Climate: LNG in B.C. vs Alberta tarsands

[OldBlackDog]

Lol. So lets see what dr. Roy spenser says about your team .

See you are still trying to cherry pick that science thing huh. Typical....
The whole world is talking about a record year and you find some intellectually challenged website to confirm you hoax theory.
You must have searched high an low for that one.... LOL
Perhaps you could send this armchair scientist a link to the UAH as it does have the data he is standing still for in PAWS mode.
Your side.. not to bright...

http://www.drroyspencer.com/

Why Do Different Satellite Datasets Produce Different Global Temperature Trends?

<small style="font-size: 0.9em; line-height: 1.5em; color: rgb(136, 85, 0); font-family: Georgia, 'Times New Roman', Times, serif;">January 6th, 2015 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.</small>I thought it would be useful to again outline the basic reasons why different satellite global temperature datasets (say, UAH and RSS) produce somewhat different temperature trends.
They all stem from the fact that there is not a single satellite which has been operating continuously, in a stable orbit, measuring a constant layer of the atmosphere, at the same local time every day, with no instrumental calibration drifts.

more here.....
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/01...-produce-different-global-temperature-trends/

 

[GLG]

More disturbing news from the Arctic.
[video=vimeo;65512340]http://vimeo.com/65512340

 

[OldBlackDog]

Forgot this did you?

2014 was Third Warmest Year Since 1979, but Just Barely
(with input from John Christy and Phil Gentry)

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2014 is +0.32 deg. C, essentially the same as the November value of +0.33 deg. C (click for full size version):
UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2014_v5

The global, hemispheric, and tropical LT anomalies from the 30-year (1981-2010) average for the last 12 months are:

YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2014 1 +0.291 +0.387 +0.194 -0.029
2014 2 +0.170 +0.320 +0.020 -0.103
2014 3 +0.170 +0.338 +0.002 -0.001
2014 4 +0.190 +0.358 +0.022 +0.092
2014 5 +0.326 +0.325 +0.328 +0.175
2014 6 +0.305 +0.315 +0.295 +0.510
2014 7 +0.304 +0.289 +0.319 +0.451
2014 8 +0.199 +0.244 +0.153 +0.061
2014 9 +0.294 +0.187 +0.401 +0.181
2014 10 +0.365 +0.333 +0.396 +0.189
2014 11 +0.329 +0.354 +0.303 +0.247
2014 12 +0.320 +0.464 +0.177 +0.298

Notes on data released Jan. 6, 2015:

2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”

The 2014 average temperature anomaly is also in keeping with temperatures since late 2001, when the global average temperature rose to a level that is generally warmer than the 30-year baseline average. The most recent 13 complete calendar years, from 2002 through 2014, have averaged 0.18 C (about 0.33 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than the 30-year baseline average, while the global temperature trend during that span was a warming trend at the rate of +0.05 C per decade — which is also statistically insignificant.

Compared to seasonal norms, the coldest annual average temperature on Earth throughout 2014 was just south of Wilmar, Minnesota. The average 2014 temperature there was –1.27 C (about 2.29 degrees F) colder than normal. The ‘warmest’ place throughout 2014 was just south of the North Pole along the International Date Line. Temperatures there averaged 1.65 C (about 2.97 degrees F) warmer than normal for the year.

Annual Global Temperature Anomalies, ranked

1. 1998 0.42
2. 2010 0.40
3. 2014 0.27
4. 2005 0.26
5. 2013 0.24
6. 2002 0.22
7. 2009 0.21
8. 2007 0.20
9. 2003 0.19
10. 2006 0.19
11. 2012 0.17
12. 2011 0.13
13. 2004 0.11
14. 2001 0.11
15. 1991 0.02
16. 1987 0.01
17. 1995 0.01
18. 1988 0.01
19. 1980 -0.01
20. 2008 -0.01
21. 1990 -0.02
22. 1981 -0.05
23. 1997 -0.05
24. 1999 -0.06
25. 1983 -0.06
26. 2000 -0.06
27. 1996 -0.08
28. 1994 -0.11
29. 1979 -0.17
30. 1989 -0.21
31. 1986 -0.24
32. 1993 -0.25
33. 1982 -0.25
34. 1992 -0.29
36. 1985 -0.31
37. 1984 -0.35

