we want to be in the meantime?

Wow... should have read this before posting my previous post...
I'm for keeping the Carbon take revenue neutral but I do see your point.
It would go far if the money went to BC Hydro (Crown Corp) to build out other clean energy like you mentioned.
The thing about wind is..... The opposition to them is logarithmic to distance.
Port Hardy is a good example as most opposition to it is far away in Ottawa.
I see CCS as a mugs game but I think the fossil fuel industry see it as it's only hope.
With that said I see major money from Ottawa flowing that way in the form of subsides.
I'm not for that as they can pay for it themselves and yes it would push up the cost to the consumer.
That's the whole point... The consumer can then choose what to do.

 

[agentaqua]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/12/2...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=291214

BC's LNG Strategy Is Not Climate Friendly

Despite environment minister's claims, it won't displace coal in Asia.

By Josha MacNab, 23 Dec 2014, TheTyee.ca

BC climate change infographic

From Pembina Institute infographic titled "Is B.C. LNG really a climate change solution?" Scroll to the bottom of this story to see the full graphic.

World leaders gathered in Lima, Peru, this month for global climate change talks. British Columbia's Environment Minister Mary Polak was among them. She shared the province's successful experience in implementing commendable climate policies, like B.C.'s carbon tax -- a policy that the president of the World Bank hailed as a "powerful example" of carbon pricing.

However, Minister Polak also included the province's liquefied natural gas export aspirations as part of B.C.'s climate success story, arguing that LNG will displace coal in Asia. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support this claim.

LNG versus coal

Compared against each other, a coal-fired electricity plant will produce more carbon pollution than a gas-fired electricity plant on a life-cycle basis if methane emissions from natural gas extraction are well managed. But research from the Pembina Institute and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions shows that, without strong climate policies, increasing the supply of gas in the global market does not lead to the displacement of more polluting energy sources like coal. It simply feeds an increasing energy demand with additional fossil fuels, putting the world squarely on track for dangerous climate change.

A study published recently in Nature supports this conclusion. For natural gas to displace carbon-intensive forms of energy like coal there need to be climate policies in place that shift investment decision-making. A strong carbon price, for example, would provide an incentive to replace coal plants with lower-carbon energy alternatives.

The recent China-U.S. climate agreement is an example of a step in the right direction towards what is needed to encourage the development of climate policies that could result in LNG replacing coal in China. However, the same climate policies that shift investments towards lower-carbon choices ultimately result in a decrease in the demand for all fossil fuels, including natural gas. In fact, as part of that agreement, China plans to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its primary energy consumption to around 20 per cent by 2030.

Gas as a 'bridge fuel'

Our research shows that less natural gas will be used in a world with strong climate policies. In the short term, and in the context of strong climate policy, natural gas can act as a "bridge fuel" that helps the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and more energy efficiency. To keep the planet below an average of 2°C of global warming (the internationally recognized limit to avoid dangerous climate change), that bridge must be very short: by 2030 natural gas demand would peak, and by mid-century it would fall below current levels.

Governments and industry also need to get better at measuring methane emissions that result from the extraction of natural gas. Recent studies have concluded that this carbon pollution is higher than previously estimated. This means that the role for natural gas as a bridge fuel in a carbon-constrained world could be even shorter, unless methane management practices improve significantly.

An economic risk

Not only is it inaccurate to claim that LNG is a "climate solution," it's also economically unwise. Tying B.C.'s economic engine to a resource that will decline in 15 years if governments around the world implement strong climate policy is a recipe for a major boom and bust -- something many B.C. communities are unfortunately all too familiar with.

Instead of focusing so intently on LNG, B.C. should look at what types of energy solutions will be needed with strong climate policies in place, and figure out how to supply those needs. In such a world, the International Energy Agency predicts that by 2035 demand for renewable energy would increase by 127 per cent over 2011 levels. Meanwhile, total energy demand is predicted to go down globally by 20 per cent relative to a world without strong climate policies, thanks to the rise of energy efficiency and conservation.

