text:
tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-81823347935442139822014-08-27T07:54:14.548-06:00Canadian TrendsNon-partisan trends and commentary for critical thinkers.Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-25058265856733027042014-08-22T13:28:00.005-06:002014-08-22T19:23:45.478-06:00When it comes to #oilsands a stable price is a low price no matter how high it isAlberta's oil industry is having a serious cash crunch and the problem doesn't look to be reversing any time soon with the price of oil continually hitting a ceiling of affordability over the last few years. This ceiling has robbed Albertan oil companies and the government they own of all of the additional profit brought in by the "buy low, sell high" market mentality that they have been relying on for years. That market of rapid price gains in oil is now years into the rearview mirror and the reality of unsustainable and ever-mounting costs for low energy return on energy investment projects such as the oilsands, deepwater, and fracking are becoming very visible.

This situation is the exact situation I have been warning about for years being one of the few that have maintained that oilsands operations are not profitable at all once the subsidies, market volatility, and infrastructure to support the laborers were either stripped away or accounted for. Oil is at historical all time highs (when you discount volatile spikes like we saw in 2007/2008) yet still the Albertan government must borrow to pay for basic infrastructure upgrades and "cost cutting fever" is gripping oilsands players.

Cost-cutting fever grips oil sands players as economics called into question

Canadian oil companies are ruthlessly enforcing capital discipline as project costs creep up and shareholders pressure management to focus only on the most profitable ventures.

Suncor Energy Inc. announced a billion-dollar cut for the rest of the year even though the company raised its oil price forecast.

Others such as Athabasca Oil Corp., PennWest Exploration Ltd., Talisman Energy Inc. and Sunshine Oil Sands Ltd. are also cutting back due to a mix of internal corporate issues and project uncertainty. Cenovus Energy Inc. is also facing cost pressures at its Foster Creek oil sands facility.

"Given that the low-bearing fruit have already been developed, the next wave of oil sands project are coming from areas where geology might not be as uniform," said Dinara Millington, senior vice president at the Canadian Energy Research Institute.

The global oil industry is gripped with the cost-cutting fever amid shareholder pressure, but the oil sands are particularly vulnerable given their baked-in higher development costs, high wages, remote location and infrastructure challenges. In May, France's Total SA shelved an $11-billion oil sands mine project planned with joint venture partners Suncor, Occidental Petroleum and Inpex Canada.

"Oil sands are economically challenging in terms of returns," said Jeff Lyons, a partner at Deloitte Canada. "Cost escalation is causing oil sands participants to rethink the economics of projects. That's why you're not seeing a lot of new capital flowing into oil sands."

Existing in-situ oil sands projects in Alberta are produced at a break-even cost of US$63.50 per barrel on average, while integrated oil sands mining projects have a breakeven cost of US$60 to US$65, including a 9% after-tax return, compared to the Saskatchewan Bakken's US$44.30 a barrel cost.

SAGD operations saw a 5.1% jump from 2011 to 2013 on average, while mining and extraction was up 6.1% and integrated mining and upgrading 7.9% during the period, CERI data shows. Last December, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd. and the Alberta government revised cost estimates of their 50,000-barrels per day upgrading project by 49%.

"Costs in the oil sands are rising faster than general inflation, and it's a culmination of many factors," Ms. Millington said, adding that currently many producers are reporting a bit of a pause in new contract awards and backlog.

Indeed, large-scale developments present "material inflation risks," RBC Capital Markets said in a June report.

Even "smaller SAGD projects like Sunshine's West Ells or Pengrowth's Lindbergh have announced cost increases while Athabasca's Hangingstone has experienced modest scheduling pressure and delays," Canada's biggest bank by assets said.

The trend of cost rationalization is not unique to the oil sands and rippling across the global industry thanks to the "abundance" of assets, according to Barry Munro, oil and gas leader at Ernst & Young.

"It's not about scarcity of resources anymore. Companies are realizing they have far more assets than they are ever going to have capital to be able to exploit — they feel they have to structurally change their business model."

Indeed, business plans are in a state of flux. Oil and gas deals in Canada rose 23% in the first half of the year, according to management consultancy Deloitte LLP, but much of the activity took place outside the oil sands sector.

"Deal activity has cooled in Canada's vast oil sands reserves as producers have struggled with rising costs, in part because of stricter environmental regulations," Deloitte said in a recent report. "Even with oil at more than $100 per barrel, some large producers have been cancelling projects because higher costs have crimped returns."

Richard Grafton, chief executive officer of Grafton Asset Management, says oil prices may have to go higher for new investors to favour oil sands.

"Right now, the [price] band that we are in for a number of years is around $100, and frankly, may be we need at a higher price with access to global market, before we get excited about that [the oil sands]," Mr. Grafton told the Financial Post in an interview last week.

A recent report by London-based Carbon Tracker Initiative estimated that a number of oil sands projects would be economically impractical at oil prices below $130 per barrel.

RBC Capital, which is confident that the existing oil sands players will meet their production targets profitably, estimates the industry will require between $26-billion to $33-billion each year to maintain existing production and raise output by an additional 250,000-bpd annually till the end of the decade.

"Challenges and constraints exist such as pipeline capacity and technology development, however, financing is perhaps the biggest challenge facing development stage oil sands companies at this time," RBC noted.
Perhaps the most interesting paragraph from this latest article is this one:

"It's not about scarcity of resources anymore. Companies are realizing they have far more assets than they are ever going to have capital to be able to exploit — they feel they have to structurally change their business model."
As anyone versed properly in 'peak oil' theory knows "running out" of oil is a physical impossibility because the extraction of energy requires energy itself to be accomplished (Energy Return on Energy Invested - EROEI). As we've covered on this blog several times currency (what we call 'money' today) translates to money as money translates to energy. Any trade of goods or services is a trade of energy required to produce the product or provide the service. Money is a physical representation or store of value of this energy, currency is a claim check on money (or at least it is supposed to be). So when one refers to the energy input of energy extraction this translates directly to the cost, or financing of a project. When the amount of energy required to input into the extraction process approaches the amount of energy you get from the output a project becomes economically unviable. We will never run out of oil because the economics of extracting much of the oil in the ground simply provide no return.

It is still very much about scarcity of resources but what few seem to realize is that until we reach the very end of the peak oil story the scarcity in resources is not going to show up in shortages of the resources themselves but rather in the available capital to finance projects and in the affordability of the resources themselves.

In example, here is an article I wrote awhile ago on Obama's claim that "energy efficiency" has resulted in a drop in fossil fuel consumption in the U.S. where as the reality is that it was the global recession depression that truly claims responsibility for the reduction in consumption.

Ok. Now, there is one part in particular that is true, but within the context he's using it is a complete lie: "Taken together, our energy policy is creating jobs and leading to a cleaner, safer planet. Over the past eight years, the United States has reduced our total carbon pollution more than any other nation on Earth."

 It's true, they have, want to see that in a chart form?

U.S. consumers did not willingly reduce their consumption rather the needed capital to increase their consumption didn't exist due to the resulting credit crisis. Being that currency is not itself a tangible resource but rather represents these resources it can be said that this is a form of resource scarcity. When we hit the limits of resource affordability credit collapses and capital vanishes which results in a significant drop in demand long before physical resource scarcity can take effect. It is important to understand that an economy that requires ever growing supplies of energy will fail before the supplies of energy themselves fail in fact it's unlikely we will ever see physical resource scarcity as the underlining extraction process requires a stable economy and supply chain which the coming economic shockwaves from resource scarcity will likely disrupt.

So the so-called "abundance of assets" really doesn't mean much at all, just as Alberta constantly touting that it's "total reserves rival Saudi Arabia" doesn't mean much at all. Until those reserves, those assets, are out of the ground they are worthless. If investors are noticing that the returns on these projects are barely worth the time invested, let alone the risk, then we are nearing that moment in time when the light finally goes on in their brains that there is no economic benefit to spending a barrel of oil to get a barrel of oil. None what-so-ever.

This story becomes even more economically depressing when you remember that we are in a historically low-interest rate environment. These projects are not just having trouble getting financing, they are having trouble getting financing at central-bank orchestrated artificially low interest rates which if they were to rise would make financing that much more difficult. The U.S. shale "boom" is experiencing the same problems and has likewise been just barely affordable due to the low interest rate environment.

As I've pointed out before it's not like the federal and provincial governments don't know this, they're very aware, and if you go back and look at their policies, their forecasts, and the economic results of the last few years with this knowledge that they know in mind you'll see there has been a clear strategy to keep Albertans and Canadians in the dark of the true risk and low rates of return. There is a very commonly held belief that the oilsands are providing incredible returns for Canadians - reinforced daily with government and industry funded propaganda - when the truth couldn't be further from.

The reality is for years the government has been abusing Canadian tax dollars in everything from marketing campaigns to Olympic trains while gambling on market moves and taking credit as prudent fiscal managers the whole while. Albertans lately seem very fed up with the entitled attitude of it's provincial government but what they don't seem to understand is that the Alberta government's #1 job isn't governing the province but rather ensuring access for the oil industry and also ensuring Albertans don't realize they and their children who will be left with the resulting mess and no resources to address it, are being royally ripped off.Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-27218742963613137592014-07-25T01:42:00.002-06:002014-07-25T02:34:22.101-06:00The stench of western hypocrisy is becoming hard to ignoreAnother day, more western endorsed Gazan deaths. "Self defense", "Rockets", and "Human shields" are really getting old fast in terms of the excuses Israel is using to justify it's slaughter, and it is a slaughter, of what you must remember is a very very tiny occupied land. There is no where for these people to go. From Wikipedia...

Gaza has an annual population growth rate of 2.91% (2014 est.), the 13th highest in the world, and is overcrowded.[4][5] There is a limited capability to construct new homes and facilities for this growth. The territory is 41 kilometers (25 mi) long, and from 6 to 12 kilometers (3.7 to 7.5 mi) wide, with a total area of 365 square kilometers (141 sq mi).[6] As of 2014, the population of the Gaza Strip was about 1.82 million people.[5] The large Palestinian refugee population makes it among the most densely populated parts of the world.[7]
"Rockets" and acts of aggression

ROCKETS!!! ROCKETS!!! THEY'RE FIRING FUCKING ROCKETS, proclaim the fancy propaganda memes spewed out of the IDFSpokesperson. Of course, since the battle started all talk of illegal Israeli settlements has all but vanished from the news even though just prior the European Union was "losing patience" with Israel over it's settlement policy.

The EU Ambassador to Israel has warned that a growing number of EU states are dissuading their citizens from doing business with companies registered in Israeli settlements; France, Italy and Spain have already joined the trend.
 Ambassador Lars Faaborg-Andersen told a business seminar organized by the Geneva Initiative on Friday that six European nations have already issued warnings to the Israeli government over expanding construction of settlements beyond the Green Line.

 EU member states "are losing their patience with concerns not being treated [seriously]," by Israel, Lars Faaborg-Andersen said.

"The EU is more consistently implementing existing policy, and taking further steps to disengage from the settlements," said the ambassador, and warned that in case settlement construction does not stop, even more EU member states will issue an advisory not to do business with business in the settlements.

 The governments of five of the largest EU economies: Germany, France, Italy and Spain, UK, as well as the Netherlands have urged businessmen nationwide to stop investing into Israeli settlements in eastern Jerusalem, the Golan Heights and the West Bank.
 The international community regards all Israeli settlements built on occupied Palestinian land as illegal.
It's really, really, simple folks. You can not be engaged in what is clearly an act of aggression, in violation of international law, of a people you oppress and then cry every time they attack you. That's what oppressed people do, survival is a powerful motivator.

Speaking of illegal settlements and occupations, read this.

In April, Mr. Harper spoke out again: "When a major power acts in a way that is so clearly aggressive, militaristic and imperialistic, this represents a significant threat to the peace and stability of the world, and it's time we all recognized the depth and the seriousness of that threat." All nations had to be rallied "to understand that peace and stability is being threatened here in a way that has not been threatened since the end of the Cold War."

From the outset Mr. Harper declared the presence of Russian troops in Crimea to be an "illegal military occupation" and said Canada would refuse to recognize the forthcoming referendum that Mr. Putin used to "legitimize" its seizure. Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird chimed in to call the upcoming referendum "a Soviet-style tactic that's unacceptable for a G8 country…" So it was.
Of course he wasn't talking about Israel, he was talking about the Ukraine. We're going to look more at the Ukraine in a bit.

Sure, Hamas is firing rockets aimlessly at civilian populations and "from" civilian areas (because all of Gaza is one overpopulated civilian area, duh). Those rockets are really all they have and they're rockets, not missiles, they don't have guidance systems. It's a point, shoot, and pray it hits something system. They're under a blockade and systematic isolation. You can not deny a people the right to have an army and then complain when they are forced to use Guerilla tactics, survival is a powerful motivator.

"Self defense" and the justification of dead children

Let's say for the sake of argument that Israel's "self defense" excuse were accurate (as in they were not actually occupying the land they're defending), it's being used as the reasonable justification for bombing civilians. Fine. But wait, just 1 year ago I remember another country that was under attack by foreign terrorists that was claiming self-defense in it's military campaign of "bombing their own civilians". That country was Syria. Let's check in with them...

But as the rockets and bombs fall, a deadlier war next door rolls on. The Syrian civil war has claimed 170,000 lives in three years; this past weekend's death toll in Syria was greater than what took place in Gaza. By some accounts, the past week may have been the deadliest in the conflict's grim history. Meanwhile, the extremist insurgents of the Islamic State (also known as ISIS), have continued their ravages over a swath of territory stretching from eastern Syria to the environs of Baghdad, Iraq's capital; the spike in violence in Iraq has led to more than 5,500 civilian deaths in the first six months of this year.

Over the weekend, Islamic State militants battled forces loyal to Syrian President Bashar al-Assad over a gas field in central Syria. According to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, some 700 people have died in just two days of fighting, including employees working at the facility.
So basically, what western nations are saying, is that Israel is completely justified to kill as many civilians as they need to "defend themselves" from rocket attacks but Assad has no right to defend himself in the same capacity from what is turning out to be a very brutal, violent, western backed, terrorist force.

Dead civilians isn't our concern at all, only the western agenda of global resource domination is.

"Human shields" and the Israeli propaganda machine

"I saw no evidence during my week in Gaza of Israel's accusation that Hamas uses Palestinians as human shields": BBC http://t.co/toMBmyhip8
— Kenneth Roth (@KenRoth) July 24, 2014
According to Israel, everything about Gaza is "terror". They don't just build tunnels, they build "terror tunnels". Targets are "terrorist sites". The defending army are not soldiers, they're terrorists, thus not being awarded the international luxury of an "enemy combatant". Less than human. Their obvious usage of traditional military-grade propaganda to dehumanize the enemy has been working in overdrive. Meme after meme, cartoon after cartoon, contextless stat after contextless stat pours out of the IDF in a desperate attempt to win public opinion in favour of their slaughter. But bad vector art of hospitals they'd like to bomb don't prove anything in the face of the pictures of dead children and the interesting little details that leak out.

According to Alex Fishman, a military analyst writing in Yedioth Ahronoth: "The tanks, which serve as the heart of the assault force, received an order to open fire at anything that moved. The area and the targets are due to be seized by the morning hours. From here on, [the army] will start to clear the ground, in what could last for several days, depending on political developments."
Or the quickly deleted reports...

And then there's the now deleted tweet from CNN's Diana Magnay observing Israelis cheering as bombs rained down on Gaza: "Israelis on hill above Sderot cheer as bombs land on #gaza; threaten to 'destroy our car if I say a word wrong.' Scum." (CNN pulled her off the Gaza beat as a result).
For Israelis on Edge of Battle, Rockets Put On a Show

SDEROT, Israel — The women and children trudge up the dusty hill between dusk and sunset, some with dogs. The men stay long after dark, some with binoculars. It is the closest thing to a front-row seat for the war between Israel and the Gaza Strip, short of combat. Better than being stuck in a safe room somewhere watching those talking heads on television.

Overhead, they can see Israeli drones and planes beaming light onto the darkened battlefield. Below, across the road, Israeli tanks and troops are staging for entry. Beyond, an orange glow — could that be Shejaiya, the Gaza City neighborhood where fighting has raged for three days? No, too far north: Probably Beit Hanoun, the border town that has faced intense artillery shelling since the invasion began.

