This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Are Canadian Oil Policies Misguided?

Tyler Durden's picture


Submitted by Daniel Graeber of

Are Canadian Oil Policies Misguided?

The provincial government in Alberta is mulling new rules that would require the oil industry to cut greenhouse gas emissions tied to oil sands production by as much as 40 percent per barrel. The measure may be part of the federal government's push to allay Washington's concerns about the Keystone XL pipeline. Some of the concern surrounding the production of oil sands, the type of oil designated for the controversial pipeline, is that it's more carbon intensive to produce than conventional oil. Alberta's government has expressed concern that it won't be able to meet its emission targets without new rules, though some in the oil industry may be already ahead of the game. While emissions may be part of the debate over the controversial cross-border pipeline, a financial analysis suggests the Canadian government is looking in the wrong direction.

Alberta Premier Alison Redford was in the United States last week trying to shore up support for the Keystone XL oil pipeline. The U.S. government hosts a town hall meeting in Nebraska later this month to vet public comments on a draft environmental assessment from the State Department. That report found that, overall, the environmental threat from oil sands production would remain with or without the pipeline. The Canadian government, however, is under pressure to find ways to allay some of those environmental concerns to move the project forward.

A law that went into force in 2007 requires companies exploiting the vast oil sand deposits in the country to cut their emissions by 12 percent of their base level and put around $15 into a technology fund for every ton they go over that limit. Calgary officials say it's important not only for the provincial government, but for the federal government as well, to let Washington know it's serious about the environment. Part of the controversy over Keystone XL is tied to emissions, so it's imperative that Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper sets the right tone as the pipeline conversation gains momentum.

Norwegian energy company Statoil, however, suggested last week it wasn't waiting around for the legal process to sort itself out on emissions. In 2012, the company said it increased its oil sand production by 60 percent while at the same time cutting its CO2 intensity by more than 20 percent. While part of its stewardship, like tree-planting and land reclamation, may be just good public relations, it said it aims to cut CO2 intensity by 25 percent by 2020 and reach the 40 percent mark five years later. Regional Vice President Stale Tungesvik said Statoil would continue to work to improve not only its oil recovery, but its carbon footprint as well. Statoil plays no direct role in the Keystone XL pipeline.

A report last week from the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce finds that while Keystone XL would be a boost for oil sands trade, it's just "one of several important pieces of the puzzle for Canada's energy sector." The CIBC World Market report finds that, with U.S. shale oil production competing for the same transportation networks, the Canadian government needs to capitalize on emerging Asian economies, not U.S. trends, if it's expected to realize the full benefits of its oil riches.

"The world will still need Canada's crude, given still ample demand growth ahead for Asia, and we doubt supply-demand conditions will permanently sustain prices below Canadian project break-evens," said CIBC Chief Economist Avery Shenfeld. "But it's increasingly important that Canada move on one or more of the alternative pipelines to get our product headed Asia's way."


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:31 | 3423234 malikai
malikai's picture

They shouldn't be using natgas to extract/upgrade it in the first place.

They should be using nukes to power the upgraders and heat the tar in-situ.

But that's just my thoughts in terms of EROEI.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:43 | 3423299 css1971
css1971's picture

They're going to have to to hit those targets. Point being then you might as well just roll out nukes on a large scale.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:56 | 3423360 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

"The world will still need Canada's crude, given still ample demand growth ahead for Asia, and we doubt supply-demand conditions will permanently sustain prices below Canadian project break-evens," said CIBC 

When CIBC - AKA the worlds most inept bank - says something, assume the opposite. 

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:40 | 3424246 BigInJapan
BigInJapan's picture



But it was Bank of Montreal that actually managed to lose track of my account.

Bank book and ATM card in hand they once looked at me and told me they couldn't find my account.

I still have the cashcard.

Ahh memories of Canadian banks and their ridiculous fees...

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:45 | 3423572 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

"it said it aims to cut CO2 intensity by 25 percent"

Translation: We cannot reduce CO2 emissions at all, not even 1%. So we're going to do some calculations and plant a certain amount of trees or restore some wetlands, and claim that we're offsetting our CO2 emissions by a like amount.

Plants are always carbon-neutral; any carbon (as CO2) they remove from the biosphere (atmosphere in this case) is eventually returned when the plants die and decay or are eaten by some animal. For cover crops this turn around usually happens the same year. For trees maybe a few years to a few decades. But the lifetime of CO2 in the atmosphere is 2,000 years. So any "offset" method that cycles back in anything under 2,000 years is just a 6 minute pitstop in a 12 hour long endurance race. Virtually meaningless.

The only way to "offset" human-mediated fossil carbon emissions from the mining of fossil fuels is to find a way to deep bury the carbon again, a process that took natural systems million of years to accomplish on any kind of scale. And to bury it in a way that it stays buried for 5,000 years at least and a million years being optimal.

Never going to happen. Ever. There is no way to do it I don't care what you claim, and nobody is going to spend one thin dime (US$) to prove it either way when success can only be measured across 80 generations.

So all this is just fraudulent bookeeping by the oligarches of the oil fields. Same old same old -- anything for profit, lie if you have to. They will mine every lump of coal, pump every barrel of oil, and dig up every square yard of tarry dirt until it's all gone and burned. And it all goes into the atmosphere and it stays there for 2,000 years. We'll be knocking on 1 teraton of carbon emissions by the end of the current decade -- 1 teraton that will be with us for 2,000 years -- and then the human world will be right and truely totally fuxored.

2,000 fucking years, people. That long in the past, people were pulling their wooden-wheeled carts using oxen, and fighting wars with spears. We'll be living whatever nightmare is due us now, and living it for 2,000 fucking years.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:39 | 3423857 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

I've never understood how digging dead plants from the ground, and releasing their carbon into the air for living plants to breathe is harmful to the environment.
At one time, all of these deposits were living breathing plants, and animals on the surface of the earth. Why not bring them back to the surface, and let them participate in the carbon cycle again? They will eventually become parts of plants, and will be available to harvest energy from again.


Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:50 | 3423906 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

I've never understood how digging dead plants from the ground, and releasing their carbon into the air for living plants to breathe is harmful to the environment. At one time, all of these deposits were living breathing plants, and animals on the surface of the earth. Why not bring them back to the surface, and let them participate in the carbon cycle again?

Back to grade school science for you lol

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:53 | 3423928 akak
akak's picture

I've never understood how digging salt from the ground, and releasing its sodium content onto the land, and into the oceans and biosphere for living organisms to bathe in, is harmful to the environment. At one time, all of these deposits were in the ocean and on the surface of the earth. Why not bring them back to the surface, and let them participate in the sodium cycle again?

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:13 | 3423961 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Shocking to find that the people who rant of global warming being a giant made-up conspiracy often have no understanding of basic science, could there be a correlation??

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:28 | 3424011 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Nope, not a chance  :)

The church they typically attend likes it that their science ain't up to snuff either...