This represents a massively growing global market for clean energy technology and services, one in which B.C. already has an advantage. For example, analysis from consulting firm KPMG found 200 clean technology companies operating in the province, employing over 8,000 people and generating $2.5 billion in annual revenue, primarily from exports. Many of these companies are well positioned to take advantage of a growing market for clean energy.

There are many ways B.C. can and should play a productive role in global climate change initiatives. Fortunately, with its track record of implementing credible climate policies, a global reputation for climate leadership and a growing clean energy sector, B.C. has a lot more to offer the world than more fossil fuels.

 

[triplenickel]

One more thing where did you get that 500 million number on the Carbon tax ?

I got the info from your post #1654, I'll copy it below. Where did you get it? lol Could your 20 million be an annual instead of total number? I guess this shows how convoluted, and open to interpretation this whole issue is eh? The government can't even supply us with consistent info. Here's what you posted;

Myths and Facts About the Carbon Tax

Myth: The carbon tax is just a tax grab.
Fact: Every dollar raised by the carbon tax is returned to individuals and businesses through tax reductions. None of the carbon tax revenue is used to fund government spending.
Since it was first introduced in 2008, the carbon tax has returned $500 million more to taxpayers in tax reductions than it has raised in revenue.

You want LNG because you think it's a bridge fuel.

Yes we need something for the next 40 or so years until the alternatives have a real chance of substantial impact. Just like here it's not going to happen overnight there, I'm sure you'll agree alternatives are close but not there yet. What's a better realistic alternative for them/us in the interim? As I said earlier (again, maybe you missed this too) how dirty do you want it in the meantime? Don't forget you also said earlier you're OK with the industry on the domestic side and LNG is still better than the coal they currently use for power generation as per one of your links, it's another point we agreed on earlier. Also think of all the products made from it, are you ready to go without them? You know like the luxuries like ammonia to make fertilizer so we have a chance of feeding 7 billion mouths. Which is another chunk of the gas sectors emissions that should be pinned straight to agriculture or consumers as they're the ones it's produced for the natural gas sector isn't doing it for itself.

You want continued coal because Canada is a small player.

Yes, that's one part but not really what this thread is about. Also let's not confuse met coal and power plant coal. I don't have to like it but here's the reality from my perspective feel free to correct any inaccuracies based on your perspective. Would the world be better without it? Of course we would but we need steel and all the other products that come from it, Canada is as good as it gets and yes that industry is a ridiculously small player in the grand scheme of things. Does it feel good, sell papers or win elections? Nope but it's reality. Canada, not just the industries in question could go to zero tomorrow, knock the entire 1.8% (the high end of the scale) out and it wouldn't matter a lick globally. Unless you're gonna argue that a 1.8% global reduction is significant in which case these goals are easily accomplished with no industrial impact needed. I'm not a mathmagician but if we killed these industries what would it be .0001% of the global total? lol Actually it would be a net negative as it would be made up in a third world country, another idea posted earlier. As for what the rest of the world thinks just like I tell the teenage step daughter do what you think is right and don't worry about what others think.

You don't think Carbon Tax works because of 2008.

I'm not sure it works for a few reasons. I think what you're getting hung up on is attributing the drop in consumption entirely or even primarily to the carbon tax. How can you attribute the 4.5% drop in fuel consumption to it alone when the cost of fuel went up 70%, and that's the low end of the average? It makes no sense and is almost verbatim from what I posted earlier so I'm not sure how you missed it. I'm open to info showing it was the tax and not the increase if you have it, all I see is an assumption from you that the 2 are related. No different than my assumption but one seems much more plausible than the other to me. I still don't necessarily agree that a neutral tax is a deterrent, factor in the extra money paid out and it makes even less sense. Also after a price rises it becomes the norm and things go back to BAU in pretty short order. Remember how people reacted when it hit $1.20 on the way up, then remember how they reacted when it hit $1.20 on the way down? Human nature is quite predictable in many ways. As said before how will we correlate the carbon tax to the inevitable increase in fuel consumption now that it's under a buck? You already know the answer and it kinda shows how ineffective it is and likely unrelated the 2 are eh? Here I'll spell it out instead of leaving it open to interpretation, the coming increase in consumption will have nothing to do with carbon tax and everything to do with the overall price making the inverse the most likely reality.