With a global average temperature that was 0.32 C (about 0.58 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, December 2014 trailed only December 2003, which averaged 0.37 C (about 0.67 degrees Fahrenheit) warmer than seasonal norms, among the warmest Decembers in the satellite temperature record. While December 2014 ranked second warmest for both the globe and the Northern Hemisphere, it was only the sixth warmest December in the tropics despite an El Niño Pacific Ocean warming event that seems to be forming there.

 

[OldBlackDog]

Dr. Roy Spencer.
Top 10 Climate Discoveries of 2014
December 31st, 2014
Top 10 lists are popular this time of year, so I gave in to the peer pressure. Here’s my Top 10 list of totally true climate stories of 2014. Kind of like that movie “Fargo”, which was not “based on a true story”, but was a totally “true story”.

10. Weather did not even occur before Henry Ford automated the production of the automobile. No, really, look it up.

9. Climate modelers discovered that the Earth is not warming nearly as fast as their models predicted. A multi-billion dollar effort is now underway to make the climate system warm even faster.

8. The Koch Brothers were discovered to be extraterrestrials out to destroy the Earth. If you haven’t heard that yet…you are one of the stupid people who were deemed to be not trustworthy enough with the information.

7. Global sea ice reached a near record maximum, due to a bust-gut effort by Exxon-Mobil which has been making ice cubes in China and shipping them to the poles.

6. Global warming causes cooling. This had always been expected, but it was finally proved by two French literature graduates who Googled it.

5. It’s Bush’s fault.

4. A viable replacement for fossil fuels was finally discovered: Solar Freakin’ Roadways. (If solar panels tilted toward the sun and kept clean are a good idea, then putting them on the ground and running over them with 10-ton trucks is even better!)

3. Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists surveyed agreed that if the global warming issue (and their government funding) went away, their careers would end.

2. The 420th U.N. climate meeting in Lima, Peru, was finally made carbon-neutral with jet travel fueled by methane gathered from unicorn herds, and carbon offsets purchased from Al Gore which will go toward planting of 5.3 billion trees which never die.

1. Carbon dioxide (necessary for life on Earth) was discovered to be different from carbon monoxide (a poisonous gas). The full implications of this finding are still being investigated, but are not expected to interfere with continuing plans to increase energy prices and keep Third World people from becoming First World.

Posted in Blog Article | 51 Comments »

 

[GLG]

Forgot this did you?

2014 was Third Warmest Year Since 1979, but Just Barely
(with input from John Christy and Phil Gentry)

The Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for December, 2014 is +0.32 deg. C, essentially the same as the November value of +0.33 deg. C (click for full size version):
UAH_LT_1979_thru_December_2014_v5

No I didn't I was the one to post the link to the site with the data and the graph.
Here I'll post the graph again seeing your having a hard time with this science stuff.

Annual Global Temperature Anomalies, ranked

1. 1998 0.42
2. 2010 0.40
3. 2014 0.27
4. 2005 0.26
5. 2013 0.24
6. 2002 0.22
7. 2009 0.21
8. 2007 0.20
9. 2003 0.19
10. 2006 0.19
11. 2012 0.17
12. 2011 0.13
13. 2004 0.11
14. 2001 0.11
15. 1991 0.02
16. 1987 0.01
17. 1995 0.01
18. 1988 0.01
19. 1980 -0.01
20. 2008 -0.01
21. 1990 -0.02
22. 1981 -0.05
23. 1997 -0.05
24. 1999 -0.06
25. 1983 -0.06
26. 2000 -0.06
27. 1996 -0.08
28. 1994 -0.11
29. 1979 -0.17
30. 1989 -0.21
31. 1986 -0.24
32. 1993 -0.25
33. 1982 -0.25
34. 1992 -0.29
36. 1985 -0.31
37. 1984 -0.35

Are you starting to see a trend there OBD?