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:15 | 3424153 The Alarmist
The Alarmist's picture

Ignoring for a moment the doctored science that is being foisted on the public as settled, despite 30,000+ scientists signing a petition that says it is anything but settled, what do you have against plant life?  Seriously, if we take CO2 out of the air, you are depriving some plants ... particularly the poor ones least able to fend for themselves ... of their right to live and thrive.  

Shame on you, you knuckle-dragging liberal retards ... have you no shame?

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:21 | 3424168 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Nothing in the above statement is true or correct. Not going to waste any time here.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 20:04 | 3424335 slavador
slavador's picture

Since the folks at the University of East Anglia were caught cooking the basic data for their global warming research, it is reasonable to be very suspicious of proclaimations on this topic. The stuff that is most suspicious is that presented in simplified form to effect peoples political feelings. My take is that the global warming folks are every bit as sinister as the oil industry funded folks that say CO2 makes plants grow lusher which results in healthier food which leads to a sexier YOU!!

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 16:27 | 3424664 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Really? could you describe in your own words what exactly they faked? And why an independent study wouldn't find and correct the fake data?

Edit: As I suspected he is merely trotting out old bullshit re: Climategate and in reality he doesn't have the foggiest notion about what ACTUALLY happened...

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 20:04 | 3424336 slavador
slavador's picture

Since the folks at the University of East Anglia were caught cooking the basic data for their global warming research, it is reasonable to be very suspicious of proclaimations on this topic. The stuff that is most suspicious is that presented in simplified form to effect peoples political feelings. My take is that the global warming folks are every bit as sinister as the oil industry funded folks that say CO2 makes plants grow lusher which results in healthier food which leads to a sexier YOU!!

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 21:06 | 3424549 gastrolith
gastrolith's picture

What's the science? That the IPCC predicted a significant increase in temperature and yet we have 16 years of no warming. That sea level rise was supposed to accelerate, but didn't.

You had models, not science. The models were so awful they couldn't replicate the past and, it's clear now, they can't predict the future.

But, hey, that's only a trillion dollars or so down the drain, thousands dead because of soaring energy bills and perhaps millions more due to rising food costs as we make bloody biofuel. No big deal when you have an ideology to push.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 11:57 | 3426780 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

This is so full of shit it isn't even worth a rejoinder...

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:15 | 3423972 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Matter is neither created nor destroyed. If it's not in the ground, it's above the ground and we're dealing with it until nature gets around to putting it back under the ground for us. Putting it temporarily inside plants is ... temporary.

Most of the time, we'll want our carbon in the atmosphere as a waste product of energy harvesting.

Humans came into a world with a lot of carbon under the ground -- stripped from the atmosphere by plants and buried -- that had been there for 50 million years already before we even showed up. Carbon that hasn't been alive or felt the heat of the sun since dinosaurs roamed the earth. We are digging it all out though to harvest the stored energy. And the world is going to take us back to a hotter, wetter time as a result.

There won't be dinosaurs though of course. They didn't make it.

I don't know who in fact will be left to inherit the earth when we're done reworking the atmosphere to where it was 50 million years ago.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:15 | 3424731 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

that was truly poetic, thank you.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:21 | 3424173 Kayman
Kayman's picture

Plants are always carbon-neutral; any carbon (as CO2) they remove from the biosphere (atmosphere in this case) is eventually returned when the plants die and decay or are eaten by some animal. For cover crops this turn around usually happens the same year. For trees maybe a few years to a few decades.

Assuming time is static ??? 

Carbon breathing trees build a carbon inventory over their lifetime. Conifers live 50 to 130 years and beyond. So they are a carbon sink. Period.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:34 | 3424219 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture




You'd need to discover another continent and cover it with plants to come anywhere close to what we are digging out of the ground. Oh wait, Antarctic will melt, and it's got dirt under there, so yeah we're good.


Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:44 | 3423302 prains
prains's picture

correct and voila uranium city is a hop skip and jump to the east and guess what they have in the ground...... but canadian govts spend all their time fumbling with the zipper and never manage to pull it out to get it on. This is NOT to say nuclear is some type of great alternative but fuck me if you totally understood the current extraction process, nuclear, is a bubble bath compared to the contaminants being pumped into the groundwater. Ask the local native populations, they know all too well but have been stifled

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:03 | 3423391 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

Until they finally start burying the waste 1k off of Lake Huron's coast.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:19 | 3423463 malikai
malikai's picture

Do you know what gets classified as low level waste?

Hint: Your basement is more dangerous.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:32 | 3423839 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

I will confess that I do not know. i would imagine that you are referring to radon, or smoke detectors.
I am damnantquodnonintelligunt with regard to this subject, but I would rather see it built somewhere way up north - buried in the canadian shield.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:46 | 3424066 Solon the Destroyer
Solon the Destroyer's picture


They shouldn't be using natgas to extract/upgrade it in the first place.

They should be using nukes to power the upgraders and heat the tar in-situ.

But that's just my thoughts in terms of EROEI.

There's not enough water there to use nuclear.  Water levels are already down significantly using the present processes.

Nor does this address the issue of nuclear waste or accidents, which is likely a far greater issue than the carbon burn of nat gas.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 06:51 | 3425406 malikai
malikai's picture

I think what you're trying to say is that there isn't enough water for conventional nuclear + conventional extraction + conventional upgrading. You're probably right.

But there are very efficient nukes which do not require excessive amounts of freshwater (LFR and friends). And the waste steam (post rankine or even C/C) is perfect for for heating tar sands. Put one (or three) of those things in Ft McMurray and be done with it.

The problem is that the only proposals I've seen discussing nukes involves CANDUs, which are generally terrible (just like PWR/BWR models) when it comes to water consumption. Which I guess makes sense because Canada is just as bought and paid for as the US/Japan when it comes to nuke licensing.

The beauty of using something like an LFR is that given a bit of technical investment, you can get outlet temperatures >800c, meaning you can use the SI process to produce hydrogen, which opens up big doors in regards to upgrading, as one of the main reasons (after process heat) for using gas is in the hydrotreating process.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:33 | 3423250 duo
duo's picture

let's agree to call them "tar sands" because that's what they are.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:41 | 3423296 Lore
Lore's picture

"The word "tar" to describe these natural bitumen deposits is a misnomer, since, chemically speaking, tar is a human-made substance produced by the destructive distillation of organic material, usually coal."

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:55 | 3423349 duo
duo's picture

 semantics aside, the stuff is a lot different than liquid oil that comes out of the ground through a well.  How much of it can be refined into gasoline versus mixing it with gravel and filling potholes?

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:31 | 3423546 James_Cole
James_Cole's picture

Yeah it's tar, semantics included. Oil Sands is a PR term - tell an engineer involved in Athabasca that they're working on the tar sands project and they'll get very mad and correct you that it's the 'oil sands.'

Certainly the Oil Sands wiki entry was edited by a PR lackey. 