Suddenly, shouts of "Ooh, ooh!" and everyone pointed up at two rockets soaring from Gaza into Israel about 9 p.m. on Tuesday. "Jerusalem," a veteran hill-watcher said knowingly. They checked the Red Alert apps on their cellphones: Turns out it was Gedera, a town closer to the coast. When the Iron Dome system intercepted it, applause came from the crowd of perhaps 50.

"It's like we've been having a very bad toothache with a pain that's been accumulating for years," said Shmuel Dahan, 51, a gardener who lives near the hill. "And we want to come and see the tooth being taken out."
It should be a pretty key indicator when you see how hard Israel is working to keep popular opinion on it's side that there is likely a reason for that. Israel is never going to be peaceful. Peace doesn't buy you $3 Billion annually in military aid.

Alliances are forming

Facing a constant assault of western based propaganda Russia told Israel something very interesting..

Despite President Vladimir Putin's personal sympathy for Israel, which has remained neutral in the ongoing struggle between Russia and the West over Ukraine, Russia cannot openly support it in the Arab-Israeli conflict because of its other commitments in the region, analysts said.
And a few weeks prior to that China's president visited South Korea in what western media dubbed 'a snub to the North', at least until we heard what he had to say.

SEOUL — China's visiting president, Xi Jinping, reminded South Koreans on Friday that their two countries had fought "shoulder to shoulder" against Japan more than four centuries ago, underscoring what analysts have called the main goal of his first official visit to the country: drawing South Korea away from Japan and the United States.
It should be no surprise these alliances are forming at the same time the BRICs announce their development bank intended to take on the U.S. dollar's primary reserve currency status.

The stench of western hypocrisy is becoming hard to ignore and sooner, rather than later, the world's going to be saying "that's enough of this shit".

Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-55533941017536838042014-07-16T11:21:00.001-06:002014-07-16T11:21:19.657-06:00Running Orders, by Lena Khalaf TuffahaThey call us now.
Before they drop the bombs.
The phone rings
and someone who knows my first name
calls and says in perfect Arabic
"This is David."
And in my stupor of sonic booms and glass shattering symphonies
still smashing around in my head
I think "Do I know any Davids in Gaza?"
They call us now to say
Run.
You have 58 seconds from the end of this message.
Your house is next.
They think of it as some kind of
war time courtesy.
It doesn't matter that
there is nowhere to run to.
It means nothing that the borders are closed
and your papers are worthless
and mark you only for a life sentence
in this prison by the sea
and the alleyways are narrow
and there are more human lives
packed one against the other
more than any other place on earth
Just run.
We aren't trying to kill you.
It doesn't matter that
you can't call us back to tell us
the people we claim to want aren't in your house
that there's no one here
except you and your children
who were cheering for Argentina
sharing the last loaf of bread for this week
counting candles left in case the power goes out.
It doesn't matter that you have children.
You live in the wrong place
and now is your chance to run
to nowhere.
It doesn't matter
that 58 seconds isn't long enough
to find your wedding album
or your son's favorite blanket
or your daughter's almost completed college application
or your shoes
or to gather everyone in the house.
It doesn't matter what you had planned.
It doesn't matter who you are
Prove you're human.
Prove you stand on two legs.
Run.

http://footybedsheets.tumblr.com/post/91760690527/running-orders-by-lena-khalaf-tuffahaRichardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-28120434428019958362014-07-11T14:21:00.001-06:002014-07-11T14:38:36.338-06:00A carbon tax is never going to work for the same reason no carbon tax is never going to workPerhaps one of the greatest (and most annoying) red-herring debates of our time is the "carbon tax vs. no carbon tax" debate which always revolves around "economic growth" and is therefore always flawed on both sides of the debate. It's not that the answers given are wrong per say but more so that the question being asked isn't really relevant and so any subsequent answers will likewise be just as irrelevant. I've decided to give my take on the "carbon tax" debate now as I've touched on it previously but haven't ever really gone in depth and with Justin Trudeau's carbon tax announcement I feel now is probably a good time.

Market fundamentals are broken

My biggest issue with concepts such as a carbon tax is that for them to work market fundamentals must be allowed to play out in good or bad ways and as we've shown plenty of times over recent and long term history that is not what happens.

So if we look at the sub-prime crisis of 2008 as an example did society allow the banks to collapse or did we bail them out and start printing currency hand over fist ever since to keep interest rates low and "support the economy"? So let me ask you, what do you think will happen if say an oil company is deemed "too big to fail" (as they would very likely be considered, especially here in Canada) and a carbon levy is interfering with their growth?

Alberta extends deadline to renew carbon levy

The Alberta government came under fire from critics Wednesday after it quietly extended the deadline to renew its carbon levy on the province's heaviest greenhouse gas emitters.
The move comes one day after auditor general Merwan Saher released a report slamming the government's handling of its climate change strategy, a central component of which is the $15-per-tonne carbon levy.

The specified gas emitters regulation had been up for renewal Sept 1, but an order by Environment Minister Robin Campbell during a cabinet meeting this week extended the deadline to Dec. 31, 2014.

Premier Dave Hancock said the extension buys the province time to continue discussions on a North American climate change strategy.

"It's very difficult for Alberta to do anything more than we're doing now, with respect to raising the costs for industry, without it being a continental approach," Hancock said in an interview from Iqaluit, Nunavut, where he is attending the Western Premiers Conference.

Hancock said the province has heard concerns from industry about the impact the levy has on investment and cost margins, adding he is waiting to see whether the results of the November U.S. mid-term elections lead to a shift in policy from Washington.

The regulation places a levy on 12 per cent of a company's emissions. The price on carbon is a central component of the province's climate change strategy, which aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 50 megatonnes per year by 2020. The government admitted in 2012 it is on track to miss those targets by a considerable margin, and Saher's report castigated the government for failing to monitor and report on the strategy's results.
I'll tell you what we will do, we will manipulate the system and the rules to get what we want, namely economic growth and as we've been discussing over the last few years on this blog Alberta's expensive oilsands industry really has no additional margins to give and despite historically stable and high oil prices continues to hit problems.

Sunshine Oilsands Ltd facing cash crunch as Asian investors appear spooked by poor returns

Cracks in rock could be connected to Cold Lake bitumen leaks, CNRL acknowledges

Sunshine Oilsands said to withdraw US$325M high-yield bond

Sunshine Oilsands founder resigns from board

Oil sands as national economic engine? Survey shows Canadians vastly overestimate sector's impact

Nexen letting staff go, slashing costs despite CNOOC's pledges to Ottawa to win takeover approval: sources

Canada energy deals rebound as shale plays trump oil sands in investors' eyes

Poor returns, slashing costs, job losses. Yea, sure, there is plenty of momentum behind them and Alberta is "leading the way" in job creation (which is obviously a clear indicator of a healthy national economy, right?) but that is going to teeter off too as the operating costs continue to increase. People I know within the industry tell me all of the companies are already starting to get pretty stingy. It's only going to get worse and more apparent as the temporary rise in oil prices thanks to global tensions adds additional strain to the input costs over time. Of course, that event is too far in to the future for greedy Canadians resulting in the production of articles like this.

EDMONTON - It's a painful truth: bad news is often good news for the oilpatch.

Witness the run-up in oil prices and oil stocks since the jihadists of the newly formed Islamic State invaded Iraq, raising fears that the country might plunge back into civil war.

Since the violent al-Qaida breakaway group — previously known as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIS) — took control of Mosul, Iraq's second-largest city, oil stocks have resumed their upward trend.

Toronto's main energy index, which looked ready to roll over in late May after a big run earlier this year, has jumped about five per cent since early June, when Mosul's outgunned government forces were crushed.

The latest surge in energy stocks also helped propel Toronto's benchmark equity index to an all-time record high.

Shares of some big Alberta producers — such as Suncor, Canadian Natural Resources and Cenovus — have done even better than the oil and gas index, gaining about 10 per cent apiece in recent weeks.

Surging oil prices have driven the gains, touching a recent peak of nearly $107 US a barrel, up from $99 in early May. Although crude has since backed off to about $104 a barrel, analysts see limited downside ahead.

In fact, with the jihadists in control of a vast border area between Syria and Iraq, the government of Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki teetering, and hopes for future output growth from OPEC's second-biggest oil producer fading fast, analysts are boosting their oil price forecasts for the rest of this year and next.

The so-called "fear premium" is back. So while oil prices are unlikely to spike further unless the insurgents threaten Iraq's rich oilfields in the south, the floor price is likely to stay elevated for the foreseeable future.
What does it say about your economic state when global instability is practically a required part of the formula? Meanwhile for those not playing a direct part in the oil industry increased energy costs simply translate to a deteriorating standard of living.

If you are a temporary foreign worker in Fort McMurray, the gap between your wage and the wage that workers earn in the oilsands sector is immense.

On average a worker in a fast food outlet in Fort McMurray — and there are lots of them in a place where at almost any time of day there is a long line of pick-up trucks waiting at the drive-thru — earns $14 to $17 an hour. If it's part-time work, which it usually is, that works out to $400 to $500 week at the most.

In the oil and gas sector in Alberta where wages are mostly driven by the fierce competition for all kinds of labour in the oilsands industry, the average weekly wage as of December 2013 was $2,067, up 73 per cent from 2001.

Construction workers in Alberta earn an average weekly wage of $1,586 — an increase of 83 per cent since 2001.

This is just the average on a province-wide basis. In the oilsands region where competition for labour in both oilsands operations and construction is fierce, the weekly wages are much higher.

So where does that leave the temporary foreign worker or anyone who wants to work in a fast food outlet or a hotel?

Mostly it leaves them at the bottom of the heap when it comes to wages with not much hope of ever moving beyond that. The guest workers keep wages down for themselves and anyone else who takes those jobs.

Where does it leave the small business owner who can't really compete with the astronomical wages offered by the oilsands industry?

The Chamber of Commerce in Fort McMurray says even with the recent change to the TFW program small businesses are left in a tough spot and the federal government should make special allowances for them.

"Here in Alberta and Fort McMurray, we still have enormous difficulty attracting quality people under the current laws," Nick Sanders, president of the Fort McMurray CoC told Fort McMurray Today. "For our region, the cap is not appropriate. In fact, we believe it will just hurt our local businesses."

"And if you look at the predicted job growth numbers, not only in small businesses, but for the oilsands, it's going to get worse," Sanders added.
This should of course be no surprise to readers of this blog, but its nice that the mainstream media is finally pointing out that there is a direct connection especially when you have memos warning of "increasing labour costs".

Food bank expanding in Parkland County <- Albertan Growth?

so what does all of this have to do with a carbon tax? I think it should be obvious, as it stands now with the miniscul levy already in place and existing operational costs which are destined to simply increase and an oil price that has reached the upper limits of high cost stability that there just isn't room for a carbon tax and even if we did implement one should it inhibit "economic growth" it would simply be adjusted, delayed, or cancelled.

Or maybe we'll just print the currency to cover it

The entire world right now is supporting their "economies" by printing currency and manipulating economic data to fit the desired interest rate policies. For anyone living in the real world the idea that "inflation is low" is laughable, but the low inflation (free from "distortions" like the cost of food or energy) is required to continue providing the "low interest rate" excuse central banks need to continue carrying out their policies to foster more and more loans to prevent "deflation" (See: The magic of minimum wage and inflation hocus pocus). So if a carbon tax were passed what do you think the odds are that data will simply be manipulated more to the point that central bank monetary policy can simply create the needed currency to cover the additional cost? If governments intentionally inflate away their debt why wouldn't they inflate away the cost of carbon too?

The idea that printed currency with no relation to the real world can be used as a hard limit on real world pollution is probably the stupidest thing I've ever heard of. The day the U.S. stops raising the debt ceiling is the day that I'll believe printed currency can limit anything.

But it's not like no carbon tax is going to save the "economy" either

As it stands right now even with no international or even nation carbon levy Canada's economy is struggling. "Growth" just isn't happening despite all of the continued emergency measures and low interest rates. Sure, we're propping up asset bubbles for the obnoxiously rich but otherwise things are pretty well at a standstill. The lower Canadian dollar (relative to the USD) hasn't resulted in the boom of exports economists have been "predicting" largely because they're basing it on historical models which are no longer accurate.

Awhile ago the World Bank put out a report that said that "addressing climate change would increase economic growth" and I noticed a lot of people rejoicing and linking it without reading it too closely apparently.

In the World Bank report, economists looked at the effects of specific policies in six regions – Brazil, China, the European Union, India, Mexico, and the United States – that are both leaders in the world economy and global emissions.

None of the policies involved putting an economy-wide price on carbon emissions. Instead, the bank used computer modelling to gauge the effects of specific measures – such as installing dedicated bus lanes in India or clean cook stoves in China, or introducing more efficient air conditioning and other building systems in Mexico.
The annual benefits of those policies included GDP growth of between $1.8tn and $2.6tn – which was an estimated 1.5% higher than under a business as usual scenario, the bank said.

It said the pro-climate pro-climate policies would have other knock-on benefits including avoiding 94,000 deaths a year due to air pollution.
Dedicated bus lanes, clean cook stoves, and "more efficient air conditioners". Yup, seriously. Nevermind the resource extraction that will have to occur to build new "more efficient air conditioners" for Mexico, or the tar and roadwork that will go into "dedicated bus lanes". and clean cook stoves in China? Wow, that should surely offset their industrial pollution. These measures will definitely "grow the world economy" because we will be producing more stuff to replace the current stuff so it will "grow the economy" for the same reason that "planned obsolescence" grows the economy but in the process we will have to extract and deploy numerous resources and consume plenty of carbon for the output. It should be no surprise that the World Bank put out this report as surprising as it might be to most people because what are they advocating, really? Buying more stuff which will likely require government or personal loans for the initiatives. Hmm.

The peoples economy is suffering from our pursuit of oil

The idea a carbon tax (or no carbon tax) will enhance the people's economy and not the oligarch's economy is already a big fat lie. Our politicians are paying lip service to economic growth and climate policy but the tragedy of Lac-Megantic and the resulting losses show that universal "economic growth" and the people's economy isn't really the focus.

Most of those who died in the blast were at the Musi-Cafe, a popular waterfront bar. Its owner, Yannick Gagne, who was at home that night, is among the business owners trying to rebuild.

Gagne says he can imagine bands playing to crowds on the waterfront deck of his rebuilt bar, but he is not sure when it will happen. Like many businesspeople, he has a spot to rebuild but is waiting for the provincial government to calculate the amount of assistance he will receive.

"In the best case it will be September, but it could be later," he said, standing amid wood and metal frames in a zone set up by the government for dislodged businesses. "The problem is we don't know how much assistance we are getting from the government, and that is slowing us down. We've been waiting for an answer for months."

Quebec's Ministry of Municipal Affairs said some $4.3 million has been disbursed among 147 businesses that sought aid in the wake of the derailment. An additional 97 requests are still unresolved. A spokeswoman declined to comment on their progress.

That aid is part of more than $200 million that has been doled out by the governments of Quebec and Canada. Most of that has gone toward the cleanup, rebuilding infrastructure and support to municipal and non-governmental bodies.

MEMORY AND FEAR

The one tangible sign of recovery - the return of freight trains last December - is also one of the town's biggest worries. The train is a constant reminder of the tragedy.

"I hear it 15 minutes before it arrives. I see it, I watch it go by my window," said Helene Metivier, 50, who owns an inn just outside the blast zone. "It is hard. I live with this memory and fear."
The one tangible sign of recovery? More trains. Meanwhile new crude oil related derailments seem to happen every month. Nationally Canada is all about economic growth for a small portion of the population while everyone else suffers and pays for the consequences.

We need to unite the people

I was reading a blog post the other day on Politics Respun (though it was a repost from another source) about how the 1% has more solidarity than the rest of us. It's easy to see why they do using the carbon tax as an example. Populations are deeply divided on a carbon tax, will there be jobs or won't there be? But for the 1% carbon tax or no carbon tax: they win and you lose. When you realize most issues put in front of the public are intentionally decisive everything else starts making more sense. You'll start to see that partisan lines don't really exist at all. The end result no matter what choice the people believe they've made will be the same. It's like your parents telling you can do your homework before or after supper. Sure you have a choice but ultimately the parents still set the agenda.