 

[GLG]

Ok I see where this is going…..
(Ripped off from another site and changed for this post.)

GLG: Shouldn’t we devise a way to climb out of this hole we’ve dug ourselves into?
OBD: What hole? There is no hole.
GLG: Yes there is. We are standing in it. And digging it deeper, no less.
OBD: Oh, this isn’t a hole. It’s a natural variation in the landscape.
GLG: It’s getting deeper and deeper.
OBD: Yes, but not because we are digging. It is deepening due to other factors.
GLG: Shouldn’t we at least dig more slowly.
OBD: Digging more slowly is not an option. I think, perhaps, a more prudent solution would be to dig much faster.
GLG: What!?
OBD: The faster we dig, the faster we’ll find a way out of the hole.
GLG: That doesn’t make any sense.
OBD: Of course it does, you are just too thick-headed to understand.
GLG: Please elaborate, then.
OBD: The deeper and faster we dig, the more time we’ll have to think of solutions that might get us out of the hole – er, I mean, natural variation in the landscape.
GLG: Yes, we’ll have more time to think of solutions, but we’ll also be that much deeper.
OBD: Shut up and keep digging.
GLG: Aren’t you concerned about what life will be like at the bottom of this hole?
OBD: Not in the slightest.
GLG: Well, there’s a risk that conditions might not be so good down here.
OBD: No one can say with any certainty what the conditions will be like. I am, therefore, positive that everything will be fine.
GLG: Huh?!
OBD: Man up. Think of it as an adventure.
GLG: I was quite comfortable before, thank you.
OBD: And you’ll be quite comfortable in the hole, as well.
GLG: Are you sure?
OBD: You’ll adapt.
GLG: How much will that cost?
OBD: Less than getting out of the hole.
GLG: I thought you said there was uncertainty?
OBD: Oh, yes. A great deal of it.
GLG: Then, how can you be so certain things will be fine?
OBD: OMG, look! We have Pandas!
GLG: I’ve just done some analysis. If we keep digging down deeper, there will come a point where we’ll no longer be able to see the sky.
OBD: So what?
GLG: What do you mean, “so what?”
OBD: What’s the sky ever done for you, huh? Ever made a dollar off it?
GLG: Well, no…
OBD: See? It’s utterly, completely void of value.
GLG: I think you’re missing the point. It’s just kind of nice to look at sometimes.
OBD: Here, then.
GLG: What’s this?
OBD: It’s a picture of the sky.
GLG: Ah. It’s lovely, but it’s not quite the same.
OBD: Of course it’s not the same. Unlike the sky, the picture has value. It cost two whole dollars.
GLG: How did you afford it?
OBD: I had a speaking engagement.
GLG: Oh, where?
OBD: I gave the keynote address at the Canadian Policy and Legislation Think Tank for Freedom and Prosperity and Liberty Foundation.
GLG: Oh, I see. Wait, aren’t they funded by a shovel-making company?
OBD: The geothermal gradient is just a theory endorsed by the anti-shovel lobby, as shown by these emails which hide the decline. Really, it's cool down there.
GLG: Are you crazy? Look, if we dig any deeper the mantle will start to melt by decompression and the hole will fill with lava, how do we adapt to that?
OBD: Well, the last time there was a hole full of molten lava, our ancestors survived by not living in it.
GLG: But there's far too many of us living in the hole now to move out, and it'll cost far more than to stopping digging.
OBD: But that's probably more than 87 years in the future, and nothing bad happens more than 86 years into the future. Because the economics of LNG say’s we will be debt free sometime soon.
GLG: Huh?
OBD: Can you hold the ladder?
GLG: We don't have a ladder, only a spade.
OBD: Don't twist my words!
GLG: All I'm saying is, what do you think is going to happen if we keep digging with our shovels?
OBD: There you go again with the a priori assumption that digging is related to hole depth!
GLG: You know, you don't have to be in denial about this digging business.
OBD: How dare you call me a Holocaust denier!!!

