 | DrumBeat: October 24, 2006 | The Oil Drum | DrumBeat II-10/24 (and the "are you going to Boston?" coordination thread as well) |  |
142 comments on Fuel Prices As We Go over the Top...?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
142 comments on Fuel Prices As We Go over the Top...?
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
User login
Personnel
Archives
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
What do you think the reaction in Canada would be to shortages when we are exporting 50+% of our natural gas to the states and can't reduce our exports thanks to NAFTA?
I am not sure if that prodcution is still shut in or not.
Oct. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Citadel Investment Group LLC, the $12 billion hedge fund manager, T. Boone Pickens and the Merchant Commodity fund expect natural gas to rebound from a historic losing streak.
Hedge funds amassed a $3 billion wager on rising prices in New York futures markets as gas plunged 74 percent in the past 10 months, the biggest drop of any commodity. Chicago-based Citadel added to its bet in September by taking over trades from Amaranth Advisers LLC, the hedge fund that's closing after losing $6.5 billion in the gas market.
Demand for gas, used for furnaces and power plants, will outstrip supply as production from U.S. wells declines in 2007, say the chief executive officers of energy producers Devon Energy Corp. and EOG Resources Inc. Natural gas will average $9 per million British thermal units over the next 12 months, says EOG's chief, Mark Papa, up from less than $6 last week.
``If you told me I had to go long or short today, I would go long,'' betting on higher prices, said Pickens, whose Dallas hedge fund is up 120 percent this year. Gas may reach $10 this winter if cold weather depletes inventories, he said on Oct. 11 in New York. He declined to predict when his fund might get back into the gas market after exiting earlier this year.
Natural gas may rise as high as $12 per million Btu by March, said Michael Coleman, founder of Singapore-based Aisling Analytics Pte Ltd., which runs the $386 million Merchant Commodity hedge fund.
Falling Supply
While demand for gas to run power plants is increasing in North America, supply isn't growing, said Michael Morris, chief executive of Columbus, Ohio-based American Electric Power Co., the second-biggest U.S. electricity producer. Prices fell earlier this year after the fifth-warmest winter on record and a cool summer that reduced demand for electricity to run air conditioners.
The amount of gas pumped from U.S. wells is likely to decrease 1 percent this year, and supplies from new wells are declining at a faster rate than five years ago, said David Khani, an oil and gas analyst at Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. analyst in Arlington, Virginia.
Daily U.S. production of natural gas fell to a 12-year low of 49.8 billion cubic feet in 2005 because of damage to plants from hurricanes, according to the U.S. Energy Department.
``The critical part is the production capacity of natural gas wells, and that is flat at best from the past winter,'' Devon Chief Executive Larry Nichols said in a telephone interview. Prices may rise ``dramatically,'' especially if winter is colder than normal, he said. Devon, based in Oklahoma City, is the second-largest independent U.S. natural gas producer.
http://www.prosefights.org/gas/gas.htm
:)
Is there a decline in jobs that require pure manpower as in "lifting" and "forging"? Yes. Do we suffer collectively from that decline? No.
We do have a growing number of poorly educated people who are being made obsolete in the changing workforce of the 21st century. That is a problem of education, though, not one that is driven by limited and declining natural gas resources. If you want to keep the US ahead of the world, take care of better schools for everyone instead of sending hundreds of billions of dollars into a war that should not have been fought in the first place. And if you need to employ millions of people in jobs that require relatively low levels of education, have them install solar panels on your roof. Everyone who can climb a ladder can do that kind of work AND it solves the energy problems of the future.
I agree... the only jobs that will definitely stay here are those which require physical presence. And the people doing them will be the only ones without any means to ever leave their communities. Everyone else in the future will be able to choose where they want to work... on snowy planes or in buzzing Asian cities or on tropical islands.
If I wanted to, I could go to Singapore tomorrow. Or Australia. Or back to Europe. All I have to do is to apply for a job in any of these places or to open a business of my own. Granted, not everyone has the desire to move and to live on foreign shores. But those who have, usually value the experience. And often they come back to home and bring what they have learned with them.
What I am trying to say is that a world open to everyone who has set their mind to exploring it (quite literally) is not a bad thing.
And I would also think that among the tens of millions of Mexican immigrants in the US there are many who are homesick and who would rather like to live with their families rather than spend their lives on the run from one minimum wage job to the other or one farmer's field to the other.