The uniting issue for everyone across all political spectrums should be that our monetary system itself is broken, and needs to be fixed. That it doesn't accurately reflect the reality we find ourselves in. Some people will actually suggest alternatives such as steady state economics but I personally believe that it needs to be a collective decision and discussion. We can't really begin discussing the solution until we start discussing the problems. The real problems, and the current system with it's short term popularity contest we call voting where democracy has been reduced to a representatives' "yay" or "nay" along party lines on lobbied corporate bills they've never even read, can not address our long term structural issues. Nobody wants to spill the beans.

The banking Ponzi-scheme is the issue I believe that can unite left and right. It's why I believe that I have followers and readers from across the political spectrum. Left and right represent different management styles of the existing system but what we really need is to revamp and restructure the entire thing. We need to re-orient the economy so that it meets the needs of the people and isn't predicated on infinite growth. We need to restructure the political system away from parties, not more towards them, proportional representation is the last thing we need. We need individuals, real people, analyzing and discussing these problems not what has essentially become a new form of royal inheritance with multiple people from the same families taking important political roles in countries with millions of people.

We need nothing short of a revolution, not of violence, but of the mind where we finally realize that no matter what order the deck chairs are in we're still on the Titanic.Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-64508021241328711912014-06-24T20:54:00.000-06:002014-06-24T21:58:37.122-06:00"Smaller words", Big Dreams, Hidden RealitiesThe Progressive Conservatives of Alberta are getting pretty desperate. Not that I believe in the leadership race but rather that the unified "we need more debt" stance for "capital projects" and "Building Alberta" is really quite interesting when you consider Alberta is a province that once prided itself on it's "debt free" status. You'd think one of these politicians running for leadership might try to advocate it after all Alberta's enjoyed pointing it out whenever another province made an economic blunder, or borrowed. But no, instead Conservative Albertans are having to vote for (what is admittedly very entertaining) blabber like this:

Tory leadership candidate Ric McIver said Tuesday the provincial government must do a better job explaining to Albertans why it needs to take on debt for infrastructure.

In a breakfast speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce, McIver said he accepts using debt to pay for capital projects but borrowing should be linked to specific projects, with a fixed repayment schedule.

The government must also demonstrate that its debt-to-GDP ratio will decline within a three-to-five year planning horizon, he said.

The Calgary-Hays MLA told reporters that a revamped budget presentation and "plain talk" would build support among Albertans for the government's fiscal plan.

"We need to talk to them in a language they want to hear and I don't believe we've been doing that well enough as a government," said McIver, who stepped down as infrastructure minister to run for the Progressive Conservative leadership.

"When I talk about these things I use smaller words. Because you know what, I'm not smarter than other Albertans and I don't want to present myself as being (so). And I want Albertans to be comfortable with what we're saying and I want Albertans to say 'yeah, what my government is saying I understand.'"

In the spring budget, the PC government projected it would post a $1.1-billion surplus this year while taking on $5.1 billion in debt to pay for public infrastructure, part of a plan that will see the province's total liability rise to $18.4 billion by 2015-16.
YEAH! WHAT MY GOVERNMENT IS SAYING I UNDERSTAND!

Isn't that cute? "smaller words" lol. So, he's not really smarter than Albertans because he's purposely dumbing himself down to their level. It's a well known fact Albertans just can't handle "bigger words". Albertans need "plain talk" and then they'll see why everything the government has been telling them for years about debt is completely false and yet all of the "prestige" the Conservative brand name earned in the process as "prudent fiscal managers" should stay.

You see the truth is that Albertans have been fooled into believing they were debt free (largely to support the myth of oilsands prosperity as being incredibly profitable which at the time they were, sort of) and now they need to understand in "plain talk" with "smaller words" why they actually aren't. "Capital projects", but if those words are too big we'll just go with "build stuff". We need to build stuff, why? Because we're growing. Why are we growing? To support the supposedly profitable industry known as the oilsands industry. How do we become profitable? Well.. something something oil price and markets and magic. The Alberta government has no plan, they're more like the Underwear Gnomes in South Park:

Step 1) Collecting bitumen.

Step 2) ???

Step 3) Profit!

The Alberta government is perpetually on Step 2; from Ralph Klein who figured he'd just defer "building stuff" into the future to "pay off the debt" that we're now re-acquiring to start "building stuff" to the Ed Stelmach era where the government's target price for oil was constantly raised upward to the current era where unattainable and unsustainable price targets are the only option left only to be replaced by [in smaller words] "we'll get more money if we just get access to new markets". If we get access to new markets there will be something else, some new excuse, if we get pipelines there will need to be something else. It doesn't matter what price they're selling at or how much we produce their associated revenue will always (and I can't stress this enough: ALWAYS) be insufficient to cover the related costs to support oilsands growth. Always.

That's not going to stop them from trying to convince you that everything is just going swell though, building off the other global lies currently at play and using some fairly "bigger words".

Record income for Alberta's Heritage Fund

Strong equity markets helped push the Heritage Fund to an all-time earnings record of $2.1 billion in 2013-14.

The fund posted a 16 per cent return, the third highest since it was created in 1976. At March 31, the fund was worth $17.5 billion on a fair value basis.

"The Heritage Fund's strong growth confirms what we have been telling Albertans for some time now—that we can grow our short-term and long-term savings and keep our balance sheet strong at the same time."Doug Horner, President of Treasury Board and Minister of Finance

According to the Heritage Fund's 2013-14 Annual Report, the fund's average annual investment return over the past five years was 12.7 per cent. The 10-year average annual return is 7.5 per cent

The Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund is a key part of the government's legislated savings plan that will see Alberta's total savings; which include the Heritage Fund, endowments and the Contingency Account; grow to $26 billion over the next three years. A portion of non-renewable resource revenue will be regularly set aside for savings, and by 2017-18, all net income earned by the Heritage Fund will remain in the fund.
So apparently because the government bet right on the equity markets they've now shown that "we can grow our short-term and long-term savings and keep our balance sheet strong at the same time.". Hmm, how about that?

*Slow-Clap*

Oh, right, I mentioned how this lie is just building off other lies? Right, well an interesting paragraph in a piece on Joe Oliver (unrelated though)

"The market, bolstered by the Federal Reserve, seems content to ignore weaker U.S. data and Iraq, putting off the day of reckoning yet again. New-home sales are surging once again, as the market continues the trick of focusing on one piece of good news to the exclusion of others."
Why is it a lie? Because they know it's temporary. They didn't do anything special, the market won that year for them just as it lost for them in 2008 and 2009. This doesn't confirm anything for Albertans besides the fact the Alberta government hasn't learned a god damned thing and are now depending on an artificially manipulated market to deliver their hopes and dreams (and cover up their mistakes).

They're still gambling and calling that a plan. 2.1 billion fuckin dollars? Really? Because of a market that's bolstered by.. oh let's see... what is now only uh yes, $35 billion in bond buying per month. I don't know if you've noticed this folks but with the amount of currency that's been injected into the global economy 2.1billion isn't exactly what it used to be. They're printing U.S. dollars like it's confetti. Japan is printing to "keep the market bolstered" too. They're all printing. So does this market win actually mean anything? I'd bet that by 2017-2018 when the Albertans finally get some of that "income" being generated from their children's savings back (supposedly) that the central bank and "recovery" cash cows will have run out.

In smaller words that means: "the cake is a lie".Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-29033557326626774852014-06-20T12:51:00.002-06:002014-06-20T16:53:08.538-06:00The current turmoil in Iraq is a direct result of our actions and inaction

source

It wasn't very long ago that John Kerry stood in front of the world to convince us that bombing Syria in support of the 'rebels' (which at the time it was just being discovered that a large majority of them were actually al-Qaeda affiliates even though this was well known in intelligence circles long before) in an effort to help overthrow Assad was in everyone's best interest. Thankfully due to an unexpected question and the strategic insight of Russia this reality never came to be or the strength of the ISIS offensive in Iraq would be much stronger and Syria would be over run with ISIS fighters and if you can believe it even less stable then it is now.

Assad has been fighting a foreign invasion this entire time while our news told us it was a democratic revolution which we of course supported because we really really really don't like Assad and feel it's our place to decide the Syrian's political future. Can you imagine how western governments would respond to an al-Qaeda Jihad in their countries? You can just hear Mr. Burns shouting "release the drones". Did you once hear the west talk about getting involved against ISIS up until this point? No. We've been perfectly happy to allow them to build up their army as that was supposedly in the west's interest in taking out Assad.

But before Syria, there was Libya, in which the west actually supported these ISIS fighters in the overthrow of Gaddafi. Unlike Syria the news that we were actually aiding al-Qaeda in Libya never became mainstream. Western citizens in effect were cheering for the events that have now led up to this Iraq situation. The west isn't just responsible for the destabilization of Iraq with what is still an illegal invasion on false pretense to overthrow a dictator which the west installed, supported, and even aided in the execution of heinous war crimes but we're responsible for the strength of the invading ISIS fighters too.

We're responsible for the creation of al-Qaeda in the first place, we were responsible for the installation and support of Saddam. No matter how you slice it the west is responsible for this situation, both directly in our actions and directly through our inaction in support of the west's real agenda to destabilize the Middle east and control the remaining non-renewable resources there. This is not a debate between whether it's "Bush's fault" or "Obama's fault"; it's both of their faults and it's your fault too. Yes, you, dear reader, for not holding our leaders to account as they set out on a quest for world domination using pathetic evidence and excuses to pave the way.

Supporting refugees created by our actions doesn't stop the number of refugees that need help from increasing. If you really want to help these countries, if you really want to help these people, then you must start calling out western governments on their bullshit. It's not a left or right agenda, it's a global agenda implemented and executed by multiple countries all being overseen by the same banking cartel. It is time for the citizens of western nations to start demanding trials for war crimes, those in the present and those done in the past. From Bush Sr. to Obama, from Cheney to Clinton, it is time we recognize that not one single fucking "intervention" has had the advertised results. It's time to recognize that the only thing the "war on terror" has accomplished is the radicalization of more people as the west indiscriminately kills and occupies.

The rest of the world isn't stupid, it may take awhile but the era of American and western "exceptionalism" is quickly coming to a close. I know it feels good to continue acting as though we're the beacon of freedom and prosperity and as though our opinion on the behavior of foreign governments actually mean something, but it doesn't. We have no legs to stand on, we are as corrupt as corrupt can be and the stench of our hypocrisy won't go un-addressed forever.

Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-56396396034608730052014-06-12T12:58:00.004-06:002014-06-12T12:58:41.688-06:00Tesla Motors open-sources it's patentsTesla Motors today announced that all patents that it owns are now open-sourced and in the public domain. In a blog post titled 'All Our Patent Are Belong To You' Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk says:

Given that annual new vehicle production is approaching 100 million per year and the global fleet is approximately 2 billion cars, it is impossible for Tesla to build electric cars fast enough to address the carbon crisis. By the same token, it means the market is enormous. Our true competition is not the small trickle of non-Tesla electric cars being produced, but rather the enormous flood of gasoline cars pouring out of the world's factories every day.

 We believe that Tesla, other companies making electric cars, and the world would all benefit from a common, rapidly-evolving technology platform.

 Technology leadership is not defined by patents, which history has repeatedly shown to be small protection indeed against a determined competitor, but rather by the ability of a company to attract and motivate the world's most talented engineers. We believe that applying the open source philosophy to our patents will strengthen rather than diminish Tesla's position in this regard.
Good on ya Tesla!Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-77506887013577317282014-06-11T21:08:00.003-06:002014-06-12T01:26:45.936-06:00'Alberta Tories won't push 'panic button' after Total shelves $11 billion project' - Because they have already pressed itAlberta Tories won't push 'panic button' after Total shelves $11 billion project

Finance Minister Doug Horner said Tuesday the government "isn't pushing any panic buttons" after Total E & P decided to shelve an $11-billion megaproject and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers issued sour projections for Alberta's oilpatch.

"There's always a concern when you see one of these large projects that is going to be moved to another jurisdiction; we're still concerned about the high cost of investment for megaprojects in our province, (but) we are seeing a lot of interest in other sectors and other projects that we think will still come to fruition," Horner said in an editorial board meeting with Postmedia News.

"It is still the No. 1 resource in the world that is not state-controlled, so it is still a very good place to invest."

Last month, Total E & P Canada president and chief executive Andre Goffart said the company has put the Joslyn North oilsand mine on hold indefinitely. The project was expected to cost $11 billion and generate 100,000 barrels of crude a day.

Shortly after the Total announcement, CAPP projected crude oil production from Alberta's oilsands will reach 4.8 million barrels per day by 2030, 400,000 fewer barrels per day than in last year's forecast.

Horner highlighted positive developments, noting the European Union appears to be backing away from plans to label oilsands "dirty" as a result of fierce lobbying from provincial and federal governments alongside oilsands producers.

Horner also acknowledged that Alberta continues to be a high-cost business environment.
The Alberta government is going to play this card until the cows come home (or die). They're bought and paid for to sell you the oilsands. Of course they're not pushing the panic button, because internally the government has been raising the alarm on this for years.

A confidential government memorandum obtained by CBC News warns that soaring costs of developing the Alberta oilsands could put the brakes on the massive project, stalling one of the main engines of the Canadian economy.
The booming oilsands industry supports tens of thousands of Canadian jobs, and pumps billions of dollars a year into the national economy.

The memo written by Mark Corey, one of the highest-ranking officials in the federal Department of Natural Resources, warns that if the current trend of spiralling labour and other costs continues, investors may start to turn off the tap on the massive amounts of money needed to develop the oilsands.

"Although current crude prices promote oilsands development, ever-increasing capital and operating costs could make this price insufficient to support oilsands development at forecast levels," Corey writes.

Cost increases are currently "the biggest risk to investment in the sector," and could jeopardize the viability of some projects, he says.

Rising labour costs

The memo estimates that operating and capital costs to extract a barrel of oil from the tar-like sands have both more than doubled over the past decade.

It blames a chronic shortage of workers and resulting sky-high labour costs as the main cause of increased operating expenses.

Corey's memo reflects a growing concern inside government over the future of the oilsands, and specifically the massive amount of capital investment that will be needed to fuel their continued development.Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver recently estimated the oilsands would need $650 billion in capital investments in the next decade alone — almost five times what's been spent there over the past 50 years.

The memo written in April this year was obtained under the Access to Information Act and appears to have been prepared for Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver.

The document pre-dates the Harper government's current review of foreign takeovers of two Canadian energy companies.

It nonetheless bolsters the contention of many in industry and government that Canada can hardly afford to turn away foreign investment in the oilsands.
They're fucking desperate to get to Asia, but Asia isn't going to change anything. The alarm has been raised. Just look:

Jim Prentice says he's leader Alberta needs to build Northern Gateway pipeline to B.C. coast

It's such utter bullshit that I'm not going to bother pasting anything from it outside of one paragraph but go ahead and take a gander. Remember this is the same Jim Prentice who has also been saying Alberta really needs to take out debt to support oilsands growth and you know paying that debt back "might depend a bit on oil prices".

Former Alberta premier Alison Redford coined the term "bitumen bubble" to refer to the price spread between oilsands crude and conventional North American oil caused by Alberta's reliance on the United States as its sole consumer.
We're not selling conventional oil, we're selling low quality bitumen. It's not oil. It's bitumen. It's the "bitumen bubble". It's not the "Alberta's light sweet conventional crude oil bubble". It's the "bullshit bubble" is what it is and seriously folks it's looking like it's getting pretty hard for the department of the management of public perception to cover up the downward spiral they've put us on in the name of short-term profits.

They're just such true believers. From the days of Ralph Klein who believed if we just defer the majority of the costs of "growth" into the future we'll eventually be able to afford them. Or now, believing catching up our infrastructure on the backs of our children when things are projected to get worse, not better. Exactly what wages are our children going to pay this debt off with as "high labour costs" and the "coincidential" TFW explosion are driving down wages even further.

The "alarm" was pressed long ago, and they've been responding to it (with your money of course) but not in your interest. They want to sell more, faster, now, but no matter how much they sell they will not overcome the 5:1 energy return on energy investment ratio as we slowly destroy ourselves in the process.

Without a long term economic benefit rapidly producing these things makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever. Whether you're left or right, if you have any business sense what-so-ever you would be stupid to not realize that the oilsands are an economic sinkhole.

