Guest Derek L Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 What do you consider to be a "refinery"? The US went hog wild for ethanol/biofuel plants in the past 15 years (over 200 built), biting off about 7% of the motor fuels market (and conventionally produced petroleum distillates). Dinosaur bone blender? Most ethanol in the States is blended with conventional oil...My wife’s Escalade is able to run on E85, for the life of me though I don’t know anywhere in greater Vancouver where you can get it......BIO Diesel is catching on slowly, but I’ve heard it corrodes some of the parts in the engine.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Dinosaur bone blender? Most ethanol in the States is blended with conventional oil...My wife’s Escalade is able to run on E85, for the life of me though I don’t know anywhere in greater Vancouver where you can get it..... The EPA doesn't care down here...oxygenated fuel blends are all the rage for seasonal air quality standards. Instant market for ethanol over mtbe, phase separation in the gas tank or not. What a scam! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 The EPA doesn't care down here...oxygenated fuel blends are all the rage for seasonal air quality standards. Instant market for ethanol over mtbe, phase separation in the gas tank or not. What a scam! Here we have AirCare, another scam......The only place in the world were it costs the same to have a 1991 Civic tested alongside a '78 Cutlass..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 I think I just beat you to posting, my above post, shows four new refineries built or building within the last few years in Canada. Oh. What about your whole "building refineries isnt feasible" narrative? I thought the guvmint and environmentalists were keepin the refinin man down! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 (edited) Exxon is expanding current facilities as opposed to building new ones, since they feel it uneconomically feasible wow! Thanks for finally acknowledging one of my repeated, yet ignored (by you), points/facts... here, have a cookie! I guess you provided an answer to your own incessantly asked question as to why no new oil refineries in the U.S. are being built. Hey now... wait a minute... wasn't your entire dimwitted posturing, your repeated unsupported and unsubstantiated assertion that, as you stated, "intrusive EPA regulations" were the reason no new oil refineries have been built. Weren't you that guy??? The only two new refinery projects undertaken in the United States have been held-up over environmental permits? no... you have been shown precisely what is responsible for any current delays in securing air permits for those 2 respective applications... external entities and decisions/actions of those two companies requesting permits. You hold regulation in utter disdain... to you, the simple, basic regulatory process is nothing more than a needless intrusion... you have no respect in the foundations of, and rationale for, the regulatory framework. To you, "clean air" just gets in the way, hey? Is ConocoPhillips or Chevron building new refineries in the states? You got me, I concede the point, the three largest US oil companies are not building new refineries in the United States......Oh, wait.....I never said that they were. no, you simply went down a mindless simpleton excursion path, challenging at every/any opportunity as to why "they" (and every other company), weren't building new refineries? By your oft repeated implications, you most certainly said all those companies, if not for the vaunted reach of "intrusive regulation"... would be building new refineries. Why try to deny what you did... standup and accept your failings! Edited August 30, 2011 by waldo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 30, 2011 Report Share Posted August 30, 2011 Oh. What about your whole "building refineries isnt feasible" narrative? I thought the guvmint and environmentalists were keepin the refinin man down! In the United States, not Canada or the rest of the world.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) Protests demand Obama use veto power to halt proposed expansion of Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico Uploaded by TheRealNews on Aug 29, 2011 For several days now protestors have assemble outside the White House to express their opposition of the Keystone pipeline. The proposed pipeline will stretch over 1,700 miles from Canada to Texas and will transport oil into the States. Many activists are concerned with the environmental repercussions and affects it could have on the American people. Daphne Wysham, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, tells us why this is a bad idea. Uploaded by RTAmerica on Aug 30, 2011 Edited August 31, 2011 by CitizenX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Protests demand Obama use veto power to halt proposed expansion of Keystone XL pipeline that would carry tar sands oil from Canada to the Gulf of Mexico Uploaded by TheRealNews on Aug 29, 2011 For several days now protestors have assemble outside the White House to express their opposition of the Keystone pipeline. The proposed pipeline will stretch over 1,700 miles from Canada to Texas and will transport oil into the States. Many activists are concerned with the environmental repercussions and affects it could have on the American people. Daphne Wysham, a fellow at the Institute for Policy Studies, tells us why this is a bad idea. Uploaded by RTAmerica on Aug 30, 2011 I turned it off at 1:11 when the organizer claimed the tar sands have been a “environmental economic disaster” for Alberta… (Whats that?) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I love it...."Ethical Oil"...brilliant! When all is said and done, the pipeline project will go forward, and the tree huggers will just have to move on to something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 (edited) I love it...."Ethical Oil"...brilliant! When all is said and done, the pipeline project will go forward, and the tree huggers will just have to move on to something else. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2sd2pDZJCwo&feature=related and part two http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BJaPnqs4Xo&feature=related It worked on De Beers Whats good for the goose.... Edited August 31, 2011 by Derek L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 Ezra Levant is Mr. Fox news North, and one of Harper's biggest cheerleader. Yaaa Ethical Oil...we're not as bad as them so we're good....nice try. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenX Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 One of my favorite movies, gave me a real hate on for Corporations. Truer than most people believe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 One of my favorite movies, gave me a real hate on for Corporations. Truer than most people believe. The film was made by an American corporation...MGM/UA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Derek L Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 "Since man crawled out of the slime" You should stop though, you're going to scare them before bed I always preferred the straight to the point approach mind you: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHhzi8PvDYw Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbg Posted August 31, 2011 Report Share Posted August 31, 2011 I turned it off at 1:11 when the organizer claimed the tar sands have been a “environmental economic disaster” for Alberta… (Whats that?) Some phrase coined by a kindergartner. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted September 1, 2011 Report Share Posted September 1, 2011 I love it...."Ethical Oil"...brilliant! When all is said and done, the pipeline project will go forward, and the tree huggers will just have to move on to something else. I also enjoyed the 2nd video because Daphne Wysham's arguments were so laughably weak. "We do need to be talking about job creation, and lets look at the numbers in terms of green energy jobs, the amount of good paying jobs that you could create for the long-term, not for the short-term, as would be the case with the tar sands, because the tar sands will eventually run out. What we need is a long term economic growth opportunity..." There's 'at least 1.7 trillion recoverable barrels of oil in Canada's tar sands... they won't be running out any time soon. And then there's the laughable argument that if USA backs out then China will follow the leadership of the US... come on, do people actually believe this stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 You're asking the Obama administration to be sensible. Not bloody likely. Fortunately that problem ends 12 noon on January 20, 2013. And then you'll get which of those fruit loops currently running for the Republican leader? Perry? Bachmann? Paul? Huntsman? They're all nuts. Heck, maybe Herman Cain will win! LOL! Imagine a Black guy trying to run for the Republican leadership? I think Barnie Frank has a better chance of being elected Pope. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 ...Imagine a Black guy trying to run for the Republican leadership? No need to imagine....see former RNC chairman Michael Steele. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) No need to imagine....see former RNC chairman Michael Steele. Steele was a servile toady who was allowed to shine shoes for the real republicans, but never had any power. The moment he opened his mouth and contradicted Rush Limbaugh he was done, despite grovelling and apologising. It is "possible" for Barney Frank to renounce his homosexuality, renounce Judaism, Join the Catholic Church, become a priest, and eventually become pope. It's pretty gooddam unlikely, but it's within the slight realm of the possible. And it's still way more possible than the Republican party putting up a black man as their standard bearer. Edited September 2, 2011 by Argus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Steele was a servile toady who was allowed to shine shoes for the real republicans, but never had any power. The moment he opened his mouth and contradicted Rush Limbaugh he was done, despite grovelling and apologising. It is "possible" for Barney Frank to renounce his homosexuality, renounce Judaism, Join the Catholic Church, become a priest, and eventually become pope. It's pretty gooddam unlikely, but it's within the slight realm of the possible. And it's still way more possible than the Republican party putting up a black man as their standard bearer. Complete nonsense. Michael Steele's biggest problem was incompetence. Or did you miss the scandals and wasteful spending? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 2, 2011 Report Share Posted September 2, 2011 Steele was a servile toady who was allowed to shine shoes for the real republicans, but never had any power. The moment he opened his mouth and contradicted Rush Limbaugh he was done, despite grovelling and apologising. Nonsense....he was the RNC chair for better or for worse, making your silly race baiting game DOA. I don't think you even understand who or what constitutes party leadership in the US...it ain't Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Ashley Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) If there is I apologize as I didn't see it, however, This is a big issue right now. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jody-williams/keystone-nobel-obama-_b_952426.html I justread that article and it seems even more weight is against it. it almost makes more sense to wait until after next years election before pushing this deal. Less election fallout. Really it seems the next step, but as an election issue it is fairly toxic for Obama. (I'm in favour of a gas and potentially oil pipeline to Europe rather than the US) A gas pipeline may initially may be more open .. then bringing in a oil pipeline after the population gets more use to it. But the pipeline really should avoid private property.. like go along an interstate etc.. around rivers and connect with already existing pipelines. You could even put microrefineries along the line for cheaper gas.. people like cheaper gas. Interstate 15 to 10 is an example of a pipeline.. feeding both california and texas. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_15 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_10 Where is the missing route again? http://www.theodora.com/pipelines/north_america_pipelines_map.jpg What I don't get, isn't Alberta's dirty oil already in the US? What is the dif? ISN'T CANADA'S UNEMPLOYMENT RATE STILL LIKE 8% http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-07/canada-s-oil-sand-fields-need-u-s-workers-alberta-minister-says.html SURELY 75000 CANADIANS COULD DO THAT WORK. ALBERTA IS MORE INTERESTED IN EMPLOYING AMERICANS TO THEIR AMERICAN OWNED COMPANIES WORK THAT CANADIANS IN CANADA SHOULD BE DOING, WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT LET 75000 AMERICAN WORKERS IN TO DO WORK THAT CANADIANS COULD DO.. AMERICA SURE AS HELL WOULDN'T RECIPROCATE THAT. Alberta's energy minister is calling for American's rather than Canadians to do work in Canada while Canada has an 8 or so % unemployment rate... it is treasonous. Unemployed U.S. construction workers should look for jobs in Canada’s oil-sands industry, which faces a shortage of as many as 75,000 positions in the next few years, Alberta Energy Minister Ronald Liepert said. “To me it makes total sense that the first opportunity should be for Americans.” Alberta Energy Minister Ronald Liepert said. Did you forget about the couple million out of work Canadians as being the FIRST opportunity? Edited September 7, 2011 by William Ashley Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted September 7, 2011 Report Share Posted September 7, 2011 (edited) (I'm in favour of a gas and potentially oil pipeline to Europe rather than the US)That is screwy idea. Europe is the one place that does not need our oil because Russia is closer and is even more obsessed with CO2 than left wing Americans. If the Americans dont want it we sell to the Chinese.What I don't get, isn't Alberta's dirty oil already in the US? What is the dif?Your are wasting your time looking for logic in an enviro protest. (ALBERTA IS MORE INTERESTED IN EMPLOYING AMERICANS TO THEIR AMERICAN OWNED COMPANIES WORK THAT CANADIANS IN CANADA SHOULD BE DOING, WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT LET 75000 AMERICAN WORKERS IN TO DO WORK THAT CANADIANS COULD DO.. AMERICA SURE AS HELL WOULDN'T RECIPROCATE THAT.You are making no sense. There are two places the pipeline can go: to the US or through BC. Both pipelines are being planned but the US one is further along in the approval process. Canadian workers will work on the pipeline when it crosses Canada. Edited September 7, 2011 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted September 8, 2011 Report Share Posted September 8, 2011 SURELY 75000 CANADIANS COULD DO THAT WORK. ALBERTA IS MORE INTERESTED IN EMPLOYING AMERICANS TO THEIR AMERICAN OWNED COMPANIES WORK THAT CANADIANS IN CANADA SHOULD BE DOING, WHY WOULD THE GOVERNMENT LET 75000 AMERICAN WORKERS IN TO DO WORK THAT CANADIANS COULD DO.. AMERICA SURE AS HELL WOULDN'T RECIPROCATE THAT. Maybe because without American and other foreign capital, transport, refining, distribution, and market size, the Alberta oil patch would never have been developed to the extent that it has been. The next time you see an American roughneck, give him/her a big kiss! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.