Argus Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 that struck me as extremly stupid as well...once the pipeline is built the jobs are gone...refine the product here and the jobs stay here...conservatives arent the smart fiscal planners they think they are... Once you refine it --- does it then magically turn into gold, or do you have to sell it to someone? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 They're a big fan of an export industry which is driving our economy, though. But clearly, the NDP doesn't care about jobs or the economy. Not really. The NDP has always called for us to pull out of NAFTA. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 The pipeline (or not) is a prime example of that: Instead of looking to the long term and what's best for the largest number of Canadians - ie, refining, manufacturing, value-added - he's putting all his efforts into pipelining short-term profits to the oil corps. That's not what's best for Canada or for Canadians. Short-term profits? I'm an old guy and I must have missed something here. I thought the oil sands were good for at least 300-400 years at present consumption rates. This is short-term? Or have I missed something? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Not really. The NDP has always called for us to pull out of NAFTA. In other words, they don't care about jobs or the economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 So what the Tories and their supporters are saying is the NDP and any other party or Canadian that cared about the environment and went to the the US to have their say, don't care about Canada and the action is like treason??? I think if canadian had a vote on this, along with the rest of the world, the Tories would be a laughing stock, a joke, which they are among other things. No Topaz, that's not it at all! The Opposition parties are entitled to air their opinion at home, in Parliament and to Canadians at large. That's their job, after all. Going to a foreign country to embarrass the ruling party is a cheap shot! It makes Canada look divided. Opposition parties don't speak for a country on the international stage. That's part of WHY we have ruling parties! I think they shamed us in front of the Americans! It's like a teenager who didn't like a ruling from one of his parents, so he got his mother and father into an argument in front of the whole neighbourhood! It was crass! There's no other way to describe it! They took their squabble outside of family! I don't think "boors" is too strong a word... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Going to a foreign country to embarrass the ruling party is a cheap shot! It makes Canada look divided. Opposition parties don't speak for a country on the international stage. That's part of WHY we have ruling parties! All well and true, but dont you find it at least a little bit funny that it was Harper who did the same years ago? Its politics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 No Topaz, that's not it at all! The Opposition parties are entitled to air their opinion at home, in Parliament and to Canadians at large. That's their job, after all. Going to a foreign country to embarrass the ruling party is a cheap shot! It makes Canada look divided. Opposition parties don't speak for a country on the international stage. That's part of WHY we have ruling parties! I think they shamed us in front of the Americans! It's like a teenager who didn't like a ruling from one of his parents, so he got his mother and father into an argument in front of the whole neighbourhood! It was crass! There's no other way to describe it! They took their squabble outside of family! I don't think "boors" is too strong a word... canada is divided ... more than the US, we're divided politically, economicaly, regionally, and by hockey teams you dont want the world to know the truth about canada? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olp1fan Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 All well and true, but dont you find it at least a little bit funny that it was Harper who did the same years ago? Its politics. thats right he went to the US to participate in the right wing think tank and callled us a welfare country in the worst sense but any con will look over that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Going to a foreign country to embarrass the ruling party is a cheap shot! It makes Canada look divided. Opposition parties don't speak for a country on the international stage. That's part of WHY we have ruling parties! I think they shamed us in front of the Americans! It's like a teenager who didn't like a ruling from one of his parents, so he got his mother and father into an argument in front of the whole neighbourhood! Freedom of speach is a costitutional right! Once in a while somebody has to excersice their rights to remind everybody we have them! And besides that,is Harper worried that Washington is listening to the NDP? Or if Washington is more willing to listen to the NDP then why not let the NDP talk? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 In other words, they don't care about jobs or the economy. You could argue that, I guess. It seems that Free Trade has become a necessity, but that wasn't always the case and that doesn't mean it will always be the case. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 Freedom of speach is a costitutional right! Once in a while somebody has to excersice their rights to remind everybody we have them! And besides that,is Harper worried that Washington is listening to the NDP? Or if Washington is more willing to listen to the NDP then why not let the NDP talk? WWWTT Why would an American politician give a damn about the federal NDP? He knows they are never likely to be in power. To him, they would be irrelevant! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 18, 2011 Report Share Posted November 18, 2011 All well and true, but dont you find it at least a little bit funny that it was Harper who did the same years ago? Its politics. Was it the same? I don't remember the incident mentioned. I've never seen or heard Fox News. From what has been posted in this thread, it's not clear about the circumstances. If Harper deliberately went to an American function to get on the American media to voice disagreement with the ruling party, then I would have been against that too! However, if he was simply accosted in some media scrum HERE IN CANADA and asked his opinion then I would agree that he had the right to express it. I guess the important difference to me would be if his expression was a deliberate act to use foreign media as a tool to embarrass the ruling Liberals at the time, actually going to an American site to do it or if it was a simple response to a reporter's question in some domestic situation. Since I don't know then I can't say if I disapprove. However, this puts me above those who simply don't care if there is any difference at all - they just hate Harper so anything he does is wrong and anything the Opposition does is ok! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) I'm all for us refining it here, but at the same time, we are an exporting nation. Anyone who goes to our major (only) client and tells them not to buy from us isn't doing so from a standpoint of patriotism but zealotry. 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! Edited November 19, 2011 by SF/PF Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) canada is divided ... more than the US, we're divided politically, economicaly, regionally, and by hockey teams I don't know if I agree with this. Canada is probably more divided regionally, but the US is probably more divided economically, politically, socially, racially, and religiously. Edited November 19, 2011 by Smallc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) deleted Edited November 19, 2011 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 Megan Leslie is super cute imho. I would listen to her left wing madness just so I could look at her for a while. I wouldn't say any delineation from a right wing view is treasonous. It depends on the situation. WWWTT: You like freedom of speech? Then why do the lefties always try to shut down Nazi supporters and Pro Nazi speakers? I find the whole idea of Nazi's abhorrent, ofc, but they should be allowed to say whatever they like in the public square but they aren't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 Why would an American politician give a damn about the federal NDP? He knows they are never likely to be in power. To him, they would be irrelevant! Then why are you worried or concerned? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 WWWTT: You like freedom of speech? Then why do the lefties always try to shut down Nazi supporters and Pro Nazi speakers? I find the whole idea of Nazi's abhorrent, ofc, but they should be allowed to say whatever they like in the public square but they aren't. Actually allowing someone to promote hatred and violence would be guilt through assosiation not free speech. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wild Bill Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 Then why are you worried or concerned? WWWTT I'm not worried! Or even that concerned. I guess I'm just disgusted with the NDP! I think it may have something to do with their present lack of experienced and mature leadership. It's well known that I've never been an NDP supporter but still, I don't think Layton would have shown such a lack of class. He died too young. His party needed someone like him more than perhaps they are smart enough to realize. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 I don't even see the issue. They weren't claiming to represent the government's official position. They certainly have a right to speak to whomever they want as representatives of an Opposition voice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 (I don't know enough about the pipeline issue to really have an opinion on it btw.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 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! Except refineries cost 10s of billions of dollars to build and that kind of free capital to start a project like that doesn't exist in Canada. It's far more efficient to refine the products where the customers are because each of the refined products are a separate product and can't be transported together. Like you said it's only 2 billion to upgrade a USA refinery vs. Tens of billions and red tape to set one up here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 19, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 (edited) Like you said it's only 2 billion to upgrade a USA refinery vs. Tens of billions and red tape to set one up here. We have the coin. We spend billions on stimulus and a refinery in Canada is one stimulus I think we could afford. If we can build nuclear poewr stations, we can build a refinery. Edited November 19, 2011 by Shwa Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 We have the coin. We spend billions on stimulus and a refinery in Canada is one stimulus I think we could afford. If we can build nuclear poewr stations, we can build a refinery. If we had the money in Canada, we would have been able to buy potashcorp and not have to have gov't intervention. 2 refineries would be what the stimulus was and would have not employed as much people as this one is trying to do. The nuke power plants were cheaper back in the day, less red tape, and govts willing to go into deficit to pay for it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 19, 2011 Report Share Posted November 19, 2011 Except refineries cost 10s of billions of dollars to build and that kind of free capital to start a project like that doesn't exist in Canada. It's far more efficient to refine the products where the customers are because each of the refined products are a separate product and can't be transported together. Like you said it's only 2 billion to upgrade a USA refinery vs. Tens of billions and red tape to set one up here. Exactly. Which is why we should aim for upgrading our bitumen, and exporting synthetic crude to refineries down south. 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.