It's "jobs" for you, and "growth" for them

I may live in Alberta but when I say we I am talking about all Canadians as Alberta's problems and the collateral damage caused by them will be your problem too. For instance, take Harper's recent joint announcement's on climate change. He thou declare!

Stephen Harper insists he won't be pressured to alter his business-friendly climate-change policies, saying the Conservative government is simply more upfront than leadership in some other countries about its intention to avoid abatement measures that hurt jobs and economic growth.

"No matter what they say, no country is going to take actions that are going to deliberately destroy jobs and growth in their country. We are just a little more frank about that," the Prime Minister said.
He's right, no country (or rather those that control the monetary systems of those countries) is going to purposely crash their ponzi-conomy and so we definitely can not interfere with infinite economic growth. Of course infinite economic growth is tightly coupled to fossil fuel consumption and it's not really like things are getting cheaper... right?

So, knowing this, what would you believe? That the government is working to fix the TFW program? Or that they've actually orchestrated the entire ordeal?

Open your wallet, pull out your S.I.N. card and read that number to yourself. That's you. That number, to the government, is all you are. What is a S.I.N. card anyway? It identifies you, or to be more specific: your labour, as collateral to the private banks for the privilege of borrowing from them at interest and if the country can't pay? It's the citizens who suffer. "Social Insurance Number", don't you get it? YOU'RE THE INSURANCE! Or "security" if you're an American.

"Jobs" and "growth" always go together because it is the "jobs" which support "growth" which supports currency expansion, which supports taxes and paying private debt, which supports other taxes or the public debt to private banks which use fractional reserve lending or just simply print the currency from nothing and charge interest on top of it.

So no, we won't be getting in the way of the fantasy that infinite economic growth is possible even as the cracks start to show in the foundations of that assessment. The promises of the future will be bigger, not smaller. Grander, even. Like floating fucking houses! hell yea! I mean who didn't love Waterworld?

Unfortunately while "jobs" and growth go together they do not necessarily mean jobs for you and if you look at the way energy is driving up costs and is likely to continue doing so I think you'll quickly come to the realization the growth isn't either.

You know, there was a time that something called "competition" drove wages. Employers had to compete usually by offering higher wages to entice people to work there. As we discussed the other day with the Restaurant CEO's declaration that even if these places offered $100 per hour Canadians wouldn't take the job. Not couldn't, wouldn't. Oh yea, sure, the pitiful state of wages in Canada has absolutely nothing to do with it right?

The OECD says Canada's urban housing markets are overvalued, making owning a home too difficult for many Canadians and increasing inequality.

In the first major survey of the Canadian economy in two years, the Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development takes particular aim at risks in the housing market, while also chiding the country's environmental record, the oilsands and skills training.
IMF sounds global housing alarm

The warning from the IMF shows how an acceleration in global house prices from already high levels has emerged as one of the major threats to economic stability, with countries making limited progress in keeping them under control.

 Min Zhu, the IMF's deputy managing director, said the tools for containing housing booms were "still being developed" but that "this should not be an excuse for inaction".

 House prices "remain well above the historical averages for a majority of countries" in relation to incomes and rents, Mr Zhu said in a speech to the Bundesbank last week, which was only released on Wednesday because it clashed with a European Central Bank announcement.

 "This is true for instance for Australia, Belgium, Canada, Norway and Sweden," he said.

 In the wake of the global recession central bankers have cut interest rates to record lows, pushing house prices to a level that the IMF regards as a significant risk to economies as diverse as Hong Kong and Israel.

 In Canada, for example, house prices are 33 per cent above their long-run average in relation to incomes and 87 per cent above their long-run average compared with rents. The figures for the UK are 27 per cent relative to incomes and 38 per cent relative to rents.
It's not like people are finding themselves priced out of more and more items the west used to take for granted. Again, look at that S.I.N. card of yours, low interest rates - cheap loans - are here not for you the sucker holding devaluing currency but for the banking sector.

Whether we're selling the future generations' resources, destroying free market wages by subsidizing cheap labour so corporations can skirt competition, or pricing first time home buyers out of permanent security for their family, it's being done because things are not nearly as stable as those in power would like us to believe. My suggestion? Don't believe them.Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-91181146146421071302014-06-11T18:59:00.003-06:002014-06-11T18:59:40.520-06:00Winnipeg couple says CFS taking their baby with no explanationFrom CBC...

A Winnipeg couple is looking for answers after being told their baby would be seized by Winnipeg Child and Family Services when he is born.

"Just the fact that my baby's going to be born and taken away right away — nobody should have to go through that," said David Nault. "We didn't do anything wrong. It's just not fair."

David Nault and Paige Nippi said they were excited to discover they were pregnant, but after a visit two weeks ago from a CFS staff member, they were told the child would be seized.

Nippi said they were told there wasn't enough information on the couple to determine if they were fit parents.

Nippi's first daughter, from a pregnancy at age 15, is currently in the care of her grandmother, Nippi's mother.

"She's still in my life, and I'm still her mom. The reasoning is because I've never fully parented her on my own is why they said they were taking my son away," said Nippi.

Nault said the couple has moved to a better neighbourhood near a hospital in anticipation of the baby. They have both taken prenatal and parenting classes and asked their family for advice.

The couple has even decided on a name — Mason.

A court record check on the couple came up clean, and the couple said there are no substance abuse or mental health issues.

Nault has held a full-time job for years, and his boss is trying to help him.

Jerome Munz owns Fire Safe where Nault works.

"He has had no problem having people aid him in being a better parent," said Munz. "I don't think there should be an issue with the support network that he does have."

The parents have purchased books, toys and a crib, and family members have also brought gifts in anticipation of the baby.

"You look over and there's his crib and his dresser," she said. Adding it hurts "just knowing he's not going to be able to come home."

Nippi was scheduled to be induced on Wednesday.

Winnipeg CFS would not comment on the case directly but did release a statement, saying, "In our legislation, child safety is paramount. An agency will only apprehend a child when there are serious concerns that a child may not be safe in the parents care."
Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-71410351465944872502014-06-09T13:43:00.004-06:002014-06-09T14:05:58.802-06:00CAPP cuts production forecasts as government promises bigger better oilsandsCanadian oil industry body cuts long-term production forecast

(Reuters) - The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers cut its 2030 Canadian oil production forecast on Monday, citing growing uncertainty over the timing of some oil sands projects due to rising costs and available capital.
In its annual forecast, the lobby group for the country's largest oil and gas companies said total Canadian oil production would rise to 6.4 million barrels per day in 2030, compared with 3.5 million barrels per day in 2013.

That forecast was about 300,000 bpd, or 5 percent, lower than the one made last year.

The divergence comes from expected production from projects in Alberta's oil sands, home to the world's third-largest crude reserves after Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.

"Some projects were delayed beyond the current forecast period as a result of individual company decisions related to cost competitiveness and capital availability," CAPP said in its report.
Canada Increasingly Dependent On Resources As Factories, Housing Slide

OTTAWA - The Conference Board's latest barometer of the economy shows Canada's short-term outlook is becoming ever more dependent on commodities.

The newest composite leading index for April rose by 0.4 per cent, twice the pace of March, but the composition shows the trigger for growth was almost exclusively on the commodity export side.

Higher resource prices contributed to an eighth consecutive month of growth in the Toronto stock market, with the Bank of Canada commodity price posting the biggest gain in three years at 2.4 per cent.
IEA Says the Party's Over

A "what-me-worry?" price forecast. Despite all these dire developments, the IEA offers no change from its 2013 oil price forecast (that is, a gradual increase in world petroleum prices to $128 per barrel by 2035). The new report says the oil industry will need to increase its upstream investment over the forecast period by $2 trillion above the IEA's previous investment forecast. From where is the oil industry supposed to derive that $2 trillion if not from significantly higher prices—higher over the short run, perhaps, than the IEA's long-range 2035 forecast price of $128 per barrel, and ascending higher still? This price forecast is obviously unreliable, but that's nothing new. The IEA has been issuing wildly inaccurate price forecasts for the past decade. In fact, if the massive increase in energy investment advised by the IEA is to occur, both electricity and oil are about to become significantly less affordable. For a global economy tightly tied to consumer behavior and markets, and one that is already stagnant or contracting, energy constraints mean one thing and one thing only: hard times.
Canadian Trends: The Deteriorating Canadian Condition
Canadian Trends: Oilsands proponents have yet to describe the infinite growth 'end game'
Canadian Trends: Peak Canada? No, it's still peak oil
Canadian Trends: Oilsands Prosperity is a Lie

It's a lie, or they're incompetent. If me, a simple programmer/blogger could see this coming years in advance then the supposed "experts" did too. They're lying to you, oil sands prosperity is a lie - a big fucking lie - always has been and it always will be and those who don't get it are going to find out the hard way. They're a fool's errand and we will be indebting our children, our children's children, and their children too in pursuit of the pot of gold at the end of bullshit rainbow.Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-72195449216845278592014-05-29T21:55:00.000-06:002014-05-30T02:27:54.674-06:00The Deteriorating Canadian ConditionSo what would you say if I were to offer you $100 CAD per hour to do any job, perhaps such as a kitchen job? Well I'm guessing if you're a Canadian you would probably scoff at such a proposal at least if Garth Whyte, president of Restaurants Canada, is to be believed.

Even if restaurants offered $100 an hour for kitchen jobs, they'd still need to hire temporary foreign workers to fill the posts because Canadian workers just don't want the jobs, the head of Canada's restaurant association says.
You just don't want those gosh darned jobs, not because the wages aren't even close to keeping up with rampant inflation in essentials, but because you're just too fucking lazy, or snobby, etc. The labour shortage bullshit has now turned from a story of not enough bodies, to one of Canadians just not wanting those jobs, probably because it's already been shown the labour shortage was actually a hoax to further the government's TFW agenda driven by corporations intent on keeping the illusion of growth alive in a post-peak oil world.

Of course as has been discussed on this blog before even it was revealed that the "labour shortage" was a hoax the reality really is that compared with things such as the price of housing there isn't so much a labour shortage so much as there is a paycheque shortage. The idea that Canadians wouldn't take a kitchen job that paid $100 per hour is of course ludicrous but for these presidents and CEO's which have been the only ones to largely see any evidence of growth I'm sure the difference between a $100, or a $10, is negligible; they're used to way more zeros behind it!

The problem with the TFW program isn't that "they're taking Canadians' jobs", they're not your jobs anymore and haven't been for a long time unless you're willing to settle for an ever lowering standard of living, the TFW program is simply a continuation of the free trade cheap labour exploitation corporate America (Canada) has been utilizing for years. It's now become the primary focus as the cost of energy is beginning to impact profits due to the transportation needs for goods from the country's we've been exploiting up until now.

TFWs are a subsidy gifted upon corporate Canada by the federal government at your expense in service to the banking Gods and the infinite growth monetary ponzi-conomy which will require and demand ever growing sacrifice from you and your community as wages stagnate and cost-cutting (read: corner cutting) continues to eat away at the fabric of society while they look down upon you from their alter of currency making excuse after excuse as to why you don't need to earn more.

Meanwhile according to a recent poll 39% of Canadians have given up looking for work at the same time the federal government has granted thousands of "skilled" minimum wage jobs to temporary foreign workers which I'm sure the "Canadian" companies are very grateful for as they struggle to keep up with rising costs even though they have been sitting on piles of capital with nowhere to go.

Rising costs are becoming a major problem particularly for the producers of extreme energy such as Canada's own economic black hole known as the oilsands.

CALGARY -- Total E&P Canada is putting its Joslyn oilsands project northwest of Fort McMurray, Alta., on hold indefinitely, saying Thursday that the economics aren't good enough to move ahead.

 The decision means 150 jobs will be cut by the end of this year, but CEO Andre Goffart said some of those workers may be moved to other parts of the French energy giant's global operations.

 On a conference call with reporters, Goffart said the challenges Joslyn is facing aren't confined to that project alone.
 "Costs are continuing to inflate, when the oil price -- and specifically the netbacks for the oilsands -- are remaining stable at best, thus, squeezing the margins. We see that this situation cannot be sustainable in the long term," he said.

 "We know that mining projects are challenging. New mining projects are all megaprojects and they are very capital intensive... There is a clear shift now from the industry on cost discipline and return on investment versus the pace of development."

 Total and the project's minority partners will now spend time trying to find ways to drive down costs at Joslyn, but there is no timeline for when it may be revived.

 "We believe that the best way to unlock this project is not to wait for the price increase, but to work proactively on cost optimization, and that's what we are doing."
For readers of my blog one paragraph from that excerpt is probably very familiar as it's been one of my primary arguments against the oilsands and the profit Albertans think they produce: "Costs are continuing to inflate, when the oil price -- and specifically the netbacks for the oilsands -- are remaining stable at best, thus, squeezing the margins. We see that this situation cannot be sustainable in the long term," he said.

I've said this was going to be happening to oilsands production ever since my Hellberta blog, but here, I just chose a post at random on the subject from 2012, here is an excerpt:

This conclusion is based on the assumption that had the U.S. not had it's shale gas boom the price of oil would have continued to rise exponentially as had been the pattern prior to 2008 and therefore the oilsands themselves must not be flawed, it is the market situation. What this ignores is that the flaw in the oilsand's financial viability is simply being made visible by the "lower" (remember when $80+ for oil was expensive? Wasn't that long ago) demand for oil attributed to the natural gas boom. The flaw always existed, the Alberta government's moving target for a profitable oil price shows this problem. Focusing on the reason for the price drop ignores the fact that all assumptions of profitability were made on an ever-rising price and that assumption is unto itself erroneous as it's absolutely ridiculous to think that high prices would be sustained and affordable. The basics of demand and supply blow holes in that assumption. The problem isn't centered around competing energy sources, the problem was adopting an unsustainable business model based on unrealistic oil prices which essentially said "what goes up never comes down".
 Think about it, oil price remaining "stable" isn't enough to make oilsands companies profitable, why? Because the illusion of oilsands profit came from the rapid rise of oil price prior to 2008 in which Alberta was literally producing oil at a lower market price and then turning around and selling it at the higher market price. Oil produced with an input cost based on $70 barrel oil was sold for $90, etc. The thing about producing energy is that it takes energy to produce energy. This is why the price doesn't matter and why likewise Total's CEO says: "We believe that the best way to unlock this project is not to wait for the price increase, but to work proactively on cost optimization, and that's what we are doing."

Extreme energy with low energy returned on energy investment (EROEI) ratios just isn't profitable and it's not just oilsands either, shale oil companies in the U.S. are now discovering the same thing.

"Traditionally we've been a financially conservative company," explains one fracking company, warning that "we've become more leveraged than we historically have been and we've become uncomfortable with that." This is the growing message from a shale boom that, as Bloomberg reports, is facing a shakeout as drillers struggle to keep pace with the relentless spending needed to get oil and gas out of the ground. As everyone chases the dream, well counts have soared and production per well has tumbled. "The list of companies that are financially stressed is considerable," warns one analyst as shale debt has almost doubled over the last four years while revenue has gained just 5.6% "not everyone is going to survive. We've seen it before."
It should be no surprise however as the rapid rise in the cost of energy accounts for central bank's inflation targets.

What will give the central bank comfort, said Porter, is that core inflation index, which excludes volatile items such as gasoline and some fresh fruits and vegetables, remained well contained at 1.4 per cent in April.

On a month-to-month basis, consumers paid 0.3 per cent more than they did in March.

Energy was the main driver in the increase in the monthly and annual rates, with gasoline costing 6.6 per cent more in April than a year ago, natural gas 26.6 per cent more, and electricity coming in 4.6 per cent higher.

Excluding the energy component, inflation was steady 1.4 per cent, mirroring the core reading.

"That tells us that energy has been the big driver here," noted Porter, "not food, not clothing, not cars."
This is bad news for leadership liarship hopefuls such as Jim Prentice who are now working hard to convince the proud debt-free Albertans that the only path forward is to take on debt.

If he were to become premier, half of future budget surpluses would go to debt repayment and the other half would go to savings, Prentice told reporters at a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce.

"The current fiscal plan calls for Alberta's existing debt to be repaid over 30 years," he said.