Tar refers to the substance obtained from a variety of organic materials through destructive distillation.[1] [2] [3] Tar can be produced from coal,woodpetroleum, or peat.

Bitumen is a term used for natural deposits of oil "tar" – such as at the La Brea Tar Pits.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 21:57 | 3424652 Lore
Lore's picture

Frankly, if you call it tar, locals will assume you're just some hick or propagandist. The stuff that gets washed out of the sand is called bitumen. If you don't like it, too bad. Just don't try to force your terms or narrative on others. There's far too much of that going around.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:27 | 3424194 Kayman
Kayman's picture

How much of it can be refined into gasoline ?

Bitumen generates more diesel than light oil. Diesel is in higher demand than gasoline. Have you watched relative pricing over the past 10 years ??

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:47 | 3424853 Demonoid
Demonoid's picture

It's not a demand effect. Diesel costs more now than 10 years ago due to Federal ultra-low sulfur diesel (ULSD) regulations that were phased in from 2006 to 2010. ULSD costs more to refine than the low-sulfur diesel (LSD) that it replaced.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:35 | 3423256 CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

The tar sands are legit.  They have oil.  Actual, proper 5.6 million BTU/barrel crude.

Not like Bakken or Eagleford condensate at 60% of that.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:16 | 3423649 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

Tar sands have tar. Fact. Petroleum engineers can turn the tar/bitumen into mock crude oil by burning a like amount of some other kind of fuel in the process.

Net net, it's a very destructive way to convert electricity, clean water and natural gas into gasoline (and a lot of toxic wastes and ruined forests in the bargain) so people who lack critical thinking skills can continue to drive to work in their old-fashioned car.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:20 | 3423987 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

Meanwhile the rest of are importing plasma from Naboo and buying the latest queen's pin-up calendar.  Wait, Naboo is a fictional planet you say?  Well, back to the old-fashioned gasoline I guess.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:06 | 3424687 Lore
Lore's picture

Cougar -- How do YOU drive to work?  Oh wait, you don't have a real job.  That's old-fashioned too, right?

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:21 | 3424759 Cathartes Aura
Cathartes Aura's picture

careful, you might get him to post his awesome ride!  ^^

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 03:52 | 3425298 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The brotherhood of crime, 'american' style.

Not only 'americans' include in their fraternity people who do not drive to go to work.

Not only 'americans' include them in their fraternity but the also ascribe to those people the most cause to effect.

Aint 'american' love for humanity so caring?

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 04:01 | 3425305 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Condensed AnAnonymous propaganda; everybody is equal etc... Funny how when it comes to misdeeds, Chinese citizenism propagandists love to see people equal. They are equal in crimes.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 15:39 | 3427996 Lore
Lore's picture

Colourless green ideas sleep furiously.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 16:53 | 3428394 akak
akak's picture

You have absorbed the most of that, also this.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:34 | 3423257 Hangfire
Hangfire's picture

Just ship it to China already and put this thing to rest!   

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:48 | 3423318 prains
prains's picture

can't get it to the coast. Take a trip through northern BC and you'll soon realize a pipeline thru there being next to impossible to maintain is a GONGshow just waiting to happen. Talk now is to ship to eastern canada where those provinces are importing oil anyway. And then look to ship to europe 

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:38 | 3423851 slavador
slavador's picture

Nephew is working on pumping stations for the Northern Gateway presently and it is progressing rapidly. All the talk of Natives and green people slowing this thing down is smoke and mirrors. For the sake of our southern friends, you need to get your act together fast or you will be stuck with Maduro's and Saudi heavy oil forever with China getting all the good stuff....

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:16 | 3423971 oddjob
oddjob's picture

Yes, they are working on pump stations ,but not for the proposed Northern Gateway pipline.

Enbridge cannot even be trusted to maintain their existing network. Upgrading Kinder Morgans existing pipeline is the logical choice. That way when the oil spills everybody will see it.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:07 | 3424140 slavador
slavador's picture

Odd job.

It is a done deal - a work in progress. Leagal stuff will be figured out when needed.  Relying on media for what happens on the ground puts you a year or two behind reality...

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:32 | 3424212 oddjob
oddjob's picture

Maybe your nephew is on welfare and he's just shittin you. The extent of Enbridge's progress has been to open a local office in PG to spew propaganda. Hopefully you are not confusing Kitimat LNG with Gateway.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:21 | 3424716 Lore
Lore's picture

It's clear that Prains (above) has no clue what he's talking about. Anybody who drives through northern BC will see existing oil traffic, NOT TO MENTION HUNDREDS OF MILES OF ALASKA PIPELINE RIGHT BESIDE THE HIGHWAY...!

This is a perfect illustration of why more than 90% of the stupid letters submitted to the Northern Gateway review panel can be chucked out the window. They're submitted by mindless receptacles saturated with "green" propaganda, with no sign of any effort to formulate an independent, balanced opinion.  The most pathetic are those hundreds of generic photocopied form letters apparently submitted by the enviro-lobby on behalf of people who are illiterate. What a bunch of manipulated sheep.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:44 | 3425041 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

and Alaska's on the same side of the Rockies as Alberta, right?

Oh, wait

FAIL, again. You're good at this game. Between this & climate change I should nominate you to be the next Paul Krugman.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 15:49 | 3428055 Lore
Lore's picture

I admit that my post was unclear -- it was late, but the point is that there are pipelines all over the place up there, more as you come south.  People talk about "pristine wilderness," as though there is no human activity. That's just bunk. There are thousands of miles of logging roads, pipes, electrical transmission lines, you name it, not to mention paved highways.

Wed, 04/10/2013 - 21:15 | 3434673 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

OK, I'll be clear: getting a pipeline to cross the Rockies east-to-west or west-to-east is mighty difficult.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:50 | 3424867 slavador
slavador's picture

He's either got a better position than that or he's mightily deceptive! The Northern Gateway will be approved and will be moving oil sooner than anyone imagines possible. Now go bet some money on this and thank me at a later date :)

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:23 | 3423994 Grinder74
Grinder74's picture

Ooh, ooh I know.  Why not use one of those nifty North Korean rockets, you know the ones that go a little way up into the air and then plummet back down quickly?  If you aim it right, it could take off from Alberta and probably land close China (give or take a few thousand miles).

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:40 | 3423579 ptolemy_newit
ptolemy_newit's picture

President Vladimir V. Putin said "A modern transport infrastructure is the real road to Russia's future”.  By 2016 the plan is to construct 63,000 km of new roads and 8,600 km of railway route through Siberia to facilitate economic ties to the US.

Also the current traffic intensity and capacity utilisation levels will require more than a third of the roads in Russia to reconstruction and modernize; and we are talking about a network of 1,145,000 km in total!

We are looking at $25-35bn of Government spending annually on road infrastructure alone for the next 3-5 years.  All told, Russia is hoping to raise $1 trillion for infrastructure investment over the next 10 years, with as much as 80% of the financing coming from private sources, (private toll roads).