I met a guy from the Philippines who works in the US to support his kids. He gets to see them once every year, at most. Do you think he is doing it because he has a choice? The man's heart brakes every time he talks about his kids and how he is afraid that his brother's family where they live is not treating them like their own. On the upside: his janitor's salary allows him to send his son to college to become a white collar worker... and the son will probably send his son to university to become a doctor or let his daughter be an attorney...
If you go to Singapore, you will see thousands of laborers from Malaysia work on construction sites...
I could go on. The short version is that people move to where the work is. Desperate people move further and endure more hardships than fat people with homes and social security checks. I don't mean that in a derogatory way, it is simply the result of the survival pressure that people are under. Hunger is a cruel mistress. When she talks, you listen.
I move to where I like because I can and because it is fun. I have made myself a home on three continents and maybe I will make that four by the time I retire... No, I do not think that the reasons I move for are typical. But I do think that moving is essential part of humanity. We were nomads and we can always be nomads if we have to.
Of course, we're not talking about moving among First World nations where the populations all have comparable incomes. But then that's not where the jobs are being outsourced to anyway.
There is abolutely nothing wrong with this picture, unless your economic credo is that you can only profit if someone else starves. I think the world as a whole has reduced such 18th century thinking to rubble. We all profit from China and India taking over the industries that we can't run profitably any longer.
Now, I take it from your post that you are probably not a billionaire...?
I also represent a growing fraction of the world's population that understands the necessity to move around. My point was that there are many reasons to be mobile. Being part of the jetset is the unlikeliest one, though. It is much more likely that either you are starving or that your level of education is needed somewhere else. In my case it is the latter. In the case of my parents it was the former. We did not make the world this way, we just adapted to it.
Infinite, I do see your points as being valueable, but I think you've read one too many Thomas Friedman articles on the wonders of cinnabons. I guess you have a positive outlook on "globalization", you seem to have a romantic vision of efficiency, profit and order for all... Whereas I see globalization simply as labor arbitrage and squeezing the last few bucks out of an industrial system that is bound to collapse (in any form, whether run by global capitalism or so called "marxist socialism".)
First off, sure, you have to be smart to be a billionaire (at least a self made one, if you look at the Forbe 400 list you will find that although many are self made, there are quite a few that inherited.) On the other hand, becoming filthy rich is way less a function of "smarts", than it is of hard work, taking advantage of every opportunity and, of course, greed. I would put way more stress on greed than "smarts"... In fact, I would bet that you could be a total fucktard and still become a billionaire simply by pure greed (of course, I'm not saying a greedy mentally deficient individual could achieve such a feat--there is obviously a nominal base of intelligence to make money). My point is simply that I think you're wrong to stress "smarts", since there are millions upon millions of people that are way more smart then the vast majority of billionaires. In fact, billionaires usually employ people that are far moer intelligent than them.
You misunderstood BrianT. Perhaps you need to get down from the saddle and actually discuss things as opposed to stating your opinions as facts from high atop hi-ho silver. My understanding of what BrianT was saying is that we are all on the same boat. We are all homo sapiens, we are all related and we all live on "spaceship earth". Our space ship may be easy to get around right now, and may have enough resources for everyone to plow around in military vechicles in urban environments, but eventually this free for all will end. Just because people have been crying wolf since whale oil, doesn't mean that resources are infinite and that prognosticators will forever be wrong. In case you didn't notice, this blog's focus is energy depletion and our "future".
BrianT's point was that once TSHTF billionaires and the unemployed will both have problems, albeit different ones. For instance, billionaires will be concerned with having even tighter security, contingents of body guards and militarized homes then they already do... They will be afraid of the masses of enraged Americans who were told by Reagan in the 80s that it was Morning in America... When people find out it is actually Dusk in America, the public will want to eat the upper class alive.
Perhaps you disagree with my perspective on this, since you obviously seem joyfully optimistic about our future (despite massive, never before experienced challenges for our species on the very near horizon...) To go down the list briefly with no depth:
- spiraling wars in the middle east (already in progress)
- global oil production depletion (no one knows--not a good thing)
- global warming (again, no one knows--not a good thing)
- unprecendent debt levels (growing rapidly monthly)
- overpopulation (approaching 7 billion--more people have been alive in the last 200 years than cumultively in all of human history)
- mass extinction
- ecological degradation (rainforests all around the world be burned and chopped down, coral reefs dying, etc.)