"I believe that debt can be repaid over 15 years, perhaps 20. It will depend a bit on oil prices."

Under former premier Alison Redford, the province began borrowing for infrastructure. This year, the debt will rise above $8 billion and is to reach $21 billion by 2017.
Of course what pretentious Prentice isn't telling you is that all of this debt is simply to catch up to the spending Alberta has avoided making in the first place starting under Ralph Klein which just like now realized that the infrastructure demand and associated costs of oilsands "growth" far outweigh any return the province receives from them. These expenses will be ever growing, and never ending. By the time Alberta supposedly pays off this new debt (depending of course on oil prices) to catch it's infrastructure up to the growth of the last 30 years under current plans for oilsands growth we will have had to take out much more debt to account for future demands on infrastructure. Albertans are so obsessed with what they believe is "money" that they've been lulled into a bullshit belief that the province is "rich". It's not and as I've stated before this is simply going to become more apparent by the day.

Sometimes, though, you need to step back to see the forest for the trees. 15-30 year forecasts under the current monetary system are quite meaningless as the world is changing right now.

If there was one takeaway from Russia's annual economic shindig in St Petersburg last week, it was that the country is continually looking to its neighbor China for trade and investment. While the United States can't claim that it might be losing a friend with Russia's pivot east, it might be a different story for the dollar, with the alliance having the potential to undercut the domination of the U.S. currency.
 "Taken alone, these actions do not mean the end of the dollar as the leading global reserve currency. But, taken in the context of many other actions around the world including Saudi Arabia's frustration with U.S. foreign policy toward Iran, and China's voracious appetite for gold, these actions are meaningful steps away from the dollar," Jim Rickards, portfolio manager at West Shore Group and partner at Tangent Capital Partners, told CNBC via email.
Canada's big and upcoming problem is that all of our bullshit predictions, bullshit forecasts, and bullshit hopes and economic dreams are predicated on our relationship with the United States and our easy access to the global reserve currency, the U.S. dollar. If you think things are expensive now you haven't seen anything yet.Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-68592255933523054522014-05-09T19:30:00.000-06:002014-05-09T19:35:16.591-06:00Day of HonourDear members of the Canadian military,

I'm sorry. I truly am. On behalf of all Canadians that have a clue I'm sorry that your plight and exploitation, and struggles with PTSD, have been turned into a corporate sponsored politically motivated "Day of Honour". It's sick.

There is nothing I hate more than lies and propaganda, especially of this sort, so while the rest of Canada rolls over for fear of criticizing this blatant P.R. exercise and all critical thought goes out the window I'm going to continue doing what I do, someone has to.

But before I begin with what's really irking me about this whole P.R. stunt I just want to make it clear I have the utmost respect for members of the military. I know I have many readers in the military, some have even reached out with questions as to my opinion on future events, I take it seriously and thus understand what we're talking about here is not blaming members of the military, this is bigger than that. I am however very disappointed in all the yuppie Canadians blabbering on about the Day of Honour so they can feel good about themselves and of course "Canadian". Nationalism and all that jazz which this propaganda is exploiting.

"The Mission". How many times have you heard that today? The mission, the mission. What a good mission we accomplished in Afghanistan! Wait.. what exactly was the "mission" again? What exactly have we accomplished? Here's one of my favorite explanations I've read today:

The master corporal, who served two tours in Afghanistan, was manning a display on the regiment, one of several set around the hill that were attracting crowds.

He said it was encouraging to see Canadians pay tribute to the work done in Afghanistan.

"I have no doubts as to the reasons for being there, seeing it first hand, I know the reasons. That place needed our help. I have no regrets going there," said Sam.

"For me, it's nice to see the country coming together and showing that they care . . . This is excellent," he said in an interview.

As a 10-year veteran of the forces, he said he has seen attitudes change during that time and public support grow for the military.
So.. would someone please explicitly state these "reasons"? Can someone explicitly state the "mission" or what was "accomplished"? They needed our help? With what? The Taliban? Is it just me or did this "war" which has lasted longer than World War II continually have changing pretense. Anyone remember 9/11? being in Afghanistan had nothing to do with "helping them" but it's been so long now that you can basically say whatever you want about the "war" because.. honour. You know? Whatever it is we were doing, we did it! Just don't ask what that was.

Ironically the "Day of Honour" comes a day after a report was released and signed on to by five Nobel Prize winning economists that says that the "war on drugs" has been a billion dollar failure. Why is this ironic you might be asking?

Well way back in 2001 the Taliban actually banned opium.

Afghanistan has for years produced the vast majority of the world's opium, with only a brief break in 2001 when the Taliban government, which had previously relied on the crop to bolster its coffers, unexpectedly dug up most of the country's poppy fields.

But opium production has flourished since the group was toppled by US-backed forces in 2001, even though it has been widely condemned by clerics as un-Islamic.
And today? Afghan opium production explodes despite billions spent, says US report

Huh, what a surprise right? Billions in U.S. funds just can't manage to do what the Taliban accomplished. Oh, wait, but here is the best part:

KABUL, Afghanistan — Ahmed Wali Karzai, the brother of the Afghan president and a suspected player in the country's booming illegal opium trade, gets regular payments from the Central Intelligence Agency, and has for much of the past eight years, according to current and former American officials.

The agency pays Mr. Karzai for a variety of services, including helping to recruit an Afghan paramilitary force that operates at the C.I.A.'s direction in and around the southern city of Kandahar, Mr. Karzai's home.
Of course this is all as the late Michael C. Ruppert describes in his presentation the Truth and Lies of 9/11.

So here we sit, scratching our head at the failed drug war on one hand, and remembering and honoring the "mission", which nobody even knows what that is (psst, it was drugs folks - well and a pipeline), and those Honorable Canadian Soldiers we lost performing it. We should never have lost them. They should never have been there.

If it comes to it they shouldn't be in the Ukraine either. The Guardian put out an excellent piece recently.. It's not Russia that's pushed Ukraine to the brink of war.

That might be more explicable if what is going on in eastern Ukraine now were not the mirror image of what took place in Kiev a couple of months ago. Then, it was armed protesters in Maidan Square seizing government buildings and demanding a change of government and constitution. US and European leaders championed the "masked militants" and denounced the elected government for its crackdown, just as they now back the unelected government's use of force against rebels occupying police stations and town halls in cities such as Slavyansk and Donetsk.

"America is with you," Senator John McCain told demonstrators then, standing shoulder to shoulder with the leader of the far-right Svoboda party as the US ambassador haggled with the state department over who would make up the new Ukrainian government.

When the Ukrainian president was replaced by a US-selected administration, in an entirely unconstitutional takeover, politicians such as William Hague brazenly misled parliament about the legality of what had taken place: the imposition of a pro-western government on Russia's most neuralgic and politically divided neighbour.
It hasn't stopped. NATO doesn't invade by frontal assault anymore, that's lost popular support and with the advent of drones the field completely changes. Though they certainly would like to. John Kerry's Syria blunder which Russia immediately seized upon failed to draw Russia into the desired nuclear (cold?) war. (link 2)

So please, take this Day of Honour and remember and honour the soldiers we've lost. But how about we also honour what we all seem to believe Canada stands for too? Let's honor it by not accepting the lies and hypocrisy that's been fed to us and actions taken in our name. It was their duty to go there, it's your duty to ask why. Not of the soldiers, but of the chicken hawks who sent them there. There is no honour in ignorance.

Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-48524503545773183432014-04-17T23:48:00.000-06:002014-04-17T23:48:05.183-06:00This is what "we" believe in, and we're batshit crazyHi there, I'm back. Sort of.

I needed to take a break from everything, my blogging sort of goes through cycles but I've also had a lot of life shit going on and I also wanted to spend some time focusing on women, sometimes you just gotta do that. However, with the death of Michael Ruppert, I started looking at the news again. Why? I dunno, everything that's going on is ridiculous beyond belief that it's just been driving me crazy to think that people might even for a second be fooled by what's going on. Whether Ukraine, the economy, or events here at home. Seriously folks, the "fair election [fraud] act" is going to be a serious topic in our next fraudulent election. Do you people not see the irony in this? How Orwellian it is? I maintain that I will not be voting next election, democracy in Canada is dead and it's time we start recognizing and accepting it as such. Only when we stop playing their game can the problems be addressed, by simply playing at this point you lend legitimacy to the results and the system they operate within. I'm not playing.

But you know what did it, though? Why I had to stop? I read this which is a response and commentary to this.

Redefining the limits to growth which after reading this piece you should correctly translate as "give more freedom to the corporations to treat people like slaves, cut back on regulation and enforcement and maintenance and bleed the stone dry". Throughout Poloz's entire "analysis" on the global situation he only mentions "resources" once and it's in the fucking conclusion! THE CONCLUSION! He's actually not mentioning them himself but rather referencing the work of the Club of Rome and then contradicts his own commentary on it with horrendous double-speak. You just can't make this shit up. Let's take a peek.

Conclusion

Let me wrap up.

Over 40 years ago, the Club of Rome published a book entitled, The Limits to Growth. To the global think tank, those limits were about finite natural resources and the environment. Although the timing remains uncertain, its arguments remain relevant today.

But within that envelope, we have the ability to define our own limits to growth. The financial crisis was nearly calamitous, and we are still working to overcome its after-effects with both macroeconomic policies and a new global financial architecture.

We continue to believe that the world economy is healing, and that Canada will benefit in the form of stronger exports. From there, we expect to see more investment and new firm creation. This will permit the emergence of a natural, sustained growth trajectory for Canada, and a return of inflation to our 2 per cent target.

But the demographic forces that are in play suggest that the growth trajectory that we converge on after the recovery period will be slower than our historical trend, and it will also be associated with lower equilibrium rates of interest than we are used to. Fortunately, global policy-makers have the ability to redefine the limits to growth by removing growth impediments, but as business people and investors, we must keep those efforts in perspective.

The world remains a complicated place, and there may be implications for your businesses and your personal savings and investment plans. I hope I have been able to add to your understanding today.
Notice the language. "But the demographic forces that are in play suggest that the growth trajectory that we converge on after the recovery period will be slower than our historical trend, and it will also be associated with lower equilibrium rates of interest than we are used to". Do you know what he's actually saying here? Young people are going to continue getting a lot poorer and as a result to keep the loan Ponzi scheme going we're going to have to keep interest rates low to encourage loans and float the overpriced housing market which an earlier part of the commentary goes on to describe as Canadians' nestegg of choice. The bank says it's unsure about time in regards to the Club of Rome analysis, and admits that "Although the timing remains uncertain, its arguments remain relevant today." Well no fucking shit, let's take a look at what's happening today.

Inflation rate in Canada ticks up to 1.5%

Consumer prices increased at an annual rate of 1.5 per cent in March, an uptick from February's level but still well within the range the Bank of Canada likes to see the inflation rate.
It's also tied for the highest the rate has been since April 2012.

Statistics Canada reported Thursday that the consumer price index was driven up by energy prices, which were 4.6 per cent higher in March. Within that, natural gas prices jumped significantly, up by almost 18 per cent in March compared to the same month last year.

Although it was a jump, it was in line with what economists had been expecting. The large increase in natural gas prices seen this winter has been making yearly comparisons look larger for several months now.

Alberta rate highest

"With gasoline prices headed for about another three per cent rise this month," BMO economist Doug Porter said, "headline CPI will take another step higher in next month's report, possibly finally touching the two per cent target."

"Perhaps the Bank of Canada can stop fretting so much about the downside risks to inflation."

Regionally, the biggest jump in inflation occurred in Alberta, where natural gas prices skyrocketed 81.5 per cent over last year's levels and 49.6 per cent over February. The province's annual inflation rate shot up to 3.9 per cent in March from 2.4 in February.

In its latest interest rate decision on Wednesday, the Bank of Canada said it expects inflation to steadily climb to near the desired two per cent target over the next few months, largely due to energy price gains.

Outside of energy, food prices were 1.5 per cent higher in March than they were a year ago. although fresh fruit was 8.8 per cent higher, fresh vegetables cost 5.3 per cent more and meat was up 3.4 per cent.

Another major jump came from the price of tobacco, which was up 7.6 per cent largely because of a new round of excise taxes announced in the recent federal budget.
Can anyone point me to the "good news" in the post? Because all I see is praises of everything being within range when it's all energy, and food, and artificial price hikes to create the imaginary balanced budget. That's it. THIS is not growth, this is what happens when you start hitting resource limits. Let's start at the top of the points, gasoline.

What has preceded every major stall in the "recovery"? Rises in the price of gasoline. That's when you start seeing them covered on the frontpages of news papers "when will there be gas relief?" and what not. Oh yea, that's great news for "growth". Then you have the comment that the BoC can stop worrying about downside risk, and what is it premised on? The cost of resources is going up. Resources, you know the real limit to growth the BoC will acknowledge but would rather ignore? Yea.. those.

So then we come to Alberta, where natural gas (the feedstock for the oilsands, which means the cost to produce our shit quality "oil" is going up) went up an astonishing 49.6 percent. Foods up, and then to top it off in Flaherty's last move before retiring to the private sector to benefit from the fruits of his hard "public service" labour (and then dying before he could benefit from his corrupt pro-feudalist economic policy - ironic) was to balance the budget on the backs of smokers. They don't even bother lying about the tax increases being meant to stop smoking or anything now, now its just in to general revenue and to balance the budget as has been the reason all along.

Our new finance minister has pledged to support "jobs and growth", just as Harper has, just as Flaherty had, just as Trudeau has, and just as Muclair has. Its the same rhetoric, over and over and over again as they gloss up the losses you will all be taking. The safety measures that will be cut, the environmental legislation that will be destroyed, the national sovereignty that will be lost all because it's "an impediment to growth". The only concern now is how "efficient" the economy is operating, but its not really efficiency at all. It's not about producing the right amount, it's about producing the most amount. GDP, now more than ever, is a measure of energy inefficiency, not efficiency.

The stage for the future is already set: growth. There is no other option, there is no other measure, at least if you believe these banking slave masters. Like I said, I'm just not playing anymore.Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-27771597794808201932014-04-16T00:17:00.002-06:002014-04-16T00:17:32.220-06:00R.I.P. Michael C. Ruppert - You will be missedOn Sunday April 13th 2014 Michael Ruppert committed suicide following his airing of the Lifeboat Hour. Readers of this blog will know I had a great love and respect for the man, he was nothing short of brilliant and one of the only people I trusted to provide information.

I worked with him at CollapseNet, I considered him a mentor and a friend, and I believe he likewise thought of me as a friend. I don't usually write about deaths and such here, even Jack Layton who was a man I also greatly respected got no mention here. I don't care that Flaherty died, I'm sure it's sad for the family just as the policies imposed by the western banking cartels are sad for families. There is no sadness here, we live in a world surrounded by death powered by an infinite energy we can not identify.

My experience and time with Mike tells me there was no sadness in his death. Mike was a warrior, intent on staying on this planet until his message was heard and not one minute longer. He wanted to find the 100th monkey and with his death I believe signals he found it. Mike believed death was simply a doorway and true to form, and his word, stepped right through. Fearless.

R.I.P Mike, you will be missed.

Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-3432346660166120352014-03-06T22:05:00.002-07:002014-03-06T23:17:14.905-07:00New U.S. Government Report Warns of 'Cascading System Failures' Caused By Climate ChangeNew Government Report Warns of 'Cascading System Failures' Caused By Climate Change

WASHINGTON -- From roads and bridges to power plants and gas pipelines, American infrastructure is vulnerable to the effects of climate change, according to a pair of government reports released Thursday.

The reports are technical documents supporting the National Climate Assessment, a major review compiled by 13 government agencies that the U.S. Global Change Research Program is expected to release in April. Scientists at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory put together the reports, which warn that climate-fueled storms, flooding and droughts could cause "cascading system failures" unless there are changes made to minimize those effects. Island Press has published the full-length version of the reports, which focus on energy and infrastructure more broadly.

Thomas Wilbanks, a research fellow at Oak Ridge and the lead author and editor of the reports, said this is the first attempt to look at the climate implications across all sectors and regions. Rather than isolating specific types of infrastructure, Wilbanks said, the report looks at how "one impact can have impacts on the others."

Previous extreme weather events, which scientists warn may be exacerbated by climate change, offer insight to the types of failures they're talking about. For example, during Hurricane Katrina, the loss of electricity in the region meant that several major oil pipelines could not ship oil and gas for several days, and some refineries could not operate. Gas prices rose around the country.