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:39 | 3424237 Kayman
Kayman's picture


Just like the Saudis, Russians aren't afraid of work.  They can lay down beside it all day long.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 03:55 | 3425301 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Depletion of resources does not go fast enough.

Lets add more leaking out highways to it.

Will speed up the process.

Once again, it confirms that in this 'american' world, the US is the ultimate consumption sink.

Russians are so scared their resources might not be consumed faster and bigger enough they feel the urge to link up to the ultimate consumption sink in the world.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 04:02 | 3425309 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Chinese citizenism propagandists consuming up resources with no other purposes than consuming.

Such a glorious dynasty.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:34 | 3423259 EmileLargo
EmileLargo's picture

This is one hoax that refuses to die.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:39 | 3423288 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

no hoax - co2 & temperatures keep rising & it's not volcano activity, it's us. It's very easily measured. CO2 deflects infrared, any person can verify this. NO question.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:48 | 3423311 Diogenes
Diogenes's picture

"no hoax - co2 & temperatures keep rising"

Bullshit. It's April 4th and it's  freezing. I want my Global Warming and I want it now. Also, where is my check? I have been calling bullshit on Global Warming for 10 years and still haven't got my check. Oil company payoffs my ass.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:52 | 3423341 walküre
walküre's picture

"Warming" or "Change" or whatever they call it ... who cares if you don't go after the real trouble spots.

The biggest polluter is China at 25% of all global carbon emissions. China gets card blanche while North Americans and Europeans are paying into the carbon credit trade fraud.

That's the real racket.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:55 | 3423358 malikai
malikai's picture

Nobody should be paying into that bottomless capital sink.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:47 | 3424268 Kayman
Kayman's picture

"The biggest polluter is China at 25% of all global carbon emissions"

Say it isn't so.

 I was gonna chain up my bike to lower my carbon footprint this winter, but silly me, I decided to use my pick-me-up truck to keep from freezing my ass off.

Fuck Al Gore. and Fuck Bernanke.


Tue, 04/09/2013 - 04:00 | 3425304 AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Exporting the pollution is part of the 'american' deal.

While 'americans' have been dumping their polluting consumption processes all over the place, it saves them some figures here and there.

Fudging the numbers the 'american' way as the Chinese pollute in order to enable 'americans' in their consumption.

The world is organized to satisfy 'americans'.

Next up: 'american' places are not the most radioactive places in the world. Places where 'americans' extract uranium or dump their nuclear waste are much more radioactive.

Those places are given carte blanche to be as radioactive they want while 'american' places located in America, Europe and Japan are paying into a radiation tax fraud.

Welcome to an 'american' place. It is a cosy place to live in. Full of 'americans'.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 04:08 | 3425312 TheFourthStooge-ing
TheFourthStooge-ing's picture

Importing the pollution is part of the Chinese Citizenism Communautist Party deal.

Import the pollution, export the profits to personal accounts in foreign banks, then flee the country.

These are tough days for Chinese citizenism propagandists. The reality is so quickly adverse to them they need to be on deck 24/24 to dress reality so it conforms to their propaganda.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:22 | 3424978 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Bullshit. It's april 8th now and it's warmer than any April 8th I can remember in my LIFE TIME. It's +7 Celsius AT NIGHT. As a matter of fact it's been +7 at least 8 times from Dec to Jan and it should have been -20 to -30. It was cold enough many nights to sting but mostly from wind. Not actually cold enough to keep snow more than 5 days after snowfall and only 8 big snowfall days at all. Most of it melted quickly EVEN IN JANUARY which is crazy.

On the other hand I've had record savings in heating since it's been so fucking warm even in January.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:59 | 3423371 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

#1 The earth has been cooling since the late 90's
#2 A 10 ppm increase in CO2 does not have a measurable impact on the earth's climate, the sun is the biggest factor in earth's temperature, and has been demonstrated to be so for the last 150 years.
#3 CO2 allows plants to grow faster, increasing the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere.
#4 If CO2 actually performed in the manner described by the useful idiot masses in the "climate change" movement, high-efficiency windows would be filled with it, instead of argon.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:18 | 3423461 TuPhat
TuPhat's picture

@ bluskyes  Thank You.  I already knew 1, 2, and 3 but I didn't know number 4.  It makes perfect sense.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:03 | 3423690 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

The preceeding was a paid message from the Oil Companies! And remember kids if God thought it was a good idea to create oil reserves then it's a blaspheme not to drive!

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:46 | 3424073 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Making shit up I see...

1) Provide a credible souce for this bullshit claim...

2) The sun and the temperature record decoupled 40 years, GH forcing from C02  is larger than the observed varitaion from the sun, btw, we have increased C02 from 280 to 400 ppm....

3) O2 concentration is down, in fact very nicely anti-correlated with C02, (what you expect, i.e. science works bitches...

    Here let me google that for you....

4) There is clearly no limit to your inablitity to grasp simple science (actually to get it backwards)....

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 20:26 | 3424396 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

#1 - I have provided sources in another post on this topic. I believe it was another of your posts


#3 An increase in CO2 levels increases plant growth, and photosynthesis - resulting in faster O2 production. As well if you do believe in man-made global warming, you can sleep soundly, knowing that more heat is available for natural, oxygen-producing vegetation in non-agricultural northern areas.

#4 That is a nice link that you provided, but I am not interested in purchasing any windows. The link explains nothing about the properties of Argon or Krypton, or why they are used.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 21:57 | 3424673 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your reply to #4 shows you have zero credibility let alone comprehension...

If you believe and understand your claim re: temperature, you should be able to show it in the data, you know, science. I showed you the data, you show me the result...

You are way out of your league buddy..

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:37 | 3424819 Lore
Lore's picture

Some people find it difficult to accept that CO2 is a good thing.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:20 | 3424969 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

Sit in a box of only CO2 for 20 minutes and tell me all about it.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 09:16 | 3425952 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Hell, just let it get to 5% and see what happens

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:24 | 3423501 Anglo Hondo
Anglo Hondo's picture

co2 is still rising , but global temperatures haven't risen now for between 15-20 years.  That tends to make global temperatures natural occurances, and nothing to do with co2.

You need to read up on the real science.


Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:54 | 3423630 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

So why is the Arctic sea ice melting away? It's not the sun. The natural cycle that effects earths temperature balance is net negative. Meaning we are in a cooling phase. But that cooling is not showing up in the measurements. Sea temperature is rising, even now at deeper levels. Air temperature, a small fraction of the warming budget, is now rising again after a pause. Note, the long climb upwards has never stopped, it pauses in steps, the graphs all show this. We are now off of the last step and rising again.

The glaciers from the tropics to the high arctic are melting. Antarctica has melting surface ice, which floods fresh water in the sea, this fresh water freezes faster than salt, thus more ice builds in winter around the continent. This is a negative feed back loop, but probably very short lived. The arctic is in a run-away postive feedback loop.