Here's one I dug back up that I stumbled on a while ago, it raises a few good points. No doubt a non peer reviewed opinion based piece of right wing conservative denier propaganda. lol (the lol means I was joking about the last part)

http://www.troymedia.com/2013/08/18/bcs-carbon-tax-has-had-little-impact-on-fuel-consumption/

Your proof is you think no one cares so carry on with BAU

I never said that, to paraphrase I said it's not the top of peoples priority lists and the chance of them buying the hardcore solutions that you're suggesting is about as likely as finding a unicorn. Economy and money is at the top of the list every time. Alternative energy can't compete on that front, it's already more expensive using Chinese sourced products so consider where it would end up if it paid energy and mining type wages. That wouldn't help tourism one bit! Whether your solutions are better or not for the environment (I also conceded earlier they are no doubt better) they won't gain traction so we'll end up mired in debate when we could be doing things that still move us forward. Don't believe me about priorities google the top 10 issues people worry about. They're more worried about homosexuals in a bunch of surveys! Hmmm climate change or whether the guy next door like kissing boys or girls, which will affect me more? Figure that one out. lol

Here's what I said earlier so you don't have to look back;

Your plan is good, probably best for the environment but what it isn't is realistic or ready to be adopted by society. People don't want that reality. Just like smokers don't wanna quit until they have cancer, people don't cut salt until they have a jammer etc..... So with that solution so far from reality we'll be stuck arguing instead of going forward.

I'd still like to know why people have this as the cause du jour as well. It's not the big player and it's probably the hardest one to give up in daily life.
Any thoughts on my rant about debiting the end user with the emissions rather than the supplier? It would follow the same logic as the carbon tax you support, let the end user take the responsibility which would probably let the market do what it does best (to paraphrase you).

Your flippant remark about harvesting them is not well conceived.
What would you do stick a great big funnel over them and suck off the CH4?

Really, are you new to the internet? It was obviously tongue in cheek, did you notice this part of the post?

lol

Just in case you are new that means I was kidding, lighten up Francis.

Im not sure how much danger this represents but we should take this very seriously.

I'm obviously quite aware of the danger it poses remember we both want less c02, that's another thing I've said directly to you at least 6 times in this thread let alone the last week. If you noticed this;

Statistically more dangerous than h2s

You'll realize again I'm quite aware of the dangers on more than one front. To answer your question, no I skipped the rigs and went straight to operations.

GLG you either have problems with comprehension, or emotion has overridden reason and ability to process what you read, or you need a new prescription. You consistently miss obvious points and straightforward ideas. I suppose it could be me too, when I say things like it's a great bridge fuel I can see why you'd need to ask if I thought it was a good bridge fuel. I said it in 1642, and you quoted it in 1643, as your so fond of saying to others do keep up. Despite the required repetition it's still an enjoyable conversation. I'm home tomorrow afternoon for a couple weeks though so you're gonna have to play with OBD and debate whether the changes everyone over 15 has witnessed are actually climate change or not as this is way low on my
fun scale in the real world.

In all seriousness though have you seen this, I heard about it on CBC last night for the first time as I commuted in my CNG powered truck. Which I filled it from the $100k fuelling station we (the industry that's doing nothing) built.

http://www.nerdist.com/2014/03/phytomining-how-to-plants-could-do-our-digging-for-us/

Phytomining and phytoremediation.

 

[triplenickel]

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/12/2...eadlines&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=291214

BC's LNG Strategy Is Not Climate Friendly

Despite environment minister's claims, it won't displace coal in Asia.

By Josha MacNab, 23 Dec 2014, TheTyee.ca

BC climate change infographic

From Pembina Institute infographic titled "Is B.C. LNG really a climate change solution?" Scroll to the bottom of this story to see the full graphic.

World leaders gathered in Lima, Peru, this month for global climate change talks. British Columbia's Environment Minister Mary Polak was among them. She shared the province's successful experience in implementing commendable climate policies, like B.C.'s carbon tax -- a policy that the president of the World Bank hailed as a "powerful example" of carbon pricing.