Other scenarios include a major storm wiping out communications lines, a blackout that cuts power to sewage treatment or wastewater systems, and a weather event that damages a bridge or major highway. In the latter case, the damage would not only cost money to repair, but could cause traffic backups or delays in the shipment of goods, which could in turn have wider economic implications. As the report describes it:

 A central theme of the report is that vulnerabilities and impacts are issues beyond physical infrastructures themselves. The concern is with the value of services provided by infrastructures, where the true consequences of impacts and disruptions involve not only the costs associated with the cleanup, repair, and/or replacement of affected infrastructures but also economic, social, and environmental effects as supply chains are disrupted, economic activities are suspended, and/or social well-being is threatened.

While many reports on climate change focus on the long-term impacts, looking ahead 50 or 100 years, the effects described in Thursday's reports are the kind that cities, states and the federal government can expect to see in the next few decades, Wilbanks said.

"There's this crunch between vulnerability of infrastructure because it's aging or stressed because they are so heavily used, and they're being exposed to new threats like more frequent, extreme weather events," says Wilbanks. All this comes at a time, Wilbanks said, where governments at every level are facing "great difficulty in coming up with public sector financing to replace or revitalize them."

The energy report also exposes vulnerabilities in the system. It points to recent cases where heat waves caused massive spikes in energy use for cooling buildings, putting strain on the power grid. It also highlights instances where power plants were at risk of flooding, or had to shut down or scale back operations due to high temperatures and droughts.

"One-quarter of existing power generation facilities are in counties associated with some type of water sustainability concern," said David Schmalzer, co-author of the energy-focused report. "Warmer air and water are expected to reduce the efficiency of thermal power, while hydropower and biofuels will also face increased uncertainty. Even electricity sources not dependent on water supplies, such as wind and solar power, also face increased variability, as a changing climate will potentially impact the variability of their resources."

"Fixing infrastructure resilience problems [requires] a partnership between different levels of government, industry, nongovernmental organizations and community groups. No one party is the best to do it all," said Wilbanks. "What we really need is some innovative thinking about financing."
Unfortunately "innovative" financing in an infinite growth debt based economy just isn't going to happen.Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-41016549025565759672014-03-06T19:11:00.001-07:002014-03-06T19:11:32.554-07:00My commenting guidelineThe thing I find the most interesting about Progressive Bloggers and that which I like about it is that there is such a wide variety of opinion. It's a great experience rolling through the blogs and reading opinion whether you agree or disagree with them. I also enjoy the fact it is a loose-knit community, I read many of the blogs on there fairly regularly and I would hope the other authors read mine. The more ideas that are exchanged the better the dialogue that can develop.

Often while reading other blogs I find they jog different trains of thought, influence, or as was the case the other day a direct comment. All have been extremely useful since I started to dabble in blogging.

My intentions when commenting or directly responding are never malicious, or self promoting, my only intention is to convey my thoughts and usually only if the subject is something that is a core part of what I cover. Even if I disagree, or am writing a rebuttal, it is never meant to put down the other author or insult them, rather the intention is to get some discourse going. I view these issues I cover as extremely serious and I went in to this realizing I will be stepping on toes by covering them, I don't fuck around but I don't think anyone should be fucking around. I believe if you believe your convictions you should be able to debate them without the need to resort to slurs or insults or to misrepresent information on purpose to make yourself appear in the right without allowing anyone else that's viewing to properly weigh the opinions for themselves.

To ensure that I stand by my intentions I've sort of created a set of guidelines I use when commenting on other pieces, either professional journalism or other blogs. These guidelines I believe provide a layer of respect for all writers in the political scene regardless of how I feel about their opinion though I know some may not agree. I'm going to share my guidelines with you as I've noticed a number of posts going back and forth on there lately which reference other blogs without due respect. It's not my place to say people should follow these guidelines, but I have a fairly good reasoning for them and believe they are not only beneficial to the other author, myself, but also public discourse.

Always link the post in question. I try to substantiate everything I say with some sort of source (unless it's something I say a lot as I've sourced it enough already). I expect my readers to follow my links, otherwise I wouldn't put them. My posts are meaningless if you don't take the time to understand the information I'm basing my opinion and commentary on. It's only courteous to the user to allow them to investigate for themselves.

Always quote directly and in context. Not only is this proper, it's also more effective. I will write my opinion on what I think someone means but if I am commenting on another piece I paste the entire piece, or paragraph, always within full context, differentiate it so the reader clearly knows where it's coming from, and then provide my comment afterward. This allows the reader to compare the two, and if the source truly describes what you are saying it is always more powerful to simply allow the subject matter itself to say it. Inferring, or interpreting, especially if incorrect, leads to misinformation especially if no links or quotes are provided.

Do not personally insult the author. If you feel what he says is actually offensive express your anger utilizing the subject matter.

Always contact the author informing them the piece is being published and allow them to respond if they wish. If they respond on their own blog or from another source (instead of within comment forms) update your post to provide a link to their response. This is extremely important, there is no point commenting on someone else's opinion if you don't give them a chance to respond, or at least become aware of your opinion and more importantly reasoning.

So those are the guidelines I follow and feel they provide a less adversarial atmosphere and a lot more clarity regarding people's positions and I hope you find them useful.Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-17796888806257334742014-03-06T10:09:00.000-07:002014-03-06T10:09:28.610-07:00A double standard of livingIt's so cute when the corporate stooges we call politicians complain about costs especially when those costs are then in turn cheered for. Alison Redford has provided the excuse that apparently she's a mother and thus improperly using the people's graciously provided (as if we have a choice) transportation services is perfectly justifiable. Of course she's now paying the currency back out of her own luscious salary but clearly not because she actually feels it was wrong, it's because she got caught doing it.

Redford defends travel expenses as costs of being a mother

Alberta Premier Alison Redford used her role as a mother to defend breaking the province's travel expense rules by taking her daughter on government business trips.

Redford announced Tuesday that she'd repay $3,156 to cover flights taken by her daughter's friends on government planes.

New Democratic Party leader Brian Mason asked Redford if she knowingly broke the rules set by the auditor general eight years ago.

"The auditor general specified family members other than spouses attending official events should not travel on government aircraft," he said.

Redford responded saying the policy needs to change to keep with the times.

"We think it is important for issues to evolve, she said. "I'll tell you quite frankly one of the evolutions in this province is you have a premier who has a 12-year-old daughter."

Mason was undeterred.

"There are thousands of government employees who are women and who have families who are not allowed to bring their children to work," he said.

Redford also found herself defending yet again her decision not to repay $45,000 racked up on a controversial trip to South Africa.

"One of the big questions today is are there enough checks and balances in place to make sure the Premier's following the rules when claiming expenses," said Wildrose Opposition leader Danielle Smith.

"The idea that somebody could be spending this kind of money without oversight from anybody and then try to duck and run by referring the matter to the auditor general to avoid tough questions in question period, that's not a sign of leadership," she said.

A political ethics expert at the University of Toronto said he's not surprised about the public backlash over the expenses.

"Especially when you have a government telling everyone they have to tighten their belts," said Duff Conacher. "And then the government is essentially — and the Premier — abusing not only the public's expenses, but the public's trust.

"It is of course something that pushes everyone's buttons and makes them very upset."
Ahh, yes, the costs of being a mother. I guess it's the sort of costs a $211,000 salary just can't cover anymore with how high costs have climbed even though the Alberta government expects everyone to get by with significantly less. In fact Alberta's latest budget outlook is completely predicated on everyone having less, higher costs, and less affordability.

In its third-quarter financial report released Wednesday, Finance Minister Doug Horner said the government's rainy day contingency account — originally expected to be drained below $700 million — is now likely to be $4.6 billion by the end of the fiscal year on March 31, thanks to buoyant energy prices and a low Canadian dollar.
At the same time, the Tory government said it had borrowed $2.7 billion for capital projects so far this year.

Debt used to be a dirty word in Alberta politics, with the Tory government boasting in 2004 after the provincial debt was eliminated under former premier Ralph Klein.

But Redford said the rapid population and economic growth of the province, which recently topped four million people, has changed the mindset around borrowing. Schools and other facilities are long-term assets that represent "an investment in the future," she said.

"Albertans said, 'We know we're growing, we want to make sure we're keeping up with that growth, that we're building infrastructure and that we're ensuring that the quality of life for Albertans today will continue to improve in the long term,' " said Redford.

However, taking on debt has attracted ferocious criticism from the official Opposition.

At a news conference earlier this week, Wildrose Leader Danielle Smith said the government is refusing to properly account for its debt load.

The government's total borrowing liability will be $17 billion by 2016, resulting in a debt servicing charge estimated at $600 million, she said.

"It has a real impact on the budget over time," Smith told reporters.

"I talk to a lot of Albertans, I don't think that they want to see $600 million of their hard-earned tax dollars every single year going to the banks to service the debt."
That's right, thanks to a lower Canadian dollar and "buoyant energy prices" both of which are temporary market conditions out of the government's control, a bet, gambling, and also make the cost of living for everyone else higher, the government missed it's projections by $3.9billion dollars (because you can't accurately predict the results of gambling, of course) and yet talk about it as though it was all part of some strategic plan and can't reverse just as quickly. Buoyant energy costs of course translate to buoyant fuel costs which jet fuel has been seeing continual spikes over the years. I wonder if that's factoring into Redford's costs of being a mother.

So I have to wonder if the Premier is aware the "hardships of being a mother" aren't hers alone to bare? I have to wonder if she's aware if her policies of wishing for ever higher energy prices and a higher cost of living for everyone translate directly to it being harder for mothers without a taxpayer funded slush fund to get by. I have to wonder if she's really so disconnected looking down from her position of corporate royalty masquerading as public service that she actually thought complaining about the costs of being a mother on a salary most mothers could only dream of (and fathers, for that matter) would garner any sympathy at all.

But it gets even worse, because on top of policy meant to drive up the cost of living for everyone else the government is also borrowing from the future to support the investment that should have been made in the past and the squandered billions on Olympic Trains and public relations hocus pocus. The government squandered all of the money, ALL OF IT, from the major run on oil prices up to $147 / barrel and now after the fact want to borrow from the population, at interest from private banks, to do what they refused to do with the squandered wealth and that's what we're paying her a $211,000 salary to do.

A $3.9 billion miss, even though it's a positive miss, is still a major miss. It's dumb luck, not good planning and can easily go the other way at a moment's notice. Alison Redford is extremely deceptive and out of touch, the boom Alberta experienced prior to 2008 is never coming back there is just simply not enough momentum to drive energy costs up that high, for that long. Alberta treats the exception in market activity and the biggest bull run oil had ever seen as the rule and fools the population into supporting the lifestyles of royalty. You don't need "incredibly highly skilled quality people" to make bad market bets.Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-85649137894932259672014-03-05T16:05:00.002-07:002014-03-05T16:33:38.627-07:00The insanity of "sane" growthLately instead of focusing on news analysis I've been instead focusing on the burden of infinite growth and in particular Justin Trudeau's unwavering support of such insanity. It's always interesting writing as a non-partisan in a hyper-partisan world and I take it very seriously and work very hard to ensure my posts fit that description. I think I've been quite successful at making this website a neutral ground for discussion of issues and not political parties. I'm one of the few blogs around where the comment section doesn't devolve into a series of political team sport trolls that write complete non-sense filled with childish partisan slurs (like "Libtards" or "RWNJ"). My blog has readers and my Twitter has followers from every political stripe because there is common ground and it's the common ground I try to stay focused on.

I've learned over the last few years that the terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" in modern day society really have no more meaning than the relevance of the city stamped on the identical corporate sponsored sports teams. Trading players in hockey, for instance, used to be a rare occurrence, a team's players once represented the city they claimed to. Not anymore though, today you cheer for the jersey and nothing more. This year you might hate "Crosby" but depending on who he's playing for next year you might love him. Political brand names have become just as meaningless.

For instance, many on the "left" see Harper as the "right", but I'm sure if you ask the MPs resigning from his government their "right wing" ideology hasn't changed, just the team they play for has. So is ex-MP Brian Jean no longer a self-identified conservative because he disagrees with conservative "growth" policy?

In my last post which I believe is a clear non-partisan response on the generational divide between the baby boomers and the younger generations (from the perspective of the younger generation) the author I was responding to decided to respond to me. Go ahead and read all the comments but one in particular I think illustrates the destructive nature of hyper-partisan politics.

I DON'T LOOK DOWN ON THE YOUNGER GENERATIONS. I like young people a whole hell of a lot better than middle-aged ones. My friends are in their 20's. I'm 64. This is not a youth vs.old debate. It's a right vs. left debate and what happens when the left fails. You blame me. That's OK.
 I don't even understand what he meant by "when the left fails". I have no idea how he came to the determination that it was a "right vs. left" debate when I clearly call out both past and future governments of both Liberal and Conservative stripes. I specifically name Justin Trudeau but only because he is the next likely Prime Minister and I expect no difference between his "growth agenda" and Harper's. Political ideology leads to irrational bias as a response on Twitter to my criticism of Trudeau clearly demonstrates.

@RichardFantin @SusanFelucifer @bow_en_arrow sane somewhat responsible growth VS insane dont give a fuck about anything growth
— Kimberly May (@ugottabekiddin) March 2, 2014
"Sane" growth, if such a thing exists, is simply not possible in our infinite exponential growth world and banking system. It's really quite shocking how many Canadians don't understand what growth is, why it's currently needed, and how it works. To put it simply: If the "growth" we're doing today is "insane don't give a fuck about anything growth" and growth essentially translates to "more on top of what we already have", then any "growth" on top of "insane growth" must be likewise insane purely due to the exponential nature of growth. Growth is ever more ever greater and the greater it gets the more sacrifice we're going to have to offer to maintain it in a post peak-oil world. There is no possible way that "sane" growth (if such a thing existed) can be even larger than "insane" growth.

This was followed by another tweet in regards to "growth" and "green tech".

@RichardFantin @ugottabekiddin @bow_en_arrow Wrong kind of growth, yes.Growth that corrects situations is fine. Green tech will produce jobs
— Susan (@SusanFelucifer) March 2, 2014
The world's existing problem is not "jobs", or "tech", the world's existing problem is that "insane growth" has actually been "ludicrous growth" since the Reagan era. Central banks are in their fifth year of "record low interest rates" and money printing and still "low inflation persists". You're probably not noticing this "low inflation" at your gas pump or grocery store shelves though. We've reached the upper limits of insanity and growth and any return to "sanity" isn't "growth" at all. It's de-growth, it's contraction, a reversal from insane to sane. It's not going to be a future of more, it's going to be a future of less, and the very fact that even with unfettered "insane" production of fossil fuels "real growth" isn't materializing the notion is completely destroyed that any "growth" is possible by a switch to green tech, or at all. Fossil fuels represent the best in energy density mankind has ever encountered, growth and production is a direct application of energy, thus a switch to sparser energy forms will likewise represent de-growth.

We exist in a society today where corners are cut for "growth" and that's with the fossil fuel subsidy. We can pass all the laws of regulation we want but if the regulators funding is itself cut those inspections don't get made anyway. We're not making the full investments needed today to maintain current tech due to desire for "growth" nevermind expecting an open-ended investment in the future of green tech with unquantifiable returns. We live in a world where policy is reactionary and foresight extends into the next quarter at best. Our current policy model is all about preserving an unsustainable standard of living predicated on cheap energy which no longer exists at the expense of the future where as instead for a real transition away from rampant energy consumption that would need to reverse to a situation where the sacrifice is made today for the prosperity of tomorrow.

No matter how you slice it infinite growth is insane, unsustainable, and ultimately impossible. It is an impossible economic model that now exists purely to service the bankers and the "easy money" policies of the last 5 years which have no end in sight are a last ditch effort to maintain the house of cards. Trudeau's claim a "growth agenda" will save the middle class is nothing more than populist propaganda as it's been a free trade oriented easy money rapid growth agenda that has been destroying them in the first place.