I could go on but you get the jist of it.While you seem to enjoy doing the "hey look how stupid feckless unemployed 20 somethings are compared to our brilliant billionaires!" I would rather side with BrianT and simply agree that we are products of only two things... Our environments and genetic dispositions. (Not to mention millions of years of natural selection.)
"potential of a billionaire"?????
So I assume you are saying that essentially there is a billionaire gene? Or there must be a rearing technique to enhance the "billionaire potential"?
Those are rhetorical questions, because obviously both have to be true. In order to get a billionaire you need A) the disposition to become one B) the environmental know how to function in the world to impress people, network, makes deals, etc with all the other BS required. Plus, the obvious desire to do so...
Again, I'm just writing this to make it known to all that I agree with BrianT, and think your arrogance is now apparent to anyone to see.
BrianT tries to say we're all in this together and you go out and write that he must not be a billionaire and that billionaires are smart? Wow.
hrmm...
"Whereas I see globalization simply as labor arbitrage and squeezing the last few bucks out of an industrial system that is bound to collapse (in any form, whether run by global capitalism or so called "marxist socialism".)"
Labor arbitrage existed everywhere at all times. It is not limited to moving jobs across borders in the late 20th century. Labor intense industries always moved to where the cheapest labor was and they always created high concentrations of low earners. What seems misguided to me is that some people in these posts complained that they can't be the low earners. I always ask myself why someone who has reasonable chances to move up to the middle class would want to hang on to the bottom of the system kinds of jobs. The Chinese who are taking these will certainly encourage their children NOT to follow Mom and Dad to the factory but go to school, then college and become an engineer or better.
As for the collapse of the system... I have yet to see any signs of that. Capitalism is happily producing one record result after the other everywhere in the world. One can argue that some of it is ecologically not sustainable. I would agree with that, but then, there is no law of physics that I know (and I am a physicist) which states that similar gains can not be had with less waste of energy and resources. America is 50% less efficient than Europe and Europe is probably 50% less efficient than it could be according to the laws of physics. We have plenty of solar radiation to satisfy our children's and grandchildren's hunger for energy. Real limits exist, but we aren't even close, yet.
My billionaire story was meant to be hyperbole... apologies that people misunderstood my sense of humor. Since I don't dine with billionaires, I know nothing about them first hand. But the fact that they are billionaires and most people are not kind of leads me to believe that they are doing something differently... :-)
:-)
http://www.tompeters.com/entries.php?note=009333.php
Medical Tourism World Wide
Discover a world of care, safely and affordably.
http://www.planethospital.com/
Are you aware of any examples of insurance companies getting involved with this?
In fact we have a growing number of EDUCATED people who are also being made obsolete.
Good posting although I disagree with your assesment about education. I took and eventually passed the CPA exam in the early eighties and we were allowed 2 sheets of paper and one pencil that were collected before you could leave. Now you are allowed a calculator and unlimited supplies.
Nowdays with all the accounting and technical software any "idiot" can replace jobs that took greater understandings and education.
We need more technical programs like I had, in public schools. Technical arts from grade 6 through 12 gave me my welding and foundry abilities, and now pay me almost as much as being a CPA, with less hours of work.
People making less in this economy are forced to pay higher gas prices they can ill afford.
I would like to disagree. We sometimes have an oversupply of people with the wrong skills. Educated people can compensate for that by changing professions, albeit it is very rare that a PhD chemist or physicists has to change fields. He or she might have to move somewhere else to find work, though.
Obviously CPA jobs can be outsourced, but a friend of ours who is a physical chemist who joined a bank, got a CPA on the job and specialized on market analysis (because of her mathematical skills in stochastics) and is now a high-earner in a large European Bank. Her job is not only safe but will probably take her soon to New York, Tokio or anywhere else she wants to go. All she has to do is to ask...
Congrats about you decision to go into welding and foundry work. Especially if you can do specialty welds (UHV) or artistic pieces, that sounds like a safe job to me. It is safe because it is specialized and if you add the experience, you are hard to replace.
That is a general statement about job security: if you can do something that only a few thousand people in the world can do, your job is usually safe. If you sell hamburger... well, then you can be replaced rather easily, if necessary with a machine.
Skills and even "exceptional skills" can be had easily. All they require is supportive parents, good teachers and ten years of continuous learning in college and university. The easier way to get into the US, Europe and most other countries, though, is by doing the janitorial jobs that the locals are not willing to do. Generations of foreign workers everywhere can tell tales. And because they had to do all these awfull jobs they tend to save their money and send their kids to schools of higher education to spare them the dirt. That is, at least, what my parents did...
