Smallc Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Alberta needs to move beyond third world style resource exports at some point. How exactly is anything about Alberta 'third world style'? First, there is much more to Alberta's economy, and second, it isn't third world countries that export resources, it's resource rich economies. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E James Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) If it was more cost effective to send synthetic cruse down there, it would be done already. It must have penciled out to send the diluted tar down the pipe and do everything in one shot down there. What will be interesting is if they send that upgraded tar straight to china or will they have to make synthetic crude... Your logic that it would be done already is flawed. For the time being it is more cost effective. However, in hindsight the long term cost of Canadian workers could be astronomical if we miss the boat now developing policy that encourage investment in a complete end-to-end energy production network in Canada. The companies seek to profit themselves not a particular country that is why governments can develop policy that encourages the hand of business. Edited November 20, 2011 by E James Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 The Conservatives aren't building anything. And nor will they...Supply and demand,and all... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Well, the government shouldn't really be building these kinds of things. Putting the refinery in Alberta really isn't practical. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 How exactly is anything about Alberta 'third world style'? First, there is much more to Alberta's economy, and second, it isn't third world countries that export resources, it's resource rich economies. Oh? I'd be interested in hearing about all of the other industry that exists in Alberta outside of resources! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 It isn't just about the extraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Alberta Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Your logic that it would be done already is flawed. For the time being it is more cost effective. However, in hindsight the long term cost of Canadian workers could be astronomical if we miss the boat now developing policy that encourage investment in a complete end-to-end energy production network in Canada. The companies seek to profit themselves not a particular country that is why governments can develop policy that encourages the hand of business. There isn't enough people in canada to justify tens of billions of dollars building pipelines to eastern Canada and refineries that would run at a loss. The network already exists and works well. Keystone xl is expanding on said network. There is a massive population in china and that's why we have pipe going that way. And if diluted tar doesn't keep on a ship there may be an opportunity for synthetic crude production. Not only that there isn't enough money available to build the kind of network you want. It would be like digging ditches and filling them up again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 It isn't just about the extraction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Alberta Exactly. Alberta's entire economy is based on adding value to our raw resources. Which is why the current trend toward raw resource export is going to be devastating to the province in the long term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SF/PF Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Indeed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted November 20, 2011 Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Actually allowing someone to promote hatred and violence would be guilt through assosiation not free speech. WWWTT Lol. Free speech is free speech. We don't have it here in Canada. The US does. Free Speech means you can say whatever you want in public not just some things, all things. Hurt peoples feelings or not. People in Canada are so sissified they cannot even take someone hurting their feelings. They run off the the Human rights tribunal....lol. What a bunch of wimps we're becoming. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shwa Posted November 20, 2011 Author Report Share Posted November 20, 2011 Lol. Free speech is free speech. We don't have it here in Canada. The US does. Free Speech means you can say whatever you want in public not just some things, all things. Hurt peoples feelings or not. People in Canada are so sissified they cannot even take someone hurting their feelings. They run off the the Human rights tribunal....lol. What a bunch of wimps we're becoming. What a wimp you are becoming, for believing in your own nonsense. 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.