What solution has Trudeau proposed to solve your devaluing savings? Remember when this country used to have a penny? Remember when that penny used to be made of copper? What's Trudeau's solution for an entire generation that's already priced out of the housing market? The devaluation of your currency and housing bubble buoyed by "cheap money" policy is a direct result of an attempt to "return to growth" how exactly is more of the same going to result in something different? According to Einstein that is the very definition of insanity and yet that represents "sane" growth policy? I don't think so. Justin Trudeau hasn't said one thing that leads me to believe his "growth agenda" is sane while the others are insane, they're the exact same agendas. Literally Trudeau is advocating we do the same thing over again and expect different results but because of such a deep hatred of Harper this fact seems to be lost on the Canadian people.

It's not "right vs left", it's not even "old vs young", it's us vs the banks and monetary policy and overcoming the false and arbitrary divisions and identities we've come to trust. It's the needs of the people vs the needs to service debt because our monetary system is one in which every dollar of currency has debt and interest attached which means there is always more debt than currency in existence. It's a fight against indebting our children ever more and ensuring longevity of the species and the nation. What is Justin Trudeau offering to solve that? Does he even have any interest in solving that? Do you, or is your own immediate gain and comfort more important?

At the end of the day no politician can run on the type of platform that needs to be run because it would require the truth of our situation to be told and wouldn't be all rainbows and lollipops and ultimately who wants to hear that? nobody. Instead what people want to hear is that the booms in growth we've experienced in the past will return and that the party isn't over. People want to hear that the "middle class" will return to it's former glory even though the single family income is never mentioned and a "wage race to the bottom" brought on by free trade and global wage competition is the accepted reality. This is called cognitive dissonance, they are completely opposing viewpoints which can not be simultaneously true and yet people seem to believe that both are possible. The only "problem" being that only one is currently and can possibly be true.

No tweaks to growth policy can change what growth policy represents and as such I don't see this upcoming election as "left vs right" or Harper vs Trudeau". With the "fair election act" passing I barely even call it an election anyway. All it is a vote for growth more growth and an elaborate propaganda campaign to maintain your confidence and convince you that's what we need. It's a vote for the status quo. It's a vote to continue doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.

Today's dialogue is seriously lacking any talk of personal responsibility for the present situation but is filled with grandiose promises that if we just borrow enough we'll be able to spend the growth into existence. It just doesn't work like that especially when we already artificially inflate growth so far above and beyond what it really is.

When you see companies creating crap so that it can be tossed and rebought shortly later, planned obsolescence, know that that is the "growth" you're voting for. That's where we're already at, that's what has been required to maintain this illusion, and it's only going to get worse, not better, so long as growth is the pursuit. The other day while I was out for lunch I actually heard someone refer to a "tablet" as "disposable". "they're so cheap," he said, "that you just throw them out and buy another one.". Of course they're only "so cheap" thanks to third world labor exploitation granted to us by the very free trade that's destroyed local wage competition, even Justin Trudeau can admit that and he's extremely pleased with it. Never mind all of the rare-earth metals, fossil fuels for the plastics, etc, etc filling our landfills as a result. That's "growth" today and it's fucking insane.

If you don't like where we are headed today then for you it is not "Harper" that must be defeated, it is this growth mentality. Growth is not in your best interest, it's not going to provide more jobs as automation becomes a cheaper path to "profit growth". It's not going to provide higher wages as "global wage competition" provides a cheaper path to profit growth. It's not going to result in safer communities as more and more safety nets are destroyed and corners cut in the name of balanced budgets which just don't make sense in a debt based economy and really represent nothing more than paying more for less.

It is selfish desires and the belief we'll never have to pay the piper which makes it so easy to burden younger generations with the cost of our standard of living. The complete lack of guilt, and in fact sense of entitlement we have while doing it is simply appalling as we rationalize it away with meaningless debt-to-GDP ratios without considering that the GDP is an estimate and the debt is absolute and will have to be paid regardless. We really have no idea what sort of resources and production capacity will be available in the future - but it's a good bet it won't be anything compared to the past - but we're sure spending like we do.

Unfortunately though we can't spend water into existence. We can't spend ever cheaper oil into existence. Somewhere along the line we've lost sight of the fact that currency itself is not wealth, it is a symbol, a representation of wealth and this is something no political parties wish to discuss. No political leader today could possibly offer something approaching responsible policy because we don't have a responsible mindset required to objectively evaluate it. It's all "me me me". "My portfolio". "my house". "my job". "my future" and the political parties prey on that spinning the banker's agenda into what you want to hear absolving us of responsibility and when we don't like what's happening we just blame the current political party and replace them with another promising the same impossible shit. Real change will come when we accept real responsibility, until then expect more of the same regardless what political sports team you cheer for.

Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-56217139118488046822014-03-03T20:29:00.006-07:002014-03-03T21:13:59.723-07:00The coming age of ageismAnother Progressive Blogger has put up a post that I feel I must respond to. It's a rare occurrence, but since I believe that I accurately fit the description of the people he's describing I can't help but respond and maybe try to clear up a few things.

Let Freedom Reign II: My two predictions for not-so-distant future

1. As climate change slowly becomes a reality to the deniers, expect those deniers outside Canada to be the first to invade our borders to escape the desolation of their lands. The battle will be titanic. Global warming could very well be the 'apocalypse,' but not in the way religious people think. Americans don't care if you're in their way. Plus, they have guns.

 2. Ageism will become the new acceptable form of discrimination against a huge segment of the population over 60. I've already read too many insulting, disgusting articles from 'Millenials' and other ages talking about elders the same way Americans once talked about blacks.

 Anybody over 60 will be held personally responsible for the degradation of the environment, the ruination of Iraq, the deterioration of women's rights and any other issue we on the left have been fighting so long. Like Obama, the aged will be held personally responsible for every catastrophe, every bad political decision, every war - all the things conservatives created and love. But it will be ALL our faults and we will ALL be attacked for the right's selfish, violent, sexist, racist, petulant, petty, sexually-repressed ideology for decades to come.

 Ukraine?
 Meh.
I definitely fall under point 2. I've written many articles where I call baby boomer's out on their shit. I don't disagree that ageism is going to become an accepted form of discrimination, but what I don't see is any exploration into why. I, too, have been forecasting the same thing, though I wouldn't myself call it ageism. For instance:

Canadian Trends: The real generational time-bomb isn't in pensions

You're damn skippy there is going to be some animosity about many of those issues, but what I don't see is any responsibility. All I see is blame laid on the "conservatives" but how many baby boomers do I see on the streets protecting their childrens' old age security at 65? Hmm? How many baby boomers do you see jumping up to sacrifice the standard of living they are in effect borrowing from their children? Baby boomers are going to be blamed because it is baby boomers who have benefited from it and continue to be perfectly happy putting all the responsibility on their children. Tailings ponds? Oh those will be clean in 15-20 years right! Climate change? Well, sure, but we need growth too.

This is not age discrimination. This will be anger at a generational theft the world has never seen before. I'm telling you baby boomers, if you don't want to see riots in your streets you'll have to really show that you're pushing hard for long term policy in your children's favour. If you think multiple generations are going to live in ever declining squalor while your generations' "investments" in homes has driven them through the roof with the help of historic low interest loans which though they may help you acquire more and more they ensure that any currency "saved" in the bank doesn't even keep up with an incredibly lopsided inflation I think you'll find you're sadly mistaken. Savings is what built you.

Job insecurity is prevalent amongst the lower generations as the baby boomers stood by and cheered as free trade shipped it all over seas. These events have unfolded over much time, with both Liberal, and Conservative governments in power and the new Liberal hero Justin Trudeau is no different, continuing to push free trade and "growth" for the banks at the populations - primarily the younger populations - expense. The ninja generation.

Oh yea, there is going to be anger. Just as there's been anger in Spain, Greece, etc where the problem that Canada is on the exact same path to repeat is much further along.

If ageism is happening then it's happening already. Right now. By the baby boomers, towards the younger generation, who criticize them while stealing from them simply by benefiting and allowing what's going on to go on. A generation that stood idly by while their children were beaten in the streets of Toronto because "economy". Because "world stage".

There will be anger and discrimination towards you, baby boomers, not because you created the problems, but rather because you left it up to the younger generations to fix them and no inheritance to do it with. There will be anger because attempts to fix the problems have been and will continue to be met by force and you will do nothing but prey your investments are ok. Oh yes, there will be anger.

Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-557635625754407492014-02-28T20:57:00.002-07:002014-02-28T20:57:10.992-07:00Bang Bang! You're breadSeems everyone has heard about the sale of arms to the now "fugitive" Ukraine government. The NDP is asking "why?". Jesus fucking Christ, seriously? Why? Oh I don't know, "growth"?

Canada planning to sell guns and military equipment to developing countries to maintain domestic arms industry

The end of Canadian combat operations in Afghanistan and deep cuts to defence budgets in the United States and other allied nations are driving the federal government to look to developing countries as potential buyers of Canadian-made guns and military equipment.

The past few years have seen the government add Colombia to a list of countries to which Canadian defence companies and others can sell military weapons and equipment, and look to add a number of others such as India, Kuwait, Brazil, Chile, Peru and South Korea as well.

Yet while many have believed the move towards selling military goods to developing countries, some with questionable human rights records, was intended to expand Canada's share of the global arms trade, it appears the actual reason is to help the $12-billion industry through tough times.
A secret briefing note presented to Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird in June says the plan to add Brazil, Chile, Peru and South Korea to the Automatic Firearms Country Control List was a direct response to reduced demand for Canadian-made weapons in "traditional markets" such as the U.S. and Britain.
Tough times for the banks, tough times for the defense industry, tough times for the archaic automotive industry. Tough times.

Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-38977685299754107122014-02-28T20:25:00.000-07:002014-02-28T20:25:19.281-07:00American soldiers training for civil unrest?
<iframe allowfullscreen="true" frameborder="0" height="360" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://hub.video.msn.com/embed/e6c1c88a-fe13-4d08-9f6c-1575272d4e1f/?vars=bGlua2JhY2s9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnZpZGVvLmNhLm1zbi5jb20lMkYmYnJhbmQ9djUlNUU1NDR4MzA2JmNvbmZpZ05hbWU9c3luZGljYXRpb25wbGF5ZXImc3luZGljYXRpb249dGFnJmxpbmtvdmVycmlkZTI9aHR0cCUzQSUyRiUyRnZpZGVvLmNhLm1zbi5jb20lMkYlM0Zta3QlM0Rlbi1jYSUyNnZpZCUzRCU3QjAlN0QlMjZmcm9tJTNEZW4tY2EtaW5mb3BhbmUmY29uZmlnQ3NpZD1NU05WaWRlbyZta3Q9ZW4tY2EmZnI9c2hhcmVlbWJlZC1zeW5kaWNhdGlvbg%3D%3D" width="480"> <A href="http://video.ca.msn.com/?mkt=en-ca&vid=e6c1c88a-fe13-4d08-9f6c-1575272d4e1f&from=shareembed-syndication&src=v5:embed:syndication:" target="_new" title="Soldier's intense pepper spray training">Video: Soldier's intense pepper spray training</A>
"Get back!" "Get back!"

 Get it yet folks?Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-35471732162435488532014-02-25T21:59:00.000-07:002014-02-25T22:21:26.512-07:00Dictating freedom and prosperityI really, really, don't like Justin Trudeau. I fear that "Harper" has become an excuse for recklessness. The "Anything But Conservative" voting "strategy" has failed time and time again, and is in fact so vulnerable that it's been capitalized upon and manipulated by using seemingly trustworthy organizations that claim to estimate the party that's most likely to defeat the conservatives and basically tell everyone to vote that way to defeat them. But how do you know these organizations are not actually run by the conservatives, perhaps instead feeding information about the party least likely to win? How much do you really know about those organizations?

But this post isn't about that, not voting or the corruption there, specifically. It's about Justin Trudeau, the left vs right smokescreen, and our deteriorating situation.

What I see in Justin Trudeau is an elite, carefully groomed from birth to believe things are a certain way. I don't know if he is deliberately deceiving the people, or if he's just so brainwashed that his mind truly resides within the state of cognitive dissonance he displays particularly in his lofty, meaningless, speeches on the middle class. My focus is turning to him as I see "the war" stage being setup for his victory in the 2015 election. The great left vs. right smokescreen to hide that on the matters important to the global elite both parties are nearly identical. Everything else is window dressing. A political sports telecast.

Perhaps the "sportyness" of politics couldn't be expressed better than Trudeau's latest comment regarding Russia being upset because they lost at hockey. I'm not "offended" so I don't really give a shit if he apologized. Apology or no apology it shows how disconnected he is. Sports... to lighten the mood, about serious issues, of course. Sports are a time honored opiate of the masses and hockey is Canada's modern gladiator. But what's more, the game that's being played, amongst the elite between Russia and the Western trading blocks is very much a game. Speaking of ZBig, he's been tweeting up a storm about the Ukraine. Both sides' constant insistence it's not an "east-vs-west' issue just makes the fact that it clearly is that much more obvious

Anyway, it doesn't matter if we get "Harper out". It really doesn't matter who gets in unless the person going in is going to address the problems, the real problems, not the symptoms and Trudeau's pledge to "growth" tells me all I need to know about his sincerity regarding his middle class message. His support of "free trade" and the use of temporary foreign workers is again contrary to his middle class message. From this perspective I can not help but think that he must be purposely deceiving, either that or so willfully ignorant and ideological he can't see the forest for the trees. "Growth", give me a break.

Canada's middle-class too broke to spur economic recovery: government report

Growth is dead. A theory I use quite often when I'm trying to forecast the medium or long term destination of oil price is that there is now a clear ceiling of affordability on the price of oil at about $100 / barrel. I've described this concept in more detail on another post. This concept is important because it's not really that the middle class is too poor to spur growth, it's that things have become too expensive, namely oil, to spur growth. The "middle class" simply can't afford it. This isn't to say that things like "stagnating wages" aren't happening and aren't a major contributor in fact just the opposite.

Step back, don't look at any individual problem, just step back and look at growth. What is it? Demand for more, production of more, and more profit (for who?). More stuff, ever cheaper (in theory) right? So what are stagnating wages? why do they occur? Profit growth? What's commonly said by the "job creators" is that the employees are simply too expensive, so they've outsourced to foreign countries with free trade and the new found "global wage competition" they point to at every chance.

It is the need for growth to service an impossible system that is destroying us. I can not stress this enough, because it's the first domino in a whole series of subsequent issues and Justin Trudeau, the savior from Harper's "growth" policies - and they have been growth policies at your expense - is leading you towards more "growth" and that "growth", too, will be at your expense. "Growth" today is just cooked books as the snake eats it's own tail just like the conservatives claimed "balanced budget".

Our very, very, expensive new reality hasn't hit us yet in full though I think that the costs, especially due to extreme weather, are starting to mount, but it will hit us in full. Incoming data ever since the Fed's "taper" has been horrific and Canada is stuck in a severe liquidity trap. It's already hit numerous other nations and Canada's turn is coming. We are no different than they are and our economic system is no more stable or sustainable.

If you're wondering why Justin Trudeau supports the pipeline, its because they are essential for "growth" which is essential if we're to prevent "evil deflation" and an eventual housing and banking collapse and that's just in the near term. All I see on the "fair" voting ballot is growth. That's it. It'll take many forms of course, managed in different ways providing an epic political war to play on your home TVs and for media to fawn over, but at the end of the day it's growth, growth, growth, economic growth, in service to the banks and nothing else. Whatever the solution is it isn't going to come from the system's designated hero. It really can only come from you, us, together.

Richardhttp://email@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-26691197940940141812014-02-20T00:53:00.000-07:002014-02-20T01:35:19.216-07:00The natural evolution of de-growthI read an excellent story today, which as some of the commenters pointed out probably suffers from confirmation bias, but I don't really care. What's important is it's becoming a trend, a (seemingly) voluntary one, and one I've been talking about ever since I began blogging on my previous blog Hellberta.

Gen Y is redefining home ownership - and the B.C. real estate market

Now the whole thing is very interesting, and we'll get to some larger deriving trends that come from the economic trends described within the article but there's one line that really spoke to me, perhaps because I feel the same way.

They might have grown up in a bedroom community, such as the west side, or a suburb. But they are a more urban group, no longer dependent on a car, partly because of cost, and partly because they genuinely care about sustainability. They don't see the cachet of owning a car, as did their parents' generation.

"They didn't get their driver's licence the day they turned 16," says Ms. Reuter.