 

[agentaqua]

Ok I see where this is going…..
(Ripped off from another site and changed for this post.)
OBD: OMG, look! We have Pandas!

Pretty funny stuff GLG - however - I believe this quote was that sociopath Harper not OBD...

 

[agentaqua]

David versus Goliath: Pipelines, Landowners, and the
Pressing Need for Law Reform
http://www.elc.uvic.ca/publications/documents/2014-01-05-David-versus-Goliath.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

Oil and Gas Law Reform
http://www.elc.uvic.ca/publications/documents/2011-03-12-Oil-and-Gas-Reform.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/op...moore-makes-stuff-threaten-british-columbians

Industry Minister Moore makes stuff up to threaten British Columbians
He threatened a Lac Megantic disaster if we don’t accept Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion.
Robyn Allan Jan 6th, 2015

Photo of James Moore and the aftermath of the Lac Mégantic disaster.
Industry Minister James Moore who represents the Port Moody-Westwood-Port Coquitlam riding engaged in blatantly false fear mongering last week. He threatened a Lac Megantic disaster if we don’t accept Kinder Morgan’s Trans Mountain pipeline expansion. In order to springboard from a disgusting reliance on a horrific tragedy to reach his ridiculous conclusion, he had to make stuff up.

These are desperate tactics from someone who as an elected Member of Parliament and Minister of the Crown should know better. He said, “The people of Lac Mégantic wished they had pipelines instead of rail.” If Mr. Moore and his Tory government colleagues had done their job, Lac Megantic would not have happened.

Instead of acting responsibly, Mr. Moore follows up his toxic logic with a distasteful chaser. “It’s very dangerous for the Lower Mainland ... to have the massive spike in rail transfer of dangerous goods,” he said. Moore is reported to have pointed to the huge rail yard in the heart of Port Coquitlam claiming an increasing number of trains are arriving there carrying diluted bitumen crude that has no other way to get to foreign markets.

That’s just not true. There are no facilities on the west coast to transfer crude oil from tank cars to marine shipping vessels. CP spokesperson Jeremy Berry confirmed, “CP does not ship oil along its line to Vancouver for export”.

Mark Hallman, CN’s director of communications and public affairs explained by email that, “CN has never transported crude oil or diluted bitumen to any British Columbia port or terminal for export via ocean-going vessel, and has no plans to do so.”

As for the so-called “massive spike in rail transfer of dangerous goods” there is neither a massive transfer or a spike. Transport Canada figures of about 5,000 barrels a day relied on by Mr. Moore date back to 2013. CP confirms that, “2014 numbers are lower than 2013.” It is interesting that Mr. Moore would not use recent figures—maybe because they don’t support his false narrative.

Both the Vancouver Sun and Financial Post printed the grossly misleading story (same article different title).

Mr. Moore is quoted as following up his falsehood about a massive spike in rail transfer with “The people of Port Coquitlam and Burnaby and New Westminster, with dangerous goods going on those rail lines, should be concerned about that.”

If Mr. Moore is concerned about rail transport, he should do everything he can to stop crude transport until its safe, not blackmail Canadians with incineration if we don’t accept pipeline projects.

The truth is it is the Harper government’s unrelenting willingness to cheerlead on behalf of Alberta’s tar sands that is putting us at risk and failing the Canadian economy—including the economic health of our fossil fuel industry.

The Chevron refinery in Burnaby imports a small amount of crude by rail. Chevron began rail-to-truck-to-refinery deliveries in May 2012 and rail-to-refinery deliveries in April 2013 because Chevron couldn’t get enough space on the existing Trans Mountain pipeline—exports took priority over domestic needs.

Crowding out domestic demand is why the relatively small volumes of crude by rail to BC have increased since 2011, not because diluted bitumen is seeking foreign markets. But even if Chevron could export all the crude oil it can now receive by rail, it would take more than two months for them to fill an oil tanker. Mr. Moore’s “heavy oil exports to foreign markets” spin doesn’t even make business sense.