Sun activity is now biased towords global cooling, the CO2 rise is now swamping this effect and causing net increase in temps. Climate zone are shifting north, like poison snakes in the North of Siberia in summer, or robins in the high arctic. Or the now common thunderstorm activity north of the arctic circle.

Warming is real, it is caused by CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere. Simple physics involved. Deniers can not make a case, they never even try anymore. So it now revolves around name calling and deliberate lies. None of this matters, denial has no effect on physics. The church tried denial of science, it changed nothing.

Burn a fossil fuel and you take fossil carbon and return it to the atmosphere. That carbon was taken out by natural processes over millions of years. Returned to the atmosphere all at once, it has to destory the atmosphereic CO2 balance. It will get hotter very fast now. The extreme weather will increase. The jet stream is now out of normal behaviour due to the melting arctic and rising polar temps, this changes how the jet stream acts. Britain is being wip sawed by the jet stream right now.

This summer may see a record ice loss in the arctic. This will set the jet stream into more unstable mode. It will be an intersting year, the arctic may have tipped completely. 50 years before predicted.

If you choose to deny it all, well that does not bother me at all. You are welcome to it. It changes nothing, nothing at all. It is that simple.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:17 | 3423774 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

Non-sense, and foolishness. Climate change promoters are among the most shameless of the religious zealots ever to cross this planet. Pontificating on, and on with vain platitudes on how evil we are, and the irreparable damage we are doing to the planet.
Assholes like David Suzuki, and Al Gore, who have huge mansions, and ride around in big air-conditioned diesel buses, and private jets. Burning hundreds of times more fuel, than any one of us average men. These are the modern day con-men preachers. Out to sell books, make big profits, and be worshipped by the groveling masses in order to satisfy their own vanity.
You say that the sun is now biases towards cooling, and that CO2 is dampening this effect, and causing net increases in temperatures. This is not true, the earth has been cooling for 15 years. But I guess that does not fit what you learned from your preachers, in the church of climatology - so you reject it.
If you do ever wake out of your stupor, i'd encourage you to start reading the wikileaks emails between so-called environmental "scientists" to see what actually goes on behind the scenes in these places of worship.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:39 | 3423856 dogbreath
dogbreath's picture

suzuki is an asshole.  the man is a hater.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:52 | 3424094 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

The earth has not been cooling... you are making shit up, here is the OHC data

For the past 10 years the amount of heat being added is the equivalent of 4 Hiroshima bombs a second....

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 20:00 | 3424307 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yep... sure thing...whatever... I did say credible, that site ain't....

Why don't you demonstrate for us with the various complete data sets exactly what you mean:


Be sure to quote the confidence intervals for us.. And say you do choose to cherry pick a month to month interval (e.g the 1998 El Nino) , do please provide the adjacent 11 adajecent month values and comment on the differences.  Finally, if you didn't understand what I just wrote, simply STFU and spare all of us your bullshit...   There are a number of people here  very familar with error analysis and robust methods of determinationing trends.  They see through the shit that is peddled, which is why you never seem claims like yours getting published in a respectable journal...

Bonus question: What does a trend 0.12 +/- 0.16 C per decade physically mean? Is the trend positive?

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 20:40 | 3424471 bluskyes
bluskyes's picture

I am not into statistical analysis, but I am into programming. I read some of the climate-gate emails myself, and I know that a lot of the data released, that was purported to be raw was in fact pre-processed. Filtered by programs written specifically to take out low points in the data. The original data sets were then destroyed.
You don't have to be a statistical analyst to recognize a scam.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:25 | 3424770 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Stop making up shit....

If the data is dubious, then any honest study would show it to be false... Hasn't happened, can you figure out why?

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:39 | 3424795 Lore
Lore's picture

There's no need to flag all the falsehoods. Just look to the origin with the Club of Rome.  Any resemblance to reality is purely coincidental.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 11:57 | 3426770 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Crawl back under the rock from whence you came...

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 15:35 | 3427973 Lore
Lore's picture

Don't attack me. DYODD.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 16:12 | 3428210 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Yes, I have done so and I have a very good idea what the LTG and CoR were actually about... Unlike you it would seem..

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:07 | 3424920 slavador
slavador's picture

The skeptical science site looks like a green-religious anti-oil site. When dealing with science we need to leave religious beliefs out of the investigations! Raw data on temperature and CO2 concentration on 5 minute intervals from 1000 random sites on earth over a period of 500,000 years would be ideal but a more modest collection is possible. Anyone with excell can make their own graphs and form their own beliefs. Conclusions without data whilst displaying articles that are pushing for political action is hardly convincing-they are the most likely to be fraudulent...

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 09:07 | 3425895 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

You are describing the denalist industry, i.e. faith based "investigation"...

You are aware  that we have very good C02 records going back 800.000 years?

Why don't you make some excel charts for us if it is so easy... Hell, the Kochs et al. will pay you *big* bucks if you can credibly show that AGW is wrong...

 The *real* scientific debate over GW was held in the 1950' to 1970s and it is over....

The *real* debate over AGW was over by 1990....

Here is a very nice synopsis of it:


Tue, 04/09/2013 - 15:38 | 3427979 Lore
Lore's picture

Now you know why it's called the Gaia CULT.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 16:18 | 3428227 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

There you go with your logical fallacies again...

Not every one who understands AGW and environmental matters is a Gaia cultist...

Why don't you and your Wild Rose type whack jobs emigrate to Idaho, you would be welcome and ironically both countries might be better off...

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 21:37 | 3429207 Lore
Lore's picture

A lapsed Catholic can still be called Catholic.

A rational voter should naturally support any political movement that eliminates deficits and stops control freaks from telling other people how to live.

ZH ain't what it used to be...

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 22:36 | 3429429 Flakmeister
Flakmeister's picture

Your blinkers are very firmly on if you thought that was the extent of it...

Wed, 04/10/2013 - 02:22 | 3429887 Lore
Lore's picture

I studied the thesis in depth -- even attended local meetings organized by various groups -- and found the whole shebang to be a classic example of popular delusion and [manipulated] madness of crowds. That's all.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 00:31 | 3425134 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

In the last decade or so most of the heat due to the greenhouse effect has been going into the oceans. The La Nina's may have something to do with that. Air temperatures rise in steps, this is graphed and can be seen to be how Air Temperatures tend to rise. It has been steadily up with steps inbetween.

The deniers are now more and more of the professional nature. Or the political nature. The Fossil Fuel Corporations have hired Public Relations firms and funded them with millions of dollars to run a program of propaganda. They keep a large number of people on as interent trolls, paid to troll every internet site that runs a climate related story. They work from prepared texts that the PR think tanks write for them. The Political deniers can not do science that shows global warming to be in anyway wrong, it is then only left to them to call people idiots and all the other names they use. Just reading their posts marks them out.