"For the younger generation, it's almost a badge of pride they wear, not needing a vehicle."
Now, for a guy like me in Edmonton to accomplish it's a little bit harder. Transit infrastructure here doesn't even come close to that within Vancouver, the weather is a factor, and we're just generally more sprawled. If it wasn't for my job in software I probably would have to drive simply due to the nature of business in Alberta and the favoritism shown towards automobiles. But it does exist here, and I imagine much more so in Vancouver and similar locations.

So why is this degrowth? and why is it seemingly voluntary?

You can pretty well sum it up with a comment one interviewee stated.

Jens Ourom can divide his demographic into three categories. There is the group that sees home ownership has an "unrealistic sacrifice from both a financial and lifestyle perspective." There is the group that is "raging mad, resistant to retiring as renters – a potential powder keg whenever affordability, housing prices, mortgages, and anything related to the white picket fence … are broached as conversation topics." And then there is the "What's the big deal about affordability?" group. Members of that group are counting on a trust fund or big inheritance to get them into the homeowner income bracket.

Mr. Ourom, 27, says he belongs in the first camp, that Millennial who sees pricey property as just too big a sacrifice when there's so much else that the world has to offer. He is debt free because he worked hard to get scholarships to pay for his degree. He lives car-free and pays a premium in rent to live centrally.

"I really think the concept of saving for a home is maybe overblown and what you should be doing is saving for a future," says Mr. Ourom. "If your goal is to have a home and work on a home and invest in that, then great, but this generation is already finding different ways they want to save for the future, whether it's investing in education, or starting a business. I think people are getting more creative with it."
The future. Likely without a family, children, population growth. The insecurity and fear this generation faces on top of being priced out of traditional living is causing a natural adjustment to their expectations, their goals, their survival. Insecurity for yourself means insecurity for your children. This isn't to say Gen-Y isn't having children, but it is to say that for most it is such a financially daunting reality when faced with the uncertainty of renting, or dealing with mortgage payments, student loans, or whatever other bullshit the previous generation has decided was a good idea to put on the shoulders of their children that the very thought of bringing more children is simply seemingly ridiculous.

The influences shaping this thought and adaptation is instinctive to survival. To a generation that sees OAS simply raised on them to 67 there is little faith in retirement and I'm sure the "it takes effect in the future" spin really comforts those who realize that it doesn't matter when it takes effect what matters is whether its in effect when you turn 65. To a generation seeing that today the uncertainty of what new changes await them in the future as cost cutting and austerity are exchanged for production growth, fear is prevelant.

The results of this aren't going to be pretty for the growth economy, but being that Gen-Y is largely priced out of the growth economy and it's very likely we're going to see a depopulation trend where fewer and fewer Gen-Y and millennial are even having children due to their new status as subprime debt slaves one then has to ask what's the point of having a growth economy? The natural response to our condition, those already feeling our condition that is, is becoming de-growth.

This generation alone already can't afford to support the baby boomers rapid growth record where now as the article describes most Gen-Y's to even consider home ownership must get their baby boomer parents to sign, and people are questioning whether this housing bubble is going to pop? Seriously? But it doesn't stop there as the pride of not using cars eats into large portions of automotive profit. I wonder if the Chrysler CEO Sergio Marchionne is considering that in his growth projections while he begs the Canadian people for more government backed loans to support their growth. Yep, the "job creators" just can't seem to "create jobs" without the employee's paying them for the job in the first place. That's a sure path to wealth right?

De-Growth is already happening, and it's going to happen naturally. What's worrying is a system that doesn't want it to happen, a system that understands that this de-growth will lead to a severe and much needed change to the status quo. It's going to happen in many ways, some good, as in this example of Gen-Y taking an involuntary situation and turning it into an involuntary opportunity, and also the many bad examples which is going to lead to decaying infrastructure, a loss of productive jobs, and ultimately a loss of lives.

De-growth is here, it's how we handle it that is the question. We can kick and scream and light our country on fire as you see happening all around the world on an ever more frequent basis; you think that's coincidence? or we can smile, square our shoulders for the task ahead, and take it in stride.

Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-69309987771824404872014-02-18T21:49:00.003-07:002014-02-18T21:58:56.165-07:00I guess it's too bad everything we have's inflating away...Growth. That's the solution. To what you might ask? The growth policy of the past. Seriously. Just ask Justin Trudeau:

It's a clever piece of propaganda. It really pulls at the harp strings of the "middle class". Growth... *sigh*... it's not the answer, folks. It's just not, it's an impossible equation which can not be solved because it's not just growth today, or tomorrow, it's forever. It's infinite growth. It's impossible. I was reading some article the other day on how too big to fail is "worse now" (seriously, be more creative) and I thought it was great, detailed, until I got to the end...

Most important as we address TBTF, is having a clear vision with Hamiltonian thoughtfulness that describes the banking system best suited to a democratic, capitalistic, free-market United States that will function, survive, and grow for the next few hundred years. Once done, whether through the reinstitution of Glass-Steagall or some other legislation, our economic and fiscal house will rest again on solid ground and be prepared to flourish. It is imperative that we address the issue.
Just think about that.. grow for the next few hundred years. We have no fucking clue what we're going to do after oil runs out which most estimates put out somewhere around 2050. No fucking idea, and we're not too worried about it either. But growth? Economic growth? Loan growth? Currency growth? We're fucking on it. "What're we gunna do?"

We're big, folks, really.. really big. We dominate the planet and the space around it. We're having to look in the arctic for resources. We're here, we're all grown up, now. Growth is no longer a service, but rather a hindrance. It is the pursuit of growth that is going to take everything we've built and slowly destroy it. Cancer grows until the host's ability to sustain it and usually itself is destroyed. That's our decision, right now, do we grow or do we stop and reorganize our society to focus on something different.

It's not really a choice, as we've been covering here lately. De-Growth is already happening, the economic growth of today is largely one giant magic trick balanced on debt and future leverage, promises on promises on over-priced property and future wealth we don't yet know actually exists.

Trudeau's video is one giant promotion of a continuation of this system. A debt based economic system that is entirely predicated on infinite exponential growth and where low EROEI energy sources like the oil sands and fracking and the prosperity they are supposed to bring are vastly overrated while the people's wealth is slowly transferred to the oligarchs in control as they borrow themselves into oblivion.

It will not result in more equality. It will not result in a "healthier middle class". It is exactly what we are doing right now. Or claiming we're doing, anyway. It's exactly what we've been doing. More growth. Ha. I've covered here before how Trudeau just candidly admits the middle class missed out on that first run of growth following NAFTA and currency privatization and of course my favorite quote of his more or less reducing the struggles of women and working to cogs on the economic wheel of growth.

Personal income for middle-class Canadians has stagnated for more than a generation. This deeply troubling development is masked by a rise in family income, due to the entry of a new generation of well-educated, hard-working women into the workforce. While this phenomenon is overwhelmingly positive, we must be clear-eyed in understanding that it is a one-time benefit
Seriously, the guy basically chops up the destruction of single-family incomes as overwhelmingly positive and a big "phew" that women just happened to be there to make up for the stagnation of an infinite growth Ponzi-conomy.

Which is interesting, isn't it? That in his video he would say that "Canadian families are wondering why they should support a "growth agenda".". The whole world is on a "growth agenda", I've had enough let me off this ride. It doesn't work, and "the working poor" and "middle-class" families are footing the bill. Yes, remember folks, we have a "working poor". People that work hard and full time and get fucked. Everyone is getting fucked. No pennies around anymore? Yea, that's your cents, in your account, devaluing. You're getting fucked and Trudeau over there is cheering the system doing the fucking while crying a sad song and sorrow for the middle class.

Growth and balanced budgets? Not bloody likely, in a debt based system any balancing of the budget is just a transfer of the debt off the books and into reality. Decaying infrastructure. Alberta is learning all about that while they put on their happy faces and try to keep quiet the burning questions regarding the process and methods of the extreme energy extraction they so cherish.

The well bores are separated by several kilometres, which calls into question why four would fail at the same time. A more frightening theory that's gaining currency suggests CNRL may have overpressurized the underground formation causing the caprock closer to the surface to fracture, which is allowing the bitumen to seep upwards.

Primrose is a so-called in situ oil sands play, which means it uses a process that involves heating bitumen in the ground to a point where its viscosity allows it to be pumped to the surface. It doesn't create the moonscapes and toxic tailings ponds that have become the signature features of oil sands mining projects, but it's also not without its environmental footmarks. At Primrose, CNRL, for instance, has been ordered to pump more than 400,000 cubic metres of contaminated water from a small lake contaminated by the bitumen seepage. On a broader scale, the enormous amount of steam needed to extract bitumen from in situ plays, makes the undertaking more carbon intensive than even the mining projects that begin by stripping all traces of the original boreal forest from the landscape.

The carbon trail from in situ projects isn't the only worry. The extraction method may also be having more of an impact on the earth itself than was previously thought. Geologists have found that injecting massive amounts of steam into bitumen deposits can actually lift the ground cover by more than a foot a month. If this upheaval fractures the caprock then that's one less barrier left to stop the uncontrolled flow of bitumen to the surface.

The proliferation of such unconventional extraction methods, as the U.S. experience with fracturing shale rock shows, can also have unintended seismic effects. In Oklahoma and other places, for instance, fracking has been linked to earthquake activity.

So far, the Alberta Energy Regulator has yet to deliver a final verdict on the Primrose leak, although it did recently move to limit the amount of steam that CNRL can inject into its wells. While the provincial energy regulator – led by a former EnCana executive and president of the oil industry's lobby group – does seem to be suspicious of CNRL's proffered explanation for the seepage, it has yet to order the company to stop injecting steam at its Primrose operations. The longer bitumen keeps seeping to the surface, though, the more pressure the regulator will face to do so.
I like Jeff Rubin. He gets it. He wrote a book, and did a whole bunch of videos, do you know what he called it? The end of growth. A lot of my reasoning is influenced by his work, such as "why high oil prices stop growth". It makes sense. Nothing grows forever, and nothing has grown forever. Humanity has, but within that history societies have fallen many times over each reaching their own internal carrying capacity or what could be considered the carrying capacity at the time.

But that was then. Everyone seems to like to say, it's no different now. But it is different now. We inhabit pretty well every square foot of this place. We're having to drill for oil in the arctic, other hazardous offshore, and utilize other forms of extreme energy such as oilsands and fracking. If "growth" is really what you want you support this. You support oilsands expansion, whether you believe you do, or not. This is where we're at now, folks. Growth is going to need more and more energy, at lower and lower returns, forever, and ever. All the while we will be cost-cutting, haircutting, laying off, "finding efficiencies" to greater and greater extents. We'll be rationalizing increasing levels of pollution and a gradually lowering standard of living.

Just take Obama visiting California to relieve them with federal aide. Sure he can reimburse them but he can't spend the water into existence. Growth isn't an option, folks. As a society we're going to need to find a new way to organize ourselves that does not measure success on infinite growth. There is no guarantee the surplus energy to fuel what we would consider normal growth actually exists. All of these low interest policies, stimulus policies, is to try to spend this growth into existence on the backs of us, and our descendants. This, ultimately, is what Trudeau is advocating. Jobs don't lead to prosperity, wealth does, jobs historically have always been the primary way to accomplish production but now automation is taking over.

The gift of automation is the ticket needed to move away from a primarily growth based debt economy where today the "growth and jobs" they are pushing is merely to keep the house-of-cards and status-quo going. Distorted market concepts like defective by design and the focus on automobiles for transit at the expense of more sensible long term investment in public transport. That's the "growth" of today. Marketing on the ceiling, on the floors, every fucking landmark owned by such and such a bank. That's growth and it's only going to get worse until one day a balanced budget means you spend nothing, and service everything, and there's nowhere left to go.

Trudeau doesn't mention savings once in his video on the middle class, the people that "only spend their incomes". The savers, the thing that makes a middle class able to be middle class. Because saving policy, isn't growth policy, now is it? But I guess what we need is more "growth" and it's too bad everything you have is inflating away.

Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com:blogger.com,1999:blog-8182334793544213982.post-31612590018212861352014-02-13T23:35:00.003-07:002014-02-13T23:35:43.784-07:00Talking About Canadians #1: Capture of wild horses necessary, premier says (Also redefines "land")Oddly I've noticed that when I make short rants they on average tend to be more popular than my lengthier somewhat detailed posts. So as a follow up to my post 'Talking to Canadians" and in honor of all the short post lovers out there I've decided to spontaneously create a new sub-series 'talking about Canadians'. As an added twist I've decided to run it through Gizoogle as well so that you can feel the authenticity as though the official spokesperson of 'Murica: Hollywood, is talking about Canadians.

Capture of wild horses necessary, premier says

Premier Alison Redford defended her posse's controversial decision ta allow fo' wild horses ta be captured up in southern Alberta, sayin Wednesdizzle tha issue is "emotional" but warnin dat feral muthafuckas is damagin tha land.

Yo, bustin lyrics ta hustlas up in Lethbridge, Redford holla'd she understandz there is opposizzle ta a wild cow capture yo, but noted smart-ass muthafuckas up in Alberta Environment & Sustainable Resource Development (ESRD) have made similar decisions up in tha past.

"These is feral muthafuckas. They is impactin productivitizzle on tha land, they is impactin livestock, they is impactin fencin n' dat sort of thang," Redford holla'd.

"I KNOW dat playas do have concerns n' can git like wack bout dis yo, but all up in tha end of tha day, tha decisions ... gotta be made up in tha context of tha dopest possible use of our resources."

Da Tory posse has faced tha wrath of conservationists upset wit tha decision dis year ta round up a shitload of tha province's wild cow population, a action they view as a unnecessary cull of a heritage animal.

Last month, Alberta Environment issued a licence ta allow fo' tha capture by tha end of March of up ta 196 wild horses along tha foothills, from Kananaskis Ghetto ta Sundre.

Da licence holda can trap tha horses fo' underground use or bust dem ta slaughter n' shit. It's tha last time a license has been issued since 2011.

Nikki Booth, a spokeswoman fo' Alberta Environment, holla'd tha department conducted a aerial count of tha feral horses last March n' identified 980, up from 778 tha previous year.

Yo, she holla'd tha higher numbers indicate tha muthafuckas is smokin grass n' damagin tha land, competin wit other wildlife n' grazin livestock fo' chicken n' you know I be eatin up dat shizzle all muthafuckin day, biatch.

"If you have dat feral cow population dat is growin 20 ta 30 per cent every last muthafuckin year, dat do put some heat on tha land fo' chicken sources yo, but it also puts heat on dem natizzle plants," Booth holla'd.

"Yo ass don't want any of dem animal crews starvin on tha land. Y'all KNOW dat shit, muthafucka! Yo ass gotta be able ta manage all of tha populations."

But shizzle of a cold-ass lil cull hustled gangbangers ta stage a rally outside a gangbangin' finger-lickin' dinner tha premier attended Wednesdizzle evenin up in Calgary.

Bob Henderson, prez of tha Wild Horses Posse of Alberta, called tha premier's sickest fuckin comments bout tha cull disappointing.

Henderson n' tha society believe there be mo' betta ways ta manage wild horses, includin constipation or adoption.

"It be a wack issue fo' a shitload of playas but we've been representin facts n' providin scientistical data that's been straight-up ignored," da perved-out muthafucka holla'd.

Wildrose MLA Joe Anglin holla'd tha province has no proof tha population is too high or dat wild horses is beatin tha livin shiznit outta Alberta's grasslands.

Wild horses is "a proud as a muthafucka symbol of Alberta's frontier heritage" n' tha province hasn't produced a scientistical report ta justify restartin tha cull, holla'd Anglin, MLA fo' Rimbey-Rocky Mountain House-Sundre.

"What tha premier holla'd is without basis. Right back up in yo muthafuckin ass. Show me tha study," da perved-out muthafucka holla'd up in a rap battle.

"Do we need a cold-ass lil cull, biatch? Well, if we need one let's make shizzle we're bustin it right. What (the department) is bustin is guessing."
Yep, only in Alberta are animals that have grazed the land for centuries now "damaging it" while the oilsands are apparently having "no impact". Of course by land she means economic productivity, but you know: whatevs.

And that's been "talking about Canadians".Richardhttp://firstname.lastname@example.com