Three issues with the term "decarbonized" oil: i) It is silly. Oil contains carbon and emits CO2 when combusted. ii) Doesn't even make sense for production emissions, because carbon capture and storage doesn't capture all emissions (can be <50%) iii) Our trading partners know (i) and (ii)
IMO, what we’re seeing is political cover for keeping GHG limits on upstream O&G: strong fugitive controls, broad electrification where it makes sense, & CCS where it makes sense (eg conc CO2 from auto thermal H2 prod). It’s not Paris complaint, but it’s better than nothing in adverse conditions.
I agree. I think it would be much smarter for the government to just say that, rather than use these made up terminology that is easily mocked.
Totally agree.
The O&G sector & AB have grabbed control of the agenda with the focus on pipeline, and it’s going to take a lot of civil society & institutional attention to keep it on a broader agenda
💯
Does that mean sinking money into assets that will be of little to no value in 10-15 years? Could we not use that money better by applying it towards the energy transition, like all the non-petrostates in the world?
Grand bargain: TMX for carbon tax and climate action. Gets TMX. Boo carbon tax! Boo climate action! We need a grand bargain for a pipeline!
Quebec definitely seeming less opposed than a couple months ago. I was hoping they’d keep the _type_ of pipeline vague until finally announcing a maple syrup pipeline. The most Canadian source of energy.
Québec still uses a lot of crude oil products and RPPs, mainly sourced from the US and overseas, but that is going to shift fast over the next decade. A question might be what is its potential role consuming 🇨🇦 oil & exporting as global demand falls fast? #midtransition
Re i, I’m old enough to remember when the oil industry in Alberta was going on about how the production emissions were a small part of the total well to wheel emissions.
Isn't decarbonized oil... just hydrogen..
10/10!