SF/PF

It simply isn't plausible to export refined petroleum products all over the continent from one location. The number of tanker trucks and/or pipelines required to do what you suggest is completely beyond the realm of possibility. Do you have any idea how many different products are produced in the refining process?

That is the best case scenario. Extract the bitumen, upgrade it to synthetic crude, and then send it down to "Uncle Sam" to refine.

From the link: Except that we know beyond any doubt that CO2 is in fact a greenhouse gas. If higher frequency, higher energy light (ie. the light from the sun) passes through CO2, while lower frequency, lower energy light (ie. the light emitted by the surface of the earth) is absorbed by CO2, then CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Which it is. To suggest otherwise is pure quackery. Now, perhaps the geographer, Tim Ball, meant to suggest that perhaps CO2 was not the driving force behind the warming trend. But that lack of specificity and clarity in his writing is a pretty good indication of why he hasn't had much luck in getting his papers into peer reviewed journals. Theres no big conspiracy at work here. Tim Ball either doesn't understand, or simply can't intelligibly convey, the science behind the discipline that he seems to want to have a voice in Any atmospheric science undergraduate that submitted a paper to their professor in which they claimed that "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas" would immediatly be in danger of recieving a failing grade. It would be like a physics student denying gravity.

I suspect that you have the causal relationship backwards. I would suggest that these regional changes in Christian theology had their origin in secular thought and society.

Exactly. Which is why we should aim for upgrading our bitumen, and exporting synthetic crude to refineries down south.

I'm currently reading a book on the history of mathematics, and came across this little proof. I found it kind of neat and thought others might as well! How do we know that √2 is irrational? - Suppose that √2 is a rational number. That is, √2 is expressable as a ratio of two integers: √2 = m/n - Assume that m/n has been reduced to lowest terms. - Square both sides of the equation: √2 = m/n becomes 2 = m2/n2 - Do a little bit of algebra: 2 = m2/n2 becomes 2n2 = m2 - Observe that both sides of this equation must be even, by virtue of multiplication by 2: 2n2 = m2 - Therefore, m2 is even. And if m2 is even, m must also be even. Thus, m may be expressed as: m=2x (This is what it means for a number to be even!) - Substituting m=2x back into our equation: 2n2 = m2 becomes 2n2=(2x)2 becomes 2n2=4x2 - Do a little bit of simplyfying: 2n2=4x2 becomes n2 = 2x2 - Observe again that both sides of this equation must be even. Therefore, n2 is even, and n is also even. - So we know that both m and n are even. - But wait... we assumed that m/n was reduced to lowest terms. If m and n are both even, then m/n cannot be in lowest terms, as both the numerator and denominator are divisible by 2. - Therefore, √2 is not rational.

I'm not convinced that it is realistic for us to aim at refining the product here. The same companies that are pulling the oil out of the ground in northern Alberta already own plenty of refining capacity all over the US. They're simply not interested in rebuilding infrastructure that they already own. Also, refining is most efficient when done locally, as different regions have different relative demands for the products of refining - gasoline, diesel, aviation fuel, polymers, etc. The products of refining are roughly fixed, though in a modern refinery they can be tweaked a little to change the ratio of products a little bit. So a refinery in a region that is a transportation hub may be produce a little more diesel per barrel of oil than a refinery in a commuter region. To me, the best case scenario is to aim for upgrading our bitumen in Alberta. Extract the bitumen from the ground, upgrade it to synthetic crude, and then put it in a pipeline and ship it on down. The reality is that the existing refinery capacity in the US will have to be retrofitted to accept bitumen as feed stock. That means that the majority of the refineries south of the border will need to build upgraders on top of existing refineries anyway. Converting the Petro-Canada (now Suncor) refinery in Edmonton to accept oilsands feed stock cost over 2 billion dollars and took over 3 years to do. That project was "completed" in 2008, and its still not working properly!

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that the federal election was a direct referendum on oilsands development and exports. At any rate, good non-reply!