"Besides, how do you know that North Americans can get jobs overseas?"
Singapore, for one thing, is inviting and supporting foreign researchers with grants. They have tons of foreign companies set shop up there and bring their employees over. They do get their construction site laborers from Malaysia, though. I doubt you want one of those jobs, anyway.
It is by no means "easy" to get into the US. Getting a greencard is a major hassle. In return the Europeans make it really hard for US citizens to get in, too. But just because something is hard does not mean it is impossible. You just have to want it and do the things it takes to get there, not all of which are pleasant.
Can you give me a link to where I could read about the US giving preferential treatment to immigration applicants who say they are willing to be janitors?
That's to be a janitor. Now if you are like the two mothers of my nephew and niece (long, complicated story, but interesting), you can't get a middle class job paying decent wages and have to move back to Sweden. Plenty of janitor jobs, fast food jobs, street labor jobs, but nothing that will buy a house or even pay for more than a cot in a garage without a documented history, and that costs far more than 25$.
Unless you are willing to indenture yourself to a company and make half what you would make in Sweden, or marry an American and wait a year or so for your work permit to kick in, you can't get a middle class job in America as a legal or illegal immigrant. In my lifetime we let in thirty million unskilled immigrants and maybe three million skilled (which means college diploma bearing) immigrants.
This has made most Americans better off, on average. It's just the poor people who get it in the shorts.
This has made most Americans better off, on average. It's just the poor people who get it in the shorts."
30 million more people hits everyone in the shorts. Their is almost no problem in our society that is not made worse by 30 million more people.
I would like to disagree. We sometimes have an oversupply of people with the wrong skills. Educated people can compensate for that by changing professions, albeit it is very rare that a PhD chemist or physicists has to change fields. He or she might have to move somewhere else to find work, though.
"
Saying that a PhD chemist or physicist will never be without a job does absolutely nothing to refute the statement that "a growing number of EDUCATED people who are also being made obsolete". In fact, it appears to support it. You named only two fields of study and limited study to the PhD level.
"That is a general statement about job security: if you can do something that only a few thousand people in the world can do, your job is usually safe."
Are you being sarcastic with this? Making a case that a growing number of educated people aren't being made obsolete by talking about people with highly specialized skills?
"Obviously CPA jobs can be outsourced, but a friend of ours who is a physical chemist who joined a bank, got a CPA on the job and specialized on market analysis (because of her mathematical skills in stochastics) and is now a high-earner in a large European Bank. Her job is not only safe but will probably take her soon to New York, Tokio or anywhere else she wants to go. All she has to do is to ask.."
Well there is a good example of a person who's job cannot be off-shored. Oh wait, you just said she could work anywhere she wants.
In my opinion the most important thing to consider is this: it used to be that a high school diploma meant you were decently educated, and a bachelors degree meant you were well educated, if not a specialist. Today a high school diploma has no value greater than toilet paper. A bachelors degree is the new high school diploma-- so many people have them now that they mean almost nothing, and rather are expected.
How long until master's degrees are nothing special? How long until PhDs are a dime a dozen? What we're seeing is degree inflation. We're spending a lot more time and money training people in stuff that they're not going to use, rather than the skills they actually need. In the end, an Indian or Chinese person with the same degree will still do the job for a much lower salary.
We have a problem in this country and it's not one that can easily be solved by more education.
Just a thought...
Parents are well advised to teach their children the skills that will be required in the future and not the ones they were taught by their own parents.
Leads the world to what ends?
LOL
Allowing all our manufacturing to leave this country has not really solved any of our problems, if anything it has potentially put us in a more difficult situation.
NAFTA's export rules do allow for reductions in the quantity, and even the historic proportion, of gas exports from Canada to the US. Some commentary from the OAS Foreign Trade Information System:
It's difficult to imagine that a Canadian government would believe it practical to adopt a policy restricting the flow of energy commodities, but it's possible.
1 - Canada's NEB allocates exports based on having met Canadian needs first.
2 - NAFTA can be abrogated with 6 months notice.
A far more pressing question will be whether or not Canadians continue to use declining supplies of NatGas for tar sand production as opposed to heating homes.