The ability of deniers off all sorts to present a rational case against the science, the data and the observable effects of global warming are now zero.  Of course the arctic is melting, but they haven't noticed yet. Or seasons like spring arrive weeks earlier now than 50 years ago. All this is a hoax in their opinion. Calling it a hoax, does not make it a hoax.

Just one thing, deniers are along for the ride. When "Sandy" trashed New England, it hammered the deniers in equal measure. I wonder what they have to say about that?

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:00 | 3424110 RockyRacoon
RockyRacoon's picture

I won't jump into the science nor the debate here (I'm not qualified), but you do have the stink of a shill about you, sir.

Mr. 4 weeks 4 days, bluskyes.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:52 | 3424286 Kayman
Kayman's picture

So shut down China and start planting conifers.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 00:42 | 3425154 scrappy
scrappy's picture

Where the hell is the bartender?

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:16 | 3424951 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

sadly this article & the source it cites does NOT clarify which frequencies of light, which photons, are deflected or transmitted. that information is critical. CO2 reflects INFRARED and most of the photons entering Earth are NOT INFRARED yet once they hit dark things ON EARTH's surface they ARE ABSORBED then infrared is emitted - that makes all the difference.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:21 | 3424979 Lore
Lore's picture

It's not critical for policy. What is critical is to understand who benefits and why.

Wed, 04/10/2013 - 21:13 | 3434657 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

policy has no place in the conversation.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:13 | 3424941 MeelionDollerBogus
MeelionDollerBogus's picture

we are NOT in a cooling phase and it IS the sun melting the ice. It's heating the water not covered by ice - easily measured with a thermometer - and that's warming the water at the edges and UNDERNEATH the ice where it can get under (and it will, just as water carves away stone, it can do so to ice even without the melting of excess heat which IS there).

All this is easily proven, good science. That means you can go measure it YOURSELF and get the same results.

At the deepest levels see temperature is NOT RISING. It is 4 Celsius, the temperature of the most dense water. The most dense water sinks and that is science.

You clearly flunked science.

Tue, 04/09/2013 - 00:15 | 3425109 Jack Burton
Jack Burton's picture

Interesting but totally bogus.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:04 | 3423697 cougar_w
cougar_w's picture

But but ... I hear again today that nearly every year since 1998 has been among the hottest years in the human record!

I'm so confused. Please help me understand.

Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:59 | 3424313 Kayman
Kayman's picture

I hate quoting Wiki. It is sooooo. PC

  • Antarctica seems to be both warming around the edges and cooling at the center at the same time. Thus it is not possible to say whether it is warming or cooling overall.
  • Mon, 04/08/2013 - 20:03 | 3424328 Flakmeister
    Flakmeister's picture

    And pray tell what fraction of the globe is Antarctic? And how does that contrast with the Arctic?

    Out of curiousity, is this the kind of thinking you do to make yourself feel better? I know it really sucks when the impact of collective actions overwhelms one's cherished notion of liberty....

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:11 | 3424936 MeelionDollerBogus
    MeelionDollerBogus's picture

    I have read up on the real science and measured temperatures myself.

    The increase year over year is at least 0.3 degrees every year for the last 10 years. In winter where we used to get lots of snow now we barely get any. We had all of 8 days of snow for the entire winter. That's wrong, Flat out wrong. The number of days above freezing in the winter keep increasing too, and it should be -20 C or colder in December or January. It isn't.

    Your thermometer is busted or you're not using one - I am and checking all around. Every year is hotter than the last or perhaps you forgot WHY there was record drought last summer and the summer before? It's worse than just record summer heat - which is also a fact - it's record loss of snow-pack and rain-fall PRIOR to summer.

    You'd have to be on LSD to pretend it's COOLING. It's hotter and hotter every year consecutively for 15 years PERIOD. Not one cooler year moving forward in sequence. Not one.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:19 | 3424949 Lore
    Lore's picture

    The drought is part of a conjunction of weather cycles last seen back in the 50s. Evelyn Garriss provides some good perspective in her Fall newsletter. We're not seeing anything we haven't seen before. Relax. There's no genuine need to cough up carbon tribute to those who claim to speak for Gaia.

    Tue, 04/09/2013 - 12:45 | 3426998 akak
    akak's picture

    There is one simple, irrefutable fact that climate change deniers refuse to ever acknowledge or face that PROVES that the earth, as a whole, has been warming for around 150 years now, and continues to warm at an accelerating rate: the worldwide melting of both alpine and polar glaciers and icecaps.

    On every continent, for at least the last full century, in almost every case, ALL glaciers and icecaps have been melting and are in retreat, with the rate of that melting and retreat continuing to accelerate.  I have myself seen glaciers in Africa, South America, Alaska and Greenland that have retreated and/or thinned noticeably and in some cases radically over the last 30 years, with only a tiny handful of exceptions which are nevertheless further proof of the broader case, those being due to glacial surges caused by increased levels of meltwater "lubricating" the bottom of the glacier, and/or thinning leading to less pressure on the underlying rock or ground leading to the same effect.

    Given that there is a rapid feedback between the warming atmosphere and glacial retreat, on the order of a handful of years at most, it is more than obvious that the world continues to warm, all hysterical denials of the facts to the contrary.  This does not mean that one must embrace Al Gore or anyone else's political agenda simply to acknowledge reality.

    Tue, 04/09/2013 - 13:20 | 3427149 Flakmeister
    Flakmeister's picture

    Well stated...

    No one is asking anyone to like Al Gore because that isn't the issue at hand...

    Tue, 04/09/2013 - 15:32 | 3427942 Lore
    Lore's picture

    It's not well stated, and his case is hardly obvious anymore.

    I've seen glaciers too. They melt, and reform during cooling periods.  It's OKAY.

    Tue, 04/09/2013 - 16:25 | 3428261 Flakmeister
    Flakmeister's picture

    Tell us all about the Athabasca Icefields.... Is there a single one that is larger now than 100 years ago? No? Didn't think so either...

    So what exactly drives these "warming" and "cooling" periods? Or explain the shape of this Figure 1 to us:

    Wed, 04/10/2013 - 00:44 | 3429763 slavador
    slavador's picture

    Mr. Phd in physics clearly failed geography. The Columbia Icefields contain the Athabasca Glacier. There are no AThabasca Icefields. There is shrinkage in the Columbia Icefields which will hopefully free up some areas for high-value human activities like mining! My son is working on a service rig in near athabasca (a completely different and more northern area without glaciers) and he tells me it was so cold today the pump nearly froze up. A few more degrees on average would make Athabasca an even more awesome place! Likely this isn't happening which is too bad because it would be VERY good news! Stealing wealth from those that have earned it with the cover story of some futile attempt to controll the climate is something academics not trained in climate science or geography seem more than willing to lobby for...

    Wed, 04/10/2013 - 08:15 | 3430302 Flakmeister
    Flakmeister's picture

    Mea Culpa, the Athabasca Glacier... I walked on it -25 years ago when I went up to Jasper...