However, Minister Polak also included the province's liquefied natural gas export aspirations as part of B.C.'s climate success story, arguing that LNG will displace coal in Asia. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support this claim.

LNG versus coal

Compared against each other, a coal-fired electricity plant will produce more carbon pollution than a gas-fired electricity plant on a life-cycle basis if methane emissions from natural gas extraction are well managed. But research from the Pembina Institute and the Pacific Institute for Climate Solutions shows that, without strong climate policies, increasing the supply of gas in the global market does not lead to the displacement of more polluting energy sources like coal. It simply feeds an increasing energy demand with additional fossil fuels, putting the world squarely on track for dangerous climate change.

A study published recently in Nature supports this conclusion. For natural gas to displace carbon-intensive forms of energy like coal there need to be climate policies in place that shift investment decision-making. A strong carbon price, for example, would provide an incentive to replace coal plants with lower-carbon energy alternatives.

The recent China-U.S. climate agreement is an example of a step in the right direction towards what is needed to encourage the development of climate policies that could result in LNG replacing coal in China. However, the same climate policies that shift investments towards lower-carbon choices ultimately result in a decrease in the demand for all fossil fuels, including natural gas. In fact, as part of that agreement, China plans to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in its primary energy consumption to around 20 per cent by 2030.

Gas as a 'bridge fuel'

Our research shows that less natural gas will be used in a world with strong climate policies. In the short term, and in the context of strong climate policy, natural gas can act as a "bridge fuel" that helps the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and more energy efficiency. To keep the planet below an average of 2°C of global warming (the internationally recognized limit to avoid dangerous climate change), that bridge must be very short: by 2030 natural gas demand would peak, and by mid-century it would fall below current levels.

Governments and industry also need to get better at measuring methane emissions that result from the extraction of natural gas. Recent studies have concluded that this carbon pollution is higher than previously estimated. This means that the role for natural gas as a bridge fuel in a carbon-constrained world could be even shorter, unless methane management practices improve significantly.

An economic risk

Not only is it inaccurate to claim that LNG is a "climate solution," it's also economically unwise. Tying B.C.'s economic engine to a resource that will decline in 15 years if governments around the world implement strong climate policy is a recipe for a major boom and bust -- something many B.C. communities are unfortunately all too familiar with.

Instead of focusing so intently on LNG, B.C. should look at what types of energy solutions will be needed with strong climate policies in place, and figure out how to supply those needs. In such a world, the International Energy Agency predicts that by 2035 demand for renewable energy would increase by 127 per cent over 2011 levels. Meanwhile, total energy demand is predicted to go down globally by 20 per cent relative to a world without strong climate policies, thanks to the rise of energy efficiency and conservation.

This represents a massively growing global market for clean energy technology and services, one in which B.C. already has an advantage. For example, analysis from consulting firm KPMG found 200 clean technology companies operating in the province, employing over 8,000 people and generating $2.5 billion in annual revenue, primarily from exports. Many of these companies are well positioned to take advantage of a growing market for clean energy.

There are many ways B.C. can and should play a productive role in global climate change initiatives. Fortunately, with its track record of implementing credible climate policies, a global reputation for climate leadership and a growing clean energy sector, B.C. has a lot more to offer the world than more fossil fuels.

More meaningless manipulative journalism with snippets on their own lacking reference, or context and flip flopping like a half dead humpy.

So is it;

arguing that LNG will displace coal in Asia. Unfortunately, the evidence doesn't support this claim.

Or is it;

The recent China-U.S. climate agreement is an example of a step in the right direction towards what is needed to encourage the development of climate policies that could result in LNG replacing coal in China

In the short term, and in the context of strong climate policy, natural gas can act as a "bridge fuel" that helps the transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy and more energy efficiency

I'd also like to see the evidence mentioned above, not that I doubt it exists I just wanna see it for my own education so I can make my own choice instead of them making it for me with their obvious slant.

Compared against each other, a coal-fired electricity plant will produce more carbon pollution than a gas-fired electricity plant on a life-cycle basis if methane emissions from natural gas extraction are well managed.