You have basically got three options when peak NA gas hits a) switch to oil, b) switch to electric heating, c) burn bio mass or d) super insulate your house.
a) Is highly undesirable given the peak oil problem
b) Would kill the grid (especially in Ontario where I live).
c) Would work but I doubt how scaleable or environmently friendly it would be.
d) seems like the most sensible long term option and I have seen houses that are livable in -40c temperatures with little or no additional heating. The problem is that most houses aren't built like that for cost reasons. It isn't feasible to rebuild all the houses from scratch.
What I am interested in is trying to retro fit existing housing stock to these levels of insulation/solar gain potential. Next year I will be starting somewhat of an experiment when I move houses. I plan on doing some serious energy efficiency improvements to my new (14 year old) house with the aim of getting as close to super insulation levels as is practical. I doubt it will provide a financial payback at current gas prices but I am betting in the next 10 to 20 years it will be a good investment. If not, I will put it down as my bit to help the environment.
What ideas do you have for super-insulating an existing home, besides the usual attic insulation and better windows? It is really tough to add much insulation to walls, even older, better construction is usually with 2x4s. Injecting insulation will only go so far.
This is going to be a really big thing as the crisis starts. Helping people drastically reduce their heating fuel needs will go a long way to help keeping things going.
One idea I had would be to build a shell completely around the existing structure, and insulate that really well. A "house within a house" would really keep the elements out.
To add insulation to the walls, he built out the walls on the inside of the house rather than the outside (so he lost a little floor space), and he added insulation in the space between the new wall and the old, all around the house.
He reports that his insulating adventure has paid off in dramatically reduced energy costs.
-Amy W.
The problem was indooor pollution. With such well sealed houses (plastic vapor wrap, tight windows, etc), interior pollutants - whether from the kitchen, degassing of new home materials, or other sources, was becoming a serious problem due to lack of turnover of fresh air. Furnaces and fireplaces would use a sealed exterior air supply.
Just commenting on these issues in case anyone has other good information about this issue.
From an insulation point-of-view, the windows will be the weak point. But the windows are the primary heat source in my design (as well as making the space seem bigger than it is). There are decent quality honeycomb window blinds that get you an additional R-5 (or so) on your windows when they are drawn. These are actually a really good option for just about anybody that lives in a cold climate.
Someone brought up ventilation being a problem in super-insulated homes. Because it's such crap, I've come to the conclusion that the construction industry is spreading this around to stear people from alternative construction. Ventilation is the job of your ventilation system and not the job of your walls. You've got serious problems if your primary means of ventilation is leaky construction.
Honestly, blown cellulose is really good stuff.
We added 1/2" lami to thermopane fixed windows and 3/8" to moveable windows, and don't need heat until it's below freezing out.
We added 1/2" lami to thermopane fixed windows and 3/8" to moveable windows, and don't need heat until it's below freezing out.
Call me crazy...
If things get tough, it will come to that. You will find that poor Americans already do that.
One problem with a lot of central AC/heating systems, I think, is that they lack room-specific controls. My father used to have a trick of leaving an incandescent light on next to the thermostat in the winter.
(a source of great family humour. For 23 years I complained my bedroom was cold in winter-- last one on the heating circuit . I was told to use more blankets.)
Now my father uses my bedroom on occasion. He complains that it is very cold at night ;-).
Walls R28 -> R50
Attic R50 -> R80
Basement R20 -> R28
There are two basic approaches i.e. add insulation on the outside or the inside.
The outside approach would involve adding extra footings and framing a new outside wall. You will have to re-frame for windows and maybe modify the roof to increase the overhand and adjust the soffits. The approach is a lot of work but doesn't reduce interior living space.
There are a few ways to tackle the interior approach. One way is to frame another interior 2x4 or 2x3 stud wall and then add insulation and drywall.Ideally there needs to be a space between both walls to avoid thermal bridging. An alternative approach is to remove the drywall from the exterior walls, add horizontal 2x4 or 2x3 strapping. You then fill the new wall with insulation. To get maximum R-value you can use polyurethane spray foam which is R 6 per inch. So for a 2x6 + 2x3 strapped wall you can get R 48. The only problem with this approach is the cost of spray foam which is about $3.00 per sq/ft per 6" deep. It is however a very good way of air sealing the structure and will give a higher effective R-value than bat insulation. You can of cause use say 4" of spray foam and 4" of cheaper insulation.