    Seems that you are such a selfish narcissist that you are incapable of understanding we belong to the Earth, not the other way around...The Earth doesn't care about your delusions of liberty...

    Thats it, I am done wasting time with some one in such obvious denial...

    Wed, 04/10/2013 - 21:14 | 3434662 MeelionDollerBogus
    MeelionDollerBogus's picture


    they were there, now they barely are. Stood there myself to see.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:39 | 3423273 fonzannoon
    fonzannoon's picture

    anyone have any input on canadian energt trusts? They have really been sucking wind.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:47 | 3423313 Lore
    Lore's picture

    Harper has been briefed about "green" Agenda 21 and the global warming hoax. It's interesting that Ottawa continues to pay lip service to this thing. I suspect Redford's main motivation for "carbon tax" is simply to generate revenue and siphon capital.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:47 | 3423314 Mototard at Large
    Mototard at Large's picture

    Slightly off topic, but the Canadian government has identified six of the major CDN banks as TBTF.  The federal regulator, OFSI (Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions) has made a series of statements over the last two years about how they lack faith in the competencies of the Boards of Directors as well as their risk managers.  All may not be as well in the Maple Syrup Kingdom.

    (PS - A a Canadian, I seriously apologize for Justin Beiber and Celine Dion. Sorry about that eh?)

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:46 | 3423885 Rakshas
    Rakshas's picture

    Beg pardon but Celine is from Quebec NOT Canada.......... hey it's how i get by ...... though i hear this one alot 



    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:26 | 3424010 Grinder74
    Grinder74's picture

    Yeah but you don't have to apologize for these fine Canadian specimens:

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:53 | 3423336 oddjob
    oddjob's picture

    Northern Gateway is a pipe dream. No way the people of BC let it happen.

    Tue, 04/09/2013 - 00:19 | 3425116 slavador
    slavador's picture


    Perhaps we might...

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 15:53 | 3423344 Jim in MN
    Jim in MN's picture

    Dear Canada:


    1.  Take a deep breath.


    2.  Wait five years.


    3.  Announce that the oilsands will never be developed except for Canadian domestic use as a national patrimony.


    4.  Wait thirty seconds.


    5.  Sell rights to highest bidder (before the US helicopters land).


    6. PROFIT!

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:22 | 3423653 Kirk2NCC1701
    Kirk2NCC1701's picture

    +1  Good one!

    But not to worry:  The 51st State of the US has always done (eventually) as Washington wishes. 

    /God forbid that their way of life (being nice and living nice) would be in jeopardy. /s

    Note:  Many of my Canadian friends vehemently disagree about being called the "51st State".  They claim that "Canada joined much sooner!"  ;-)

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:22 | 3423493 Herdee
    Herdee's picture

    Premier Redford is destroying Alberta's budget again.Last year it was a whopping $6 billion deficit,this year it's a $7 billion deficit.A former Premier Ralph Klein brought in a balanced budget law and did just that,balanced the budget.It took several years to finally balance.Redford and the previous Premier both overturned the former budget balancing legislation created by Klein.Alberta is playing a very dangerous game,because IF oil continues to drop for extended periods of time,those deficits are going to hipe out everything gained and leave them so far in debt,it'll make your head spin.And Alberta is getting a lot price that's a lot less than WTI.She's a big high roller gamble by Keynesian economists,keep spending,don't balance,based on oil and gas?And as well,it's just not Alberta which is now showing huge deficits.Canadian households have been warned that they are farther in the hole than Americans were at the height of the American housing boom.Provinces' budgets across Canada like the two most populated which are Quebec and Ontario are drastically under water.Their budgets are shit.Most of the Province's HealthCare systems take about 50% of their budgets.Canada is famous for all their big intitlements and big governments with tons of pensions to pay to former and present government workers.Even down to the Municipal Unions everyone is getting these big pensions and really milking the system.Cops and Firefighters being the worst after politicians who even collect partial tax-free incomes,even at the Municipal level.You talk about Greece,Canada is intitlement heaven for everyone,why do you think so many people from around the globe want in?Sound familiar?Top it off,like I said before,it's still a secret what they spent in Afganistan because the Feds passed a special National Security Law to hide it but estimates are as high as 20 Billion.The overall Federal deficit for 33 million people being 800 Billion.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:48 | 3423904 bluskyes
    bluskyes's picture

    Should've elected Wild Rose!

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:24 | 3423997 Canadian Dirtlump
    Canadian Dirtlump's picture

    you see many small communities ( the one I was living in at the time) had the brains to do that but the big centers said no. The NEO P.C.s actually went as far as to punish some small centers by cancelling infrastructure programs.

    Meanwhile now we're selling our oil at a massive discount and funding the shopping spree on a credit card. In sad irony Ralph Klein died last week.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 16:50 | 3423625 Canadian Dirtlump
    Canadian Dirtlump's picture

    Being that we are the able hand maidens of the US and the Queen, one can reasonably expect a global rogering in the rear end for us, no matter what. Further doubling down on our indentured servitude you have a profligate Alberta P.C. government who budget like retarded children and have globalist stooge aspirations (like jet setting to chantilly virginia to the bilderberg meeting lmao).  I'm just happy to be part of the problem ( I am VP at a pipeline & facility construction project). Most of our work is Bakken / Cardiem related, with some oilsands fabrication.

    If we had sound policy ( national or provincial) we would be refining everything here and selling refined products at a premium rather than selling our oil at a discount and buying back refined product at a premium. Right now, the politicians will serve their masters, whoever the fuck that is.


    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:04 | 3423707 James_Cole
    James_Cole's picture

    Canadian policy ensures the dutch disease already being experienced across the country is going to go from bad to terrible. And the overall economy will continue on its predictable boom-bust path. 

    It's sad seeing some of the smartest people I know working for the tar sands in one way or another, the whole thing is a colossal waste. 

    My experience of the Canadian economy is if you're smart with a high level science degree the two best places to wind up are Bay street or Athabasca. If neither are your cup of tea best bet is leave the country. 

    I will say my friends who've opted for the latter are infinitely happier than those who stayed. 

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:53 | 3423922 slavador
    slavador's picture

    Son #1 Is working up in Wabasca and he claims that conventional oil supply is outstripping refining capacity. With the addition of the truely massive Heavy oil supply coming from cleaning the oilsands, this industry is making life very good for many people. The problems Canada has stem from the millions of welfare ingrates that refuse to work and the truely evil socialist planners and their army of "caring" union  government workers that use human misery of their design as their power base... 

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:48 | 3423907 dogbreath
    dogbreath's picture


    I caught the Redford trip to virginia on Rense.  Most everyone I've mentioned it to didn't even know what Bilderberg was.   The other more nasty aspect is Mulcairs visit to alberta at the same time to run flak with the media  blah blah Dutch Disease blah.   Nobody in the media mentioned her trip and neither did the opposition parties.  They are all in cahoots.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:53 | 3423920 Canadian Dirtlump
    Canadian Dirtlump's picture

    I mentioned it to my dad and he said he looked it up and could barely find a squeak. I asked him why the fuck he was surprised. lmao.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:04 | 3423695 Dan The Man
    Dan The Man's picture

    As for the lemmings giftwrap about $20 each a mnth in service charges, just for the privelege of having an account and having the gaul to use it, and they still fkd it up.  I hate them. 