So for the next 15 years are they advocating for BAU, do they have an alternative, or do they just have some sort of bias? BAU doesn't seem inline with their ideals when they acknowledge a better option exists.

an incentive to replace coal plants with lower-carbon energy alternatives

This on it's own assumes that no new ones are being built.

it's also economically unwise. Tying B.C.'s economic engine to a resource that will decline in 15 years

Where's the rest of the info to make this meaningful so we can decide? Where's it going to peak, where's it going to decline from, show the projected numbers. Even in a decline after the billions that will be spent on construction alone make their way into the economy we still might be ahead. How much has been generated in the previous 15 years so we have some idea what they're talking about. Just the facts please, I don't need your opinion I can form my own.

by 2030 natural gas demand would peak, and by mid-century it would fall below current levels.

So how far below does that mean? Current demand makes a good case for LNG. Is there a plan to make the products that use natural gas as a feed stock with solar panels, and windmills in the future?

Governments and industry also need to get better at measuring methane emissions that result from the extraction of natural gas. Recent studies have concluded that this carbon pollution is higher than previously estimated. This means that the role for natural gas as a bridge fuel in a carbon-constrained world could be even shorter, unless methane management practices improve significantly.

Ah the good old crusade du jour, never mind that cows and garbage dumps are bigger methane emitters. Hmmm can I give up/reduce consumption of steak and burgers or all that comes from natural gas easier...........Come on people think for yourselves!! The focus on this industry is crazy, bordering on irrational. Like it or not there's bigger fish to fry that are easier to catch.

Cont

 

[triplenickel]

Instead of focusing so intently on LNG, B.C. should look at what types of energy solutions will be needed with strong climate policies in place, and figure out how to supply those needs. In such a world, the International Energy Agency predicts that by 2035 demand for renewable energy would increase by 127 per cent over 2011 levels. Meanwhile, total energy demand is predicted to go down globally by 20 per cent relative to a world without strong climate policies, thanks to the rise of energy efficiency and conservation.

A few things popped into my head when I read that, first was heck yeah let's take advantage of this trend and get on with alternative technology that's a no brainer that anyone on either would think. Since they're making an economic argument at this point in the article I also wanna know where renewable energy stacks up to non renewable dollar wise, without that info the 127% is meaningless for comparison although 127% will stir emotions. Then it says over all demand will go down, so does that mean just like NG the demand for this is going to decline as well? If so wouldn't the same boom and bust logic apply? Since this is an economic argument at this point in the article how do we decide without knowing? If output not just demand grows 127% what percentage of overall needs will that be and how do they suggest we fill the gap? Coal, nuke, NG, geothermal, tidal, solar, wind? 25% of the info but 100% of the emotional manipulation.

2.5 billion in annual revenue

In other words almost a fifth of the smallest of 17 or 18 whatever it is proposed LNG projects, speaking strictly of economics of course.

There are many ways B.C. can and should play a productive role in global climate change initiatives. Fortunately, with its track record of implementing credible climate policies, a global reputation for climate leadership and a growing clean energy sector, B.C. has a lot more to offer the world than more fossil fuels.

Yup, why does it have to be one or the other?

I hate when either side pulls this crap, meaningless article to push the masses who can't/won't/don't ask questions like above when they read it. No need to read it anyways really, the bias from Pembina makes it as much a forgone conclusion as it would have been if EnCana wrote an article. It does zero for credibility IMO.

 

[GLG]

You don't think Carbon Tax works because of 2008.

I'm not sure it works for a few reasons. I think what you're getting hung up on is attributing the drop in consumption entirely or even primarily to the carbon tax. How can you attribute the 4.5% drop in fuel consumption to it alone when the cost of fuel went up 70%, and that's the low end of the average? It makes no sense and is almost verbatim from what I posted earlier so I'm not sure how you missed it. I'm open to info showing it was the tax and not the increase if you have it, all I see is an assumption from you that the 2 are related. No different than my assumption but one seems much more plausible than the other to me. I still don't necessarily agree that a neutral tax is a deterrent, factor in the extra money paid out and it makes even less sense. Also after a price rises it becomes the norm and things go back to BAU in pretty short order. Remember how people reacted when it hit $1.20 on the way up, then remember how they reacted when it hit $1.20 on the way down? Human nature is quite predictable in many ways. As said before how will we correlate the carbon tax to the inevitable increase in fuel consumption now that it's under a buck? You already know the answer and it kinda shows how ineffective it is and likely unrelated the 2 are eh? Here I'll spell it out instead of leaving it open to interpretation, the coming increase in consumption will have nothing to do with carbon tax and everything to do with the overall price making the inverse the most likely reality.