The one thing that is VERY important is to air seal the house to the maximum extent possible. Without doing this all the extra insulation will be a waste of time. Now this does introduce other problems such as poor air quality and condensation build up. You would be amazed at how much water vapour we humans expel on a daily basis. To avoid the problems with such a tight air seal you then have to introduce mechanical air ventilation. To avoid sending all the heat out of the house you will need to use either a heat recovery or energy recovery ventilator. This is especially important in very cold climates as you can't just open the windows.
I could go on about energy efficient windows, solar heat gain etc. However, I don't want to bore people. I hope to create a web site documenting all the changes I plan including solar hot water heating, water capture system...
I agree the best bang for the buck is to do what you suggested. However, on older houses this will get you to lower levels than current new housing (which still isn't great). To really fix a lot of the air sealing problems you need to take the dry wall off. If you are doing this, the extra work isn't that much. The approaches I described could be retrofitted to just about any wooden frame built house. Plus you could do it one room at a time if required. In the future I could easily see gas prices doubling or tripling. If this is the case, payback would probably be in the 5 to 10 year period.
The big benefit I see with forced ventilation is improved health. Most houses are pretty bad places to live from an air quality perspective. This is especially bad when you have long winters and spend a lot of time inside.
In my case, I am combining these modifications with some other major renovations. I will do the framing work myself so the overall cost will be lower.
You needn't worry about boring people - we're all interested in energy issues here. You seem to know a lot about renovations to improve energy efficiency. If you'd like to write one or more good articles on this topic, we could probably host them for you as guest posts.
I'd certainy be interested - my home is about a hundred years old and could definitely do with some more insulation. Right now firewood isn't too expensive or labour-intensive, but that might not always be the case. If I have to split firewood myself at some point, I'd be happier if I lived in a home that didn't require too much of it.
There are times that I look enviously at ICF (insulated concrete form) homes and wish I could have afforded to build one...
I would suggest people interested take a look at http://www.buildermanual.com/
This details a lot of the R2000 approaches, which can be adapted to existing housing.
Lots of different possibilities. To get maximum value requires attention to detail, especially for air sealing.
So retrofitting existing houses is totally possible. In addition to retrofitting the house my family lives in, we also added ceiling/wall insulation, high R windows, etc. to the 3 rental properties we own.
Retrofitting existing houses for energy efficiency is not that big a deal.
http://oee.nrcan.gc.ca/publications/infosource/pub/home/Heating_and_Cooling_with_a_Heat_Pump_Section 4.cfm
(the Yanks have taking to calling them 'geoexchange heat pumps' if you google US sites)
The downside is you need to dig a significant horizontal trench or a vertical bore about 50'.
The particular advantage is a fantastic payback, especially if you are also an air conditioning user. My aunt originally installed one on her farm with a 10 year planned payback, with the price of electricity now in Ontario the payback has been much quicker than that. (she did keep the electric baseboard heaters as a backup, in practice they survive almost entirely with the HP and one airtight wood stove).
There are also air source heat pumps. Air source HP don't work, unaided, in a Canadian climate I don't think. AFAIK You would need an electric heating booster for cold days.
http://r2000.chba.ca/ is a pretty good guide to what is achievable (new build) in highly insulated homes. A side benefit is they are very quiet.
Our high humidity increases both air conditioning & heating air source efficiency. When the electricity for water pumping is added, the slightly higher compressor efficiencies of water vs. air exchange disappear in many cases. On the hottest days, water source a/c beats air source a/c; but of the shoulder days & nights, air source can do better. Heating is much less concern than cooling in New Orelans
Air source benefits from better engineering due to the higher volume. They are better optimized, better technology.
Add the capital costs & complexity and I have recommended against water source even for the most conservation minded in New Orleans. Someone with LOTS of capital and VERY conservation minded could install both air source air conditioning & water source heat pump and switch in the summer between them !
Best Hopes,
Alan
On a side note, I have a friend who has a geothermal system and she went away for 3 weeks in the winter. When she returned, she was greeted with a electricity bill for over $1000. The compressor had failed 6 weeks prior and the auxiliary heating coils where in full time use. There was no indication of the fault on the system. She was none too impressed as you could imagine.
My aunt has been very happy with hers, but there was a problem with maintenance (they used the wrong fluid). I think they finally agreed to settle without going to court.
Agree with you re the challenges of the Ontario grid and likely prospect for future prices. For reasons which are too complex to explain here, my parents heat and cool with electric only (although gas is an option) and their bills are frightening.