Our safety is not threatened by rail transport of heavy oil. Our safety is threatened by the Federal Government’s de-regulation of transport safety. Since 2010 marine safety budgets have been slashed 28% and rail and aviation by more than 20%. Had Transport Canada done its job regulating the rail industry Lac Megantic would not have happened.

Our safety is also threatened by the Harper government’s unwillingness to ensure Canadian energy self sufficiency. The oil transported to Lac Megantic on that fateful night in July 2013 was Bakken crude—a highly flammable light oil imported from New Town, North Dakota destined for the Irving refinery in New Brunswick. More than 40% of the crude oil used in eastern Canada is imported. The public policy answer is to ensure more bitumen is upgraded in Alberta—what Harper promised would happen in 2008 before foreign multinational interests made him change his mind—not build more pipelines.

Oil sands bitumen is dense like tar or wet cement. It requires imported condensate as diluent to move it through a pipeline. If more bitumen were upgraded in Alberta instead of transported as diluted bitumen for upgrading in other countries we would have plenty of pipeline space.

Barrel for barrel, diluted bitumen requires twice as much pipeline capacity as upgraded bitumen. You need dedicated condensate import pipelines, like Enbridge’s Southern Lights and Kinder Morgan’s Cochin, to bring condensate in, and then you need 30% of the heavy oil pipeline export capacity to re-export condensate as diluent in bitumen. What’s more, diluted bitumen moves 20% slower than light or synthetic crude oil.

Transporting diluted bitumen, even by pipeline, unnecessarily exposes Canadians to a condensate spill. Condensate becomes airborne when released. It’s highly toxic and causes severe respiratory damage. Rail transport of heavy oil requires little or no condensate because oil in rail cars is stationary—the cars move, not the heavy oil.

Mr. Moore was elected to protect his constituent’s interests, not mislead them with erroneous statements and distastefully false arguments. Instead of busying himself inventing boogie men as a front for big oil he should protect the safety and business interests of Canadians—while he still has time.

Robyn Allan is an economist, former president and CEO of the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia and qualified expert intervenor in the NEB Trans Mountain Expansion Project Hearings.

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.wsj.com/articles/oil-san...bt-to-canadas-biggest-pension-fund-1420497327

Oil Sands Producer Defaults on Canada Pension Fund Debt
Laricina Energy Says It May Have to Cease Operations If Deal With CPP Isn’t Struck

 

[OldBlackDog]

Global Sea Ice Well Above Average For Most Of 2014
JANUARY 1, 2015




Global sea ice extent finished the year at 1.69 million sq km above the 1981-2010 average. This equates to 8.2% above normal.

During 2014, sea ice extent has been above normal for 245 days, at an average of 295,000 sq km.



Antarctic ice continues to blow away all records, beating the previous end of December level set in 2007 by 233,000 sq km. This is particularly significant from an albedo point of view, as it is mid summer down under at this time


In contrast, ice extent in the Arctic has changed very little in the last decade as far as December is concerned.



i

 

[OldBlackDog]

Because you do not get it again.

2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”

Get it now? Probably not.

No I didn't I was the one to post the link to the site with the data and the graph.
Here I'll post the graph again seeing your having a hard time with this science stuff.

Are you starting to see a trend there OBD?

 

[GLG]

Global Sea Ice Well Above Average For Most Of 2014
JANUARY 1, 2015

Global sea ice extent finished the year at 1.69 million sq km above the 1981-2010 average. This equates to 8.2% above normal.

During 2014, sea ice extent has been above normal for 245 days, at an average of 295,000 sq km.

Why is it you go to some denial website when there is far better websites to get science on these topic?
Could it be you don't like real science and prefer faux-science.
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/

Antarctic ice continues to blow away all records, beating the previous end of December level set in 2007 by 233,000 sq km. This is particularly significant from an albedo point of view, as it is mid summer down under at this time

Why is it significant for the Antarctic when it's mostly land where the albedo will last for thousands of years? You do get it that that is not the case up in the Arctic when we lose the summer ice in the next decade or two. There won't be an albedo effect up there if we continue to add CO2 in the air at the rates we are currently going. You do understand what that means don't you?