Yes the price went up as it did across Canada so lets look what happened across Canada and compare what happened here in BC. Following your logic the consumption would have fallen across Canada and that did not happen. You will see that BC was the only place that the consumption went down in all years. That's numbers from Stats Canada and you can follow this link to check.
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/trade37c-eng.htm

I do agree that we may see an increase in consumption in 2015 due to the price drop. Now would be a good time to up the CO2 price from 30/ton to 40/ton like it was in the original plan....

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 848"]
<tbody>[TR]
[TD]Year[/TD]
[TD]2009[/TD]
[TD]2010[/TD]
[TD]2011[/TD]
[TD]2012[/TD]
[TD]2013[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD][/TD]
[TD="colspan: 5"]thousand litres[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Canada[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]39,708,461[/TD]
[TD]40,101,125[/TD]
[TD]40,412,210[/TD]
[TD]40,444,103[/TD]
[TD]41,449,632[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gross sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]41,028,454[/TD]
[TD]41,452,699[/TD]
[TD]42,076,411[/TD]
[TD]42,032,522[/TD]
[TD]42,902,507[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of diesel oil[/TD]
[TD]16,188,394[/TD]
[TD]16,778,508[/TD]
[TD]17,797,512[/TD]
[TD]17,455,812[/TD]
[TD]17,897,757[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Alta.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]5,350,400[/TD]
[TD]5,410,900[/TD]
[TD]5,774,000[/TD]
[TD]6,001,700[/TD]
[TD]6,199,500[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gross sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]5,569,300[/TD]
[TD]5,618,300[/TD]
[TD]5,973,000[/TD]
[TD]6,221,400[/TD]
[TD]6,369,700[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of diesel oil[/TD]
[TD]3,632,700[/TD]
[TD]3,629,600[/TD]
[TD]3,863,300[/TD]
[TD]4,054,000[/TD]
[TD]4,204,500[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]B.C.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]4,536,112[/TD]
[TD]4,560,666[/TD]
[TD]4,537,496[/TD]
[TD]4,348,707[/TD]
[TD]4,336,807[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gross sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]4,646,008[/TD]
[TD]4,715,626[/TD]
[TD]4,741,085[/TD]
[TD]4,682,115[/TD]
[TD]4,504,633[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of diesel oil[/TD]
[TD]1,647,876[/TD]
[TD]1,838,578[/TD]
[TD]2,221,338[/TD]
[TD]1,761,637[/TD]
[TD]2,145,516[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Que.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]8,110,994[/TD]
[TD]8,269,968[/TD]
[TD]8,362,093[/TD]
[TD]8,342,269[/TD]
[TD]8,188,958[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gross sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]8,388,442[/TD]
[TD]8,550,071[/TD]
[TD]8,735,461[/TD]
[TD]8,628,479[/TD]
[TD]8,607,609[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of diesel oil[/TD]
[TD]2,948,481[/TD]
[TD]2,953,111[/TD]
[TD]3,117,994[/TD]
[TD]3,127,333[/TD]
[TD]2,958,876[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Ont.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]15,699,670[/TD]
[TD]15,780,676[/TD]
[TD]15,613,137[/TD]
[TD]15,575,798[/TD]
[TD]16,410,257[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gross sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]15,849,943[/TD]
[TD]15,948,319[/TD]
[TD]15,966,493[/TD]
[TD]15,792,909[/TD]
[TD]16,656,023[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of diesel oil[/TD]
[TD]4,760,095[/TD]
[TD]4,986,523[/TD]
[TD]5,020,838[/TD]
[TD]5,043,892[/TD]
[TD]5,171,298[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Man.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]1,412,998[/TD]
[TD]1,422,310[/TD]
[TD]1,444,079[/TD]
[TD]1,478,441[/TD]
[TD]1,524,455[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gross sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]1,572,473[/TD]
[TD]1,586,063[/TD]
[TD]1,607,160[/TD]
[TD]1,586,801[/TD]
[TD]1,609,000[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of diesel oil[/TD]
[TD]727,478[/TD]
[TD]784,956[/TD]
[TD]781,078[/TD]
[TD]777,907[/TD]
[TD]788,827[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD="colspan: 6"]Sask.[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]1,354,844[/TD]
[TD]1,353,666[/TD]
[TD]1,414,017[/TD]
[TD]1,403,561[/TD]
[TD]1,532,344[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Gross sales of gasoline[/TD]
[TD]1,696,273[/TD]
[TD]1,677,169[/TD]
[TD]1,726,192[/TD]
[TD]1,733,074[/TD]
[TD]1,818,614[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]Net sales of diesel oil[/TD]
[TD]1,172,376[/TD]
[TD]1,231,752[/TD]
[TD]1,390,009[/TD]
[TD]1,404,366[/TD]
[TD]1,356,060[/TD]
[/TR]
</tbody>[/TABLE]