    ...and i hate beiber. Please Justin...just move.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 22:46 | 3424854 Lore
    Lore's picture

    Take our Justins (Bieber and Trudeau)... PLEASE.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:15 | 3423771 SubjectivObject
    SubjectivObject's picture

    They're worrried about and ready to act on CO2 emissions?

    And yet no action about boreal forest and water table destruction or downstream water polution?

    What's with this bias of ox goring?

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:21 | 3423778 Floodmaster
    Floodmaster's picture

    Canada is the largest supplier of oil (dirty tar sands) for the gluttonous American SUV/Pickup Truck. America has become the worst energy wasters in the universe.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:34 | 3423842 Canadian Dirtlump
    Canadian Dirtlump's picture

    I'm not sure that blended, our exports are much dirtier overall (when looking at reclamation, extraction and environmental impact) than places like venezuela, or many african countries which have grotesque infrastructure, massive contamination and wanton environmental pillaging.

    Then you have place like Saudi Arabia, which have reserves much smaller than they state, and are pumping water into the ground as fast as they can to get oil out. Much of those areas using borderline slave labor of course, with human rights records deserving of a bombing campaign or 6 for their freedom.

    That being said, love it or hate it, oil is here to stay until it's gone, and it will take an honest effort (rather than crony boondoggles) to stop that.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 17:44 | 3423882 James_Cole
    James_Cole's picture

    I'm not sure that blended, our exports are much dirtier overall (when looking at reclamation, extraction and environmental impact) than places like venezuela, or many african countries which have grotesque infrastructure, massive contamination and wanton environmental pillaging.

    Reclamation? At the tar sands? There's a joke! Everyone knows the tailings are going right into the water table. Their 50 yr projections are at best laughable.

    It's reminiscent of the London Whale trade, it's in everyone's best interest just to make shit up.  

    Healthy level of carcinogens, reclamation in 5 yrs! 

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:12 | 3423955 Canadian Dirtlump
    Canadian Dirtlump's picture

    1) I don't need to be schooled on an industry that I work in, and see literally every day.

    2) how do we compare with other countries in the same measure, that was the crux of my comment which I thought was reasonably clear.

    3) I am not in favor of lax environmental rules.

    I'm not making anything up. Whereas comments like "everyone knows the tailings are going straight into the water table" and the "50 year projections are a joke" seem, on the surface to be "making things up."

    I'm not firmly on the side of corrupt business. However I'm also not on the side of the academic treehugging nitwit with 3 degrees in irrelevance who carpools with the last vestige of his studen loan money to protest the lastest bid to drill here or expand there. There's middle ground there.

    Point blank, the US is better off getting their oil from canada than you are funding a military machine to lock down oil in the middle east. You wanna talk EROI? Lmao. But that would impact defense contractors.

    Final thought, an operative word in my response was blended. We export a variety of petroleum products.

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 18:33 | 3424027 James_Cole
    James_Cole's picture

    I'm not making anything up. Whereas comments like "everyone knows the tailings are going straight into the water table" and the "50 year projections are a joke" seem, on the surface to be "making things up."

    Saying 'everyone knows' maybe is a reach - I meant everyone involved knows. Most Canadians are ignornant of probably 99% of what goes on in Canada. But certainly you should know the tailings are leaking into the water table:

    “The studies have, for the first time, detected potentially harmful, mining-related organic acid contaminants in the groundwater outside a long-established out-of-pit tailings pond,” said the memo from deputy minister Serge Dupont, dated June 19, 2012.

    Environment Canada describes groundwater contamination as a serious problem since aquifers can remain contaminated for decades or centuries, leaking into lakes, rivers or streams, while potentially creating costly water supply problems.

    Other peer-reviewed research, published last fall, has also found evidence that contaminants from oilsands air pollution are collecting on the bottom of lakes that are up to 100 kilometres away, raising concerns about anticipated expansion over the next decade.

    Another thing you must know since you 'see this everyday' the 50 yr projections are a joke because there is simply no known method to reclaim a lot of the tailings. Their 'reclamation' involves dumping the tailings, caping the pits and hoping for the best...yeah really brilliant, no possibility of further groundwater contamination!

    They're continuing the 'research' so let's all hope for the best, but so far the reclamation process is way behind schedule.

    Point blank, the US is better off getting their oil from canada than you are funding a military machine to lock down oil in the middle east. 

    That's a separate argument.

    Final thought, an operative word in my response was blended. We export a variety of petroleum products. 

    Yeah but you can't just say 'hey look at our best we're pretty decent' when the majority is pretty bad. 

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 19:19 | 3424166 slavador
    slavador's picture

    The oil is already there in the sand on the surface by the millions of tonnes. As we clean it some of the oil will get into the water as it always has. The really great thing about the oil sands is that Northern Alberta will have cleaner and cleaner soil/groundwater over time as the oil is removed. Some areas contaminated by the planet millions of years ago will become habitable for the first time in history due to the cleansing powers of ... THE OIL INDUSTRY! The continued flow of wealth means Alberta will continue to have the finest schools and hospitals in North America!

    Mon, 04/08/2013 - 23:26 | 3424875 Lore
    Lore's picture

    Many Gaia disciples are unaware that oil was originally recovered from open natural pools on the surface of the ground, very much in contact with the local water table.  It would stun them to see the stuff oozing from seams in the banks of rivers in Northern Alberta. All they know is the propaganda they're given. For them, oil is alien - something to be repudiated in all its forms.  They don't consider that it has its place in the "pristine" environment.

    For kicks, check out the coal seams that have burned for centuries in parts of BC and NWT. Global warming preachers never touch details like THAT.

    Tue, 04/09/2013 - 13:23 | 3427166 Flakmeister
    Flakmeister's picture

    And your point is what exactly?

    Normally one only encounters such crappy strawmen on sites like Yahoo! Then again the Hedge ain't what it used to be...

    Tue, 04/09/2013 - 15:25 | 3427919 Lore
    Lore's picture

    "Strawmen?"  I used to live near Fort Mac.

    Tue, 04/09/2013 - 15:28 | 3427926 Flakmeister
    Flakmeister's picture

    You fail to grasp that weakness of your argument...

    Once again, what is your point?

    Wed, 04/10/2013 - 15:45 | 3433131 Lore
    Lore's picture

    What's my point about what? 

    I mention natural phenomena to illustrate the fact that Earth itself has been spewing more crud into the atmosphere than we ever will.

    The global warming argument is toothless because it posits government policy as a solution to something that occurs in nature. It's garbage. 

    Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!