No, its what my experience as a front line worker in the Oilsands tells me. Also, a basic understanding of the manpower requirement differences between pipelines/extraction plants and refineries/upgraders yields the same answer.

In the long term, there is nothing more disastrous to Canadian job prospects in the Oilsands than building export pipelines for raw resources.

Still, the fact remains: refining oil is more profitable when the price of oil is low.

You're a riddle wrapped in an enigma.

I give up. Why?

Refining oil is far more profitable when the price of oil is low.

$60 for a 3% wage increase? Can I pay $600 for 30% please?? Imagine, spending union dues to improve the circumstances of the union workers. Reprehensible! Also, 3% per year isn't lavish. Its pretty close to breaking even.

Well, I agree that it wasn't exactly a blind side hit, but there were other problems with the hit; it was late, he was hunting for the head, and he left the ice when he delivered the hit. So it was much more than just late. Likely because they force their opponents penalty minutes upward by flopping around on the ground like the Brazilian soccer team.

What if the casino manager, who happens to be a pink polar bear from Mars, doesn't forgive the debt? This has very severe implications on government debt.

It seems to be a growing trend in society that people become fearful, even paranoid, whenever something out of the ordinary happens. No matter how remote or ridiculous the perceived threat, the "what if" gears start grinding in heads. I haven't seen so many terrified, leaking bladders since kindergarten.

So you'd defend a requirement that excludes as POTUS someone that spent the first 3 days of their life on foreign soil, but decry a requirement which prevents a head of state that owes allegiance to another head of state? In the name of preventing "mixed allegiances?" Being a citizen of the nation that you seek office in is a pretty reasonable requirement, in my opinion. Far more reasonable than requiring that one be born on domestic soil. I live in a bilingual country. Again, that strikes me as pretty reasonable. The monarch acts as the head of the Church of England in one role. And the nation as a whole in another. I'm not a religious person at all, and I wouldn't object to removing the monarch from the position of leader of the church. But I don't see any major problem with the current state of affirs, either. In a sense it is a throwback to a time when the Catholic church was an empire onto itself, perhaps the superpower of Europe. But as I've said before, the catholic church is still, today, a state. Not just a church. In a sense, the seperation of church and state is the very reason that Catholics were prevented from sitting on the throne. I still can't wrap my head around the fact that yoou believe that being born on foreign soil is a mixed allegiance, but actually owing allegience to a foreign head of state is A-ok. Your position is incoherent. The UK, like many countries has a state church. The difference is that in most countries, the church is not synonomous with the state in the way that it is with the Catholic chruch/state. The British do not live under Anglican law. The Danes and Swedish don't live under Lutheran law. Well, for starters, the leaders of other world religions are not, in thier role as heads of a church, also a head of state. Thats a pretty important difference, no?

The act requires the monarch to "join in communion with the Church of England," whatever that means exactly. I'm sure they cope fine. But when the soveriegn owes allegiance to a foreign head of state, I think something is lost. Thats a tricky question with regards to the Pope. As I mentioned earlier, I think the catholic religion is unique when compared to other world religions. The church and state of the Vatican are inseperable. The church IS the state. And not even just in the sense of being the "state church," but the church is literally the state.

Is it a valid job requirement? I'm not so sure. Would it be discrimination if a local coffee shop printed a help wanted add that read "applicants must be 35 years of age and born in the United States"? What about the position of POTUS demands that a person be born on US soil, or be 35 years of age? From here: Even if we stripped the requirement to be Anglican, should we abide a head of state that owes allegiance to a foreign head of state? Also, there are other problems... A catholics own religion prevents them from being crowned. This quote sums it up best, in my view: The Catholic religion differs in important ways from the other religions of the world.

If you were aware of the facts, you'd know that Canada's head of state is not a British royal.

Exactly. And yet AW is still wrong. Deal with it.

Sorry, but you're wrong. If you don't even know the facts, surely you must agree that your opinion on the facts is entirely irrelevant.