Have not the time to get into the rest but perhaps later... Hope you have an uneventful trip back home. Stay safe.

 

[triplenickel]

Yes the price went up as it did across Canada so lets look what happened across Canada and compare what happened here in BC. Following your logic the the consumption would have fallen across Canada and that did not happen. You will see that BC was the only place that the consumption went down in all years. That's numbers from Stats Canada and you can follow this link to check.

I see the numbers and you may be right however what you've posted above still doesn't prove it was solely or even primarily the result of the carbon tax. At the peak of the gas price it was about a $.06 per liter for carbon tax or about 1 tenth the increase from 2008, which seems more likely to have an impact to you? It's not like it's the only option, you're hung up on one piece of a puzzle again, there's lots more to it that could have affected the rest of Canada. BC has one of the lowest median incomes and in the areas where most population is based it has some of the highest cost of living. Maybe peeps are just broke! You should read the link below (same one from above), it lists several far more likely causes like the decline in the forest sector (the largest user in the province) from reduced US housing starts post 2008. It's unlikely to me that the drop can be pinned on carbon tax and carbon tax alone, it could be but I highly doubt it.

http://www.troymedia.com/2013/08/18/bcs-carbon-tax-has-had-little-impact-on-fuel-consumption/

 

[GLG]

I see the numbers and you may be right however what you've posted above still doesn't prove it was solely or even primarily the result of the carbon tax. At the peak of the gas price it was about a $.06 per liter for carbon tax or about 1 tenth the increase from 2008, which seems more likely to have an impact to you? It's not like it's the only option, you're hung up on one piece of a puzzle again, there's lots more to it that could have affected the rest of Canada. BC has one of the lowest median incomes and in the areas where most population is based it has some of the highest cost of living. Maybe peeps are just broke! You should read the link below (same one from above), it lists several far more likely causes like the decline in the forest sector (the largest user in the province) from reduced US housing starts post 2008. It's unlikely to me that the drop can be pinned on carbon tax and carbon tax alone, it could be but I highly doubt it.

http://www.troymedia.com/2013/08/18/bcs-carbon-tax-has-had-little-impact-on-fuel-consumption/