In contrast, ice extent in the Arctic has changed very little in the last decade as far as December is concerned.

What a sharp mind him letting us know that it's dark and cold in the Arctic right now (Winter). Must not be the same guy, from your team, that wanted the data from the albedo effect that's currently going on up there...... You know the guy from that wing nut website you go to for your hoax theory that the government was hiding the data for the Dec - Feb...... Not too bright of a team you have cast your lot with there OBD.

Oh look we have pandas (global sea ice) when the real story is the hottest year since man stood up in the plains of Africa.

May as well post what is happening with the Arctic sea ice and see if it's back to normal..... Oh look not yet...

 

[GLG]

Because you do not get it again.

2014 was the third warmest year in the 36-year global satellite temperature record, but by such a small margin (0.01 C) as to be statistically similar to other recent years, according to Dr. John Christy, a professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville. “2014 was warm, but not special. The 0.01 C difference between 2014 and 2005, or the 0.02 difference with 2013 are not statistically different from zero. That might not be a very satisfying conclusion, but it is at least accurate.”

Get it now? Probably not.

This may be too much to comprehend but have you looked at the data. Do you not see a difference between the data from 1979 to 1997? See how the average in the data is -.2 and then when you look at the data from 1998 to 2015 we have an average of +.2? Why is it that all the warm years are on the right side of that 1998 el nino year? You seem to find that one temp data set, out of the hundreds that are out there, has some supreme meaning where i find it useful but not the whole picture. Third warmest in satellite records or not, it makes no difference. It's as if you are grasping at straws to some how prove to yourself that global warming is not true. Well get over it, your side lost that debate years ago and it has not sunk in to you yet. The real debate is what are we going to do about it, not if it's true or not. The world is moving on and the table is set for talks. It's too bad your side is not at the table because your side will be on the table and your probably not going to like what happens.

Why don't you spare us the wacky posts from the denial websites that "claim" to have a brain but don't and just let it die.
Find something that is truly interesting or adds to the debate of what we should do about this problem.
We are both digging the same hole and you claiming that we are not, is not helpful.

Would it be nice if we could have kicked this fossil fuel problem years ago?
Then who cares what the price of oil is and how bad the oil stocks are doing.
They would not have been in turmoil because we don't really care as we have moved on.
The boy's would have made their money and if they were smart the would have saved for the end.

Reminds me of a saying we had in Alberta......
Please god let there be another oil boom and I promise, that next time, I won't **** all my money away.

You think you know something the rest of the world doesn't then here is a website to prove your theory.
Your a smart guy figure it out then post up the results.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/
Let's see what you got....

Here is a start for you....
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/mean:12/plot/hadcrut3vgl/trend/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend

or this
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/ua...1998/to:2015/plot/uah/from:1998/to:2015/trend

or how about we remove 1998 as that was a bad year with wacky temps.....

Starting to see a trend?

 

[agentaqua]

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/ne...logue-energy-and-environment-according-survey

Canadians urgently wish to start a national dialogue on energy and the environment, according to survey
Vancouver Observer Dec 31st, 2014

Canadians urgent to start a national dialogue on energy
Photo by Fibonacci Blue via Flickr

A new survey by the Globe & Mail and Nanos Research suggests that the vast majority of Canadians have a sense of urgency to start a national dialogue on energy and the environment and believe by a significant margin that the Federal Government, not the provinces, should lead the discussion, according to a media release.

More than eight of ten Canadians say it is urgent (53 per cent) or somewhat urgent (33 per cent) to have a conversation on Canada's energy future and the environment.

Seventy-eight per cent of Canadians believe the Federal Government should lead this conversation (compared to 13 per cent who say the provinces should lead the conversation).

