Propaganda or Informative? Alberta's campaign on the Kyoto Protocol

[KrazyHorse]

NYE seemed to insinuate that production might actually be more polluting than consumption...

[CyberGnu]

Depends on where it is produced. You always get loads of methane with the oil, which in some cases (such as Canada) is pipelined to market, but in some cases (such as Africa) is just burned because it cannot be transported.

[CyberGnu]

Although, some of the methane is usually burned to generate liquid CO2, which is injected in the oil bed to force the oil to the surface. IIRC, about 60% of the oil in an oilfield is pumped by this method. I don't know how much CO2 has to be injected, though...

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
well, not counting the methane spill to the atmosphere when drilling for oil. But that is a production issue

Ahem. Yes, it's a production issue, and i'm sorry, but I have to pay attention that as a resident of an energy producing jurisdiction...

Do you have any idea how much refining goes into a barrel of oil produced from bitumin?

[CyberGnu]

Refining, as in the chemical term? Very little.

Are you referring to the extraction? Well, that is up to Canada, isn't it? The main part of the energy cost comes from steam generation, which could be done with nuclear or hydroelectric power.

[notyoueither]

Well, actually the jurisdiction is Alberta's, but let's never mind that...

[CyberGnu]

So?

[CyberGnu]

Just read through the proposed alternative to the Kyoto. It summarizes quite well to "let's pretend we're behind every single point in the Kyoto but make sure we don't actually sign it, thus reducing the chance that other nations implement it and we can continue selling oil."

Impressing reading, though. Someone spent a lot of creativity on this. For example:

"Keeping investment money in Canada to re-tool our own economy and meet our own targets rather than sending
dollars to other countries for emission credits."

Which differs from the Kyoto how? The insinuation that Canada would somehow be FORCED to buy credits is beautiful. Sort of like the 'Today the Captain was sober' comment. No actual lies, just insinuations.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
Oil is expensive as hell there because of taxes, not because of the cost involved in shipping. In other words, either they give us an import subsidy because the oil comes from clean sources or give everybody else a tariff, or somewhere in between. End cost of gas doesn't go up unless their government decides to push it up...

I don't think you understood what I was saying. I never said the cost of shipping was high, which was why it was ridiculous for Tingkai to assume "low costs of shipping" would help out.

Alberta oil is expensive as hell not just because of taxes, but because most of it isn't the typical oil well stuff. It costs a fortune and takes a TON of investment to get the oil out of the oilsands -- something most companies aren't willing to do when the government's breathing down their back of reducing emissions when they want to expand production (and oil sands emissions are quite a bit higher than regular oil...). So much so, in fact, that they're planning to put the oil sands on "indefinite hold" and look at oil in the pacific rim if Kyoto passes in Canada.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Frogger
snore

Do you not understand that 1 billion people should be allowed 30 times more emissions than 30 million people?

Somewhere, in one of those CS classes they must have taught you how to take a ratio. Each canadian is outputting 5-6 times (?) as much as each chinese. That means that if anybody is asked to cut emissions it should be canada, not china.

Funny, but I don't think you understand.

Canada will have more emissions, even as a ratio, than China and India -- not because we want to, but we have to. It costs far more to heat stuff in Canada than it would in most of India and China, not to mention how everyone lives so far apart in Canada that lots of transportation is necessary.

AND I don't know if you know this -- but India and China are full of many people which don't even have electricty! Comparing emissions per capita is a joke, spare me of it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Asher and notyou, you guys might want to actually READ the Kyoto treaty.

Canada could produce all the oil, coal and natural gas in the world, that would still not count towards Canadas emissions goal. (well, not counting the methane spill to the atmosphere when drilling for oil. But that is a production issue).

The emissions come from the nation that BURNS the fossil fuel, not the one that digs it up.

Jesus Christ on a mental crutch! How the hell can you devote three pages of debate to a topic you haven't even studied?!!!

Now, would the Kyoto treaty hurt Alberta? Maybe, since if the world uses less oil, Alberta will sell less. But this argument reduces back to the one used by conservatives in the US - "I'd rather make a buck now than preserve the earth for my children."

We've read the treaty -- I don't think you understand.

Kyoto doesn't give Canada credit for our clean gas exports, namely Natural Gas.

The way Kyoto is set up, it WILL discourage further development of Alberta's oil industry. Not just from less demand (that's hardly the case, the US will demand just as much as it always did and pick up slack left off in Canada), but because the government's going to be breathing down their neck to get the emissions DOWN while these companies want to EXPAND and develop more. You have a hard time justifying opening a HUGE new plant that would pollute a hellofa lot (do you know how bitumen upgraders work??) when the government will likely be behind schedule anyway.

Poor troll, very condescending, shows lack of knowledge about the whole situation.

[Asher]

Originally posted by CyberGnu
Just read through the proposed alternative to the Kyoto. It summarizes quite well to "let's pretend we're behind every single point in the Kyoto but make sure we don't actually sign it, thus reducing the chance that other nations implement it and we can continue selling oil."

Impressing reading, though. Someone spent a lot of creativity on this. For example:

"Keeping investment money in Canada to re-tool our own economy and meet our own targets rather than sending
dollars to other countries for emission credits."

Which differs from the Kyoto how? The insinuation that Canada would somehow be FORCED to buy credits is beautiful. Sort of like the 'Today the Captain was sober' comment. No actual lies, just insinuations.

Um...
Why wouldn't we be forced to buy credits? We're a net exporter nation of energy, the only one to sign Kyoto, and the rest of the countries decided not to give us credit for our clean gas exports (which would DRASTICALLY reduce our emissions goal) because they'd prefer we buy more credits from them.

Do you even know why Alberta has problems with Kyoto, or are you just dumbing it down to "because they're right wing and just don't like it"? There are fundamental flaws in how Kyoto is structured, which is why Alberta wants to implement something similar without those flaws -- we'd still be reducing emissions, just not at our expense and the benefit of the EU.

[Asher]

Tingkai, you lose because of your refual to actually debate about the counterproposal. yay you.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher
Tingkai, you lose because of your refual to actually debate about the counterproposal. yay you.

Unlike you Asher, I have a life.

I have explain the basic problem with the Ralphie's/oil industry's so-called plan. A bigger problem, at least in terms of this discussion, Asher, is that you don't understand Kyoto and you don't understand the so-called counterproposal.

The Alberta plan allows for more pollution, not less. It does nothing.

Ralphie is waving a piece of paper and saying "We have a plan" like Chamberlain said "We have peace in our time." Ralphie's plan is meaningless.

As stated before, the Alberta plan measures pollution per GDP. As long as GDP increases, which it will in the long run, the Albertans can produce more pollution as long as the increase in pollution is less than the increase in GDP.

And if the pollution targets are not met, the Albertan government will simply shrug and say "oh well, we tried."

This plan does nothing, and that's why the oil industry loves it.

[Tingkai]

Originally posted by Asher

Do you have any ****ing idea how much it costs to extract oil in Alberta these days? They're not sitting around in little happy wells waiting for someone to drill it out!

It costs billions and billions of dollars to even get to the point of extracting the oil from here, transportation costs are miniscule in comparison!

Very good Asher. You're learning some basic concepts of business. Yes, it does cost money to produce things. And guess what? The oil companies make billions in revenue by selling the oil and they make millions in profits.

Getting Canadian oil out of the ground costs more than getting Middle East oil out of the ground. So how does this more expensive Canadian oil compete with the cheaper Middle East oil? Cheaper transportation costs.

Basic economics.