Ok I read it and tracked back the story of the author of the op-ed.
http://www.bcbc.com/news-releases/2013/finalyson-bcs-carbon-tax-hurting-businesses-vancouver-sun
I sent a few hours reading more on the website and they do have some good points and some that I would say are questionable. I expect that for Industry. Where the op-ed comes from is this report of theirs.
http://www.bcbc.com/content/994/EEBv5n4 - Transportation II.pdf . I get it, Carbon tax hurts business so what better way to get rid of it then cast doubt and that it may not work. Makes perfect sense and I have no doubt that it does hurt export business just as they claim and for the reasons they show. Won't change my mind on the carbon tax so... we will have to agree to disagree. One thing that did strike me was when I was reading the different reports was their lack of showing us where their data comes from. They seem to have no problem linking to reports or data on somethings but not on others. An example is forest industry and the claim that they are the biggest user of fuel. Then I went to another report it was transportation and they were the biggest user of fuel. No links to either claim so that makes we wonder if they are not bias depending on what argument they are trying to make. I will give them one thing...... At least they are not climate deniers like some other groups that claim to be "think tanks"...... Check out some of their other reports and look at the members that make up this think tank. Looks like top tier of the who is who in big business here in BC. Not all bad stuff in there and some that I will have to check there sources when it comes to LNG. I also ran across this one that should be read by anyone that wants a clear understanding of fracking.

Environmental Impacts of Shale Gas Extraction in Canada

The North American energy landscape is undergoing dramatic change. Unconventional oil and gas resources are fuelling an energy boom that is having profound economic, environmental, and social impacts across much of the continent, including Canada. At the forefront of this change is shale gas, which has been characterized as a “game changer” because it is abundant, often close to major markets, and relatively inexpensive to produce. Understanding potential impacts is critical for policy makers as they consider how best to manage this resource.
This report comes at the request of Environment Canada, which asked the Council to assemble a multidisciplinary expert panel to consider the state of knowledge of potential environmental impacts from the exploration, extraction, and development of Canada’s shale gas resources. The Council’s report presents a comprehensive examination of shale gas development in Canada. It does not, however, determine the safety, nor the economic benefits, of development. It reviews the use of new and conventional technologies in shale gas extraction, and examines several issues of concern including potential impacts on surface water and groundwater, greenhouse gas emissions, cumulative land disturbance, and human health. The report also outlines approaches for monitoring and research, as well as mitigation and management strategies.
Key findings

Although the technologies and techniques used in extracting shale gas are understood, more research and information is needed on the potential environmental impacts that could result from this process. In Canada, shale gas development has moved forward in British Columbia and Alberta while potential development is still being explored in Quebec, New Brunswick, and Nova Scotia. Unlike the United States, Canadian development has moved at a slower pace. This slower pace of development presents a unique opportunity for Canada to take the time to explore and determine the proper management practices to develop its shale gas resources responsibly.

For Canada, regional context matters. Environments, ecosystems, geographies, and geologies are not uniform across the country. Therefore, consideration of different potential regional impacts need to be closely considered when determining the suitability for shale gas development.

Overall, the Panel found that well-targeted science is required to ensure a better understanding of the environmental impacts of shale gas development. Currently, data about environmental impacts are neither sufficient nor conclusive.

The Panel’s assessment focused on a number of environmental impacts. They include:

- Well Integrity
- Water (groundwater and surface)
- Greenhouse Gas Emissions
- Land Impacts and Seismic Events
- Human Health
- Monitoring and Research

Question

What is the state of knowledge of potential environmental impacts from the exploration, extraction, and development of Canada’s shale gas resources, and what is the state of knowledge of associated mitigation options?

http://www.scienceadvice.ca/uploads... releases/shale gas/shalegas_fullreporten.pdf

Now If they could gives us a report on LNG...... After reading this I now know why there is a moratorium on fracking out east.
I prefer reports like this as it has links to the sources and / or I can find the data that they quote.
Call me a skeptic but I like to check if what some report say's and what the paper actually says.
It gives you a good indication if they are truthful in their claims.

One other thing that popped out was the methane leakage of 3% in production as the make or break on NG to Coal.
Are we under that or is there a plan to get below that?

 

[GLG]

Published on Dec 31, 2014
The first major media call. 2014 no longer "might be" hottest year in the record, it is in fact so.

[QONIAGSKaMo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QONIAGSKaMo

 

[GLG]

Not sure I posted this one before but it's worth see again.....

[h=1]Conservative Calls for Carbon Tax. Without saying "Tax".[/h][ElKtyFmpR5A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElKtyFmpR5A

 

[walleyes]

Some interesting news.

http://www.pipelinenewsnorth.ca/new...-could-be-in-the-works-for-chetwynd-1.1699770