Almost nine of ten Canadians say it is important (52 per cent) or somewhat important (33 per cent) for Canada and the US to cooperate on energy and environmental issues.

Canadians are divided as to whether First Nations should be able to block a pipeline with marginally more Canadians supporting First Nations actions.

Pipelines are seen as the most environmentally responsible way to transport oil (62 per cent) followed by train (8 per cent), truck (3 per cent), and oil tanker (2 per cent). Twenty four percent of Canadians were unsure which of the options was the most environmentally responsible way to transport oil.

Read the full survey here: http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-S14-T633.pdf

 

[agentaqua]

http://business.financialpost.com/2...he-end-of-canadas-oil-superpower-pipe-dreams/

Terence Corcoran: The end of Canada’s oil superpower pipe dreams
Terence Corcoran | January 6, 2015 | Last Updated: Jan 7 1:42 PM ET
More from Terence Corcoran | @terencecorcoran

When even a Republican-dominated Senate can’t muster enough support to force the Barack Obama’s hand, it’s a sure sign that activist opponents of Keystone dominate the pipeline decision-making process.

AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais, FileWhen even a Republican-dominated Senate can’t muster enough support to force the Barack Obama’s hand, it’s a sure sign that activist opponents of Keystone dominate the pipeline decision-making process.

Instead of Canada selling oil elsewhere, the United States is selling its oil elsewhere

The Washington dust has not yet settled around Canada’s Keystone XL pipeline, but the fuzzy images visible Tuesday through the political storm do not look promising. Nothing in the current play of politics and oil prices would lead to the conclusion that Keystone will ever get approved.

But it’s worse than that for Canada. As the world oil market swirls, not just Keystone is at stake. The greater risk is that the great national global energy superpower dream is going down the drain, washed away by a confluence of forces over which Canada has no control.

On Tuesday, the White House said President Barack Obama would veto the latest Republican effort to push a Senate Keystone bill through Congress. It was an easy decision for the President to announce, since it appears the Senate failed to come up with the necessary 67 votes to override Mr. Obama’s veto.

When even a Republican-dominated Senate can’t muster enough support to force the President’s hand, it’s a sure sign that environmentalists and other activist opponents of Keystone still dominate the pipeline decision-making process.

While Canada’s dreams of exporting more oil sands production to the United States face a grim political environment, the economic environment looks even shakier. The price of West Texas crude dropped to $47.65 during trading Tuesday, and there was no reason to believe the oil price crash is near an end. At that price, Canada’s big pipeline plans could turn to pipe dreams.

The plunge in price of oil is more than just a surprise. This is what in official economic jargon is called an economic shock. Mostly, it seems to be a supply shock — brought on in part by the surge in U.S. shale production that in turn was created by technological change that is now sweeping the world.

Back in 2011, then Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver told Washington that if Keystone were not approved, Canada had other options to “sell the oil elsewhere.” Oil industry officials blasted America with bravado: “OK pipe or lose our oil.”

Maybe that sounded tough in November, 2011, but since then the United States has emerged as the world’s fastest growing oil producer and the world’s largest oil producer.

Oil_C_JR

When Mr. Oliver made his veiled threat to sell Canadian oil elsewhere, American oil production languished at 6,000,000 barrels a day, not far off its modern-day low. Then came the American shale oil revolution (See graph). In October, 2014, U.S. oil production hit 9,000,000 barrels a day, an increase of 50% over three years and one of the major causes of the current oil price crash. The U.S. oil output boom has also blown a big hole in peak oil theory, which has long dined out on the idea that the United States was a model for the theory on the grounds that U.S. oil output had “peaked” in the 1970s. That peak may soon be surpassed.

And so now, instead of Canada selling oil elsewhere, the United States is selling its oil elsewhere. The day before New Year’s Eve, the Obama administration lifted a 40-year-old ban on oil exports that had been imposed as part of Middle East oil embargoes during the 1970s.

There’s more to the world oil price shock than U.S. shale production, and geopolitical forces — in Russia, the Middle East, China, OPEC — could shift to reverse the price trend. Some say the shale revolution will run out of steam and the price of oil will soon shoot back up. Maybe, but in the meantime Canada’s energy ambitions are in a dangerous losing position.

The promoted alternatives to Keystone, Northern Gateway to the West Coast and the much-touted Energy East line through to Quebec and New Brunswick, are almost certainly uneconomical if the price of oil were to hang in at below $50 for any extended period of time. Could Canada’s big oil sands stash become locked up in Alberta for decades? Oil prices and new technologies — not to mention new native environmental attitudes — would have to undergo dramatic change in future before the prospects for Canadian oil exports improve.

 

[agentaqua]

Are you ...

Concerned about climate change/global warming, and how it may impact you, your community, our province?
Unsure about how to make a difference, or what it would look like for our province to take significant climate action?
Willing to discuss your concerns with a group of 36 people from across Metro Vancouver?
- See more at: https://www.policyalternatives.ca/climatejusticeconversation#sthash.2LWgN3Aj.dpuf

 

[agentaqua]

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/most-canadas-oilsands-unusable-world-moves-climate-report-194529063.html
Most of Canada's oilsands must stay in ground if world moves on climate: report
The Canadian PressBy Bob Weber, The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – 19 hours ago
Article: Reporter’s Notebook: Angela Sterritt on the oilsands paradox
CBC - Fri, 26 Dec, 2014

British researchers have concluded that most of Canada's oilsands will have to be left in the ground if the world gets serious about climate change.

The report, published in the journal Nature, says three-quarters of all Canada's oil reserves and 85 per cent of its oilsands can't be burned if the world wants to limit global warming. The report also concludes that no country's Arctic energy resources can be developed if global temperature increases are to be kept manageable.

It adds that about one-quarter of Canada's natural gas reserves and four-fifths of its coal would also have to be left in the ground.

Report author Christophe McGlade of University College London says the research was undertaken in response to agreement from politicians around the world that global warming should be limited to within 2 C of historic averages. At the same time, said McGlade, most are enthusiastic boosters of their own country's fossil fuels.

"Nearly all politicians across the world would like to develop all domestic sources of oil and gas and coal that they have and also search for new resources," he said in an interview Wednesday.

"What this analysis shows is that those two positions are inconsistent. Every country can't exploit all of their domestic reserves and keep to two degrees."

McGlade and co-author Peter Ekins used a mathematical model that accounted for all the world's oil, natural gas and coal and analyzed demand for each type. They then looked at future demand to 2050, using a model to calculate how much of each resource would be used given constraints such as production costs and distribution.

They used the two-degree figure to provide a global cap on the amount of carbon that could be emitted into the atmosphere. The point at which their estimates of future demand intersected with the cap gave them the amount of how much each fossil fuel reserve could be developed.

"Our results suggest that, globally, a third of oil reserves, half of gas reserves and over 80 per cent of current coal reserves should remain unused," the report says.

The study is the latest in a growing body of research into the implications of what is being called a "global carbon budget" — the total amount of carbon emissions that can be released and still stay below a two-degree temperature increase.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has placed that budget at 1,100 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide.

About two-thirds of that has already been used. Carbon dioxide locked in current fossil fuel reserves totals about three times that budget.

Other studies have looked into financial and political impacts of the carbon budget. Some have warned that energy companies risk stranding billions of dollars in assets if carbon is increasingly restricted or subject to financial penalty.

McGlade said he hopes his research will be used by world leaders when they meet next December in Paris to try again to hammer out an agreement on climate change. It could form the basis for talks on how countries could be compensated for resources left in the ground, he suggested.

"It's further evidence for the policy-makers to use. Hopefully, this will help inform some of the negotiations."

 

[agentaqua]

Robert Redford Become a fan
Actor, director and environmental activist
Here's Why Keystone XL Is the Wrong Choice for Our Nation
Posted: 01/08/2015 12:37 am EST Updated: 3 hours ago
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-redford/heres-why-keystone-kl-is_b_6434020.html