kraychik Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Gee - I read it on the Internet - it MUST be true!!!! Sorry. The fact that lefty partisans have jumped on this band wagon does not mean it is a relevant concern for Canadian policy makers (note the phrasing - I did not say that the phenomena does not exist - I said it is not a relevant concern - I have no patience for the bait and switch games that lefies play). It's just another example of leftists wishing for masterminds like Mulcair to direct our economy. They are able to point to an economic phenomenon of the rising value of the Canadian dollars, which benefits many Canadians, and portray this as an evil that must be removed to protect a certain group of folks involved in exports. This is the leftist mentality, where they believe that centralised planning can outthink and outperform the hundreds of millions of freely associated individuals in the economy (both inside and outside of Canada, of course). Somehow coercive measures to punish the oil industry, killing jobs, driving up costs Canadians, and placing more control in the hands of the government is a good idea. This is grounded in the leftist's inherent distrust of free markets. Markets must be controlled by super-smart and benevolent masterminds like Mulcair who know more than we can ever possibly dream of, and who are motivated by a righteous selfless calling to the public service. Edited July 13, 2012 by kraychik Quote
wyly Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) In your dreams. The economics for refineries in Alberta is simply not there and no tax policy is going to change that. Bull Sh*tte...Norway can have refineries and Alberta can't? Netherlands can have refineries but Alberta can't? USA can have refineries but Alberta can't? Angola can have refineries but Alberta can't?...from the richest most heavily taxed countries to poorest least taxed countries all seem to able to have refineries but Alberta can't?...you make sh*tte up to suit your own political slant...albertan doesn't because it's cheaper for energy corporations to build pipelines to the US rather than refineries here, they're not going to spend a dime more than they need to until they have no other choice...The only consequence of such taxes would be to slow the development of the oil sands which means reduced royalties for government.and you know that because you live here do you?...developmental growth doesn't need to be 110% that causes huge infrastructure issues, sustainable growth is just fine... Edited July 13, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
WWWTT Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 It will be interesting to see who is the better strategist. I know Harper is always thinking strategy (not saying he is better) Hence his comments about Calgary last Sunday WWWTT Quote Maple Leaf Web is now worth $720.00! Down over $1,500 in less than one year! Total fail of the moderation on this site! That reminds me, never ask Greg to be a business partner! NEVER!
TimG Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Norway can have refineries and Alberta can't? Netherlands can have refineries but Alberta can't? USA can have refineries but Alberta can't?Gee - All of the examples you cite are countries on the OCEAN with ACCESS TO SHIPPING. That completely changes the economics for refineries. Your examples only provide further evidence of your complete cluelessness when it comes to questions of economics.BTW - If you really want the product to be refined in Canada then you should support a pipeline to Ontario where there are refineries that are actually close to market. Refineries in Alberta are an economic dead end and always will be. Edited July 13, 2012 by TimG Quote
wyly Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Gee - All of the examples you cite are countries on the OCEAN with ACCESS TO SHIPPING. That completely changes the economics for refineries. Your examples only provide further evidence of your complete cluelessness when it comes to questions of economics. gee maybe you never studied Canadian geography, last time I looked at a map Canada bordered on three oceans with ACCESS TO SHIPPING on all three!(the arctic not a viable choice with oil)...clueless doesn't begin to describe your post...then there are Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Bosnia,Czech republic, Hungary, Slovakia, Bolivia all landlocked with refineries...we ship the raw product out now how is it going to be any different shipping out a refined product???BTW - If you really want the product to be refined in Canada then you should support a pipeline to Ontario where there are refineries that are actually close to market. Refineries in Alberta are an economic dead end and always will be.I have no issue with pipelines to Ontario I'd prefer the jobs in Alberta but jobs in Ontario is okay as long as their canadian jobs...and the distance to market is the same regardless if the product is refined or raw... Edited July 13, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Moonbox Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) It's not that it has been bad for Canada as a whole. The problem is that it's uneven development that relies on a commodity. If the bottom falls out of oil, all of that time ignoring the other sectors of our economy is going to come back and bite us in the ass. In other words, we'll be screwed. Publication here: https://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://www.irpp.org/pubs/IRPPstudy/IRPP_Study_no30.pdf&pli=1 New article here: http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2012/06/13/oecd-canada-outlook.html Dutch disease is just one booming industry increasing the value of the dollar and making it harder for other industries to compete. The oil industry is booming. NOBODY can deny that this is making our dollar go up and making it more expensive for foreigners to buy Canadian manufactured goods. None of these articles, however, suggest that the oil industry is hurting the Canadian economy in general, but rather that the Canadian economy isn't really fully taking advantage of it. Companies need to take advantage of the favorable exchange rates to purchase equipment and materials to make equipment. The government needs to take the extra tax revenue and invest it in productive infrastructure and making sure the workforce gets the training it needs. Mulcair, on the other hand, seems intent on penalizing the oil industry instead of nurturing it and on squandering what we should be investing on things like EI increases and Pension benefits (ie things that provide NO net return to the economy). The UK did exactly this when they had their offshore oil boom, and it didn't turn out very well for them. This is why I'll never vote for the Mulcair, despite my dislike of Harper. Edited July 13, 2012 by Moonbox Quote "A man is no more entitled to an opinion for which he cannot account than he is for a pint of beer for which he cannot pay" - Anonymous
wyly Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 It's just another example of leftists wishing for masterminds like Mulcair to direct our economy. They are able to point to an economic phenomenon of the rising value of the Canadian dollars, which benefits many Canadians, and portray this as an evil that must be removed to protect a certain group of folks involved in exports. This is the leftist mentality, where they believe that centralised planning can outthink and outperform the hundreds of millions of freely associated individuals in the economy (both inside and outside of Canada, of course). Somehow coercive measures to punish the oil industry, killing jobs, driving up costs Canadians, and placing more control in the hands of the government is a good idea. This is grounded in the leftist's inherent distrust of free markets. Markets must be controlled by super-smart and benevolent masterminds like Mulcair who know more than we can ever possibly dream of, and who are motivated by a righteous selfless calling to the public service. yeah those damned commie socialist lefties who do they think they are looking to promote jobs in Canada when we can outsource them to some other country...those lefties are no diferent than those pinko "tea party" freaks in the US complaining about outsourcing of american jobs, oh oh! ... you're not one to let ideology get in the way of logic are ya Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Wild Bill Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 yeah those damned commie socialist lefties who do they think they are looking to promote jobs in Canada when we can outsource them to some other country...those lefties are no diferent than those pinko "tea party" freaks in the US complaining about outsourcing of american jobs, oh oh! ... you're not one to let ideology get in the way of logic are ya No one has a problem with lefties wanting to protect Canadian jobs. The problem is that they usually want to do it in a dumb way that won't work! Their usual suggestion is to just subsidize a company with taxes, making everybody else a little more poor. Or they will want to ban cheaper imports of a product that competes with something made in Canada, forcing everyone to pay more for the product. Meanwhile, such methods do nothing to make Canadian manufactured goods competitive on the global market, which means there will be no export business. Unless of course, we subsidize the exports, which will piss off all the other countries in the world and get them to ban OUR products! Unless these "lefties" offer a suggestion that would mean Canadian products would truly be more competitive, nothing they offer will actually WORK! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
cybercoma Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 Do you really think anyone in here believes your claim about "economists around the world", as if you follow such things? You're just making things up as you go along, and it's obvious. You have your (unsubstantiated) opinion on the matter, and want to dress it up with the preface of "economists around the world", when you can't even name three economists. Hook. Quote
wyly Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) No one has a problem with lefties wanting to protect Canadian jobs. The problem is that they usually want to do it in a dumb way that won't work!and you know it won't work how??? you don't know you're being an ideologue, if Harper came up with the suggestion you be all over it... Their usual suggestion is to just subsidize a company with taxes, making everybody else a little more poor. Or they will want to ban cheaper imports of a product that competes with something made in Canada, forcing everyone to pay more for the product.first they've never been in government so you have no idea what will work and what will not....and 2nd, it's oil! it's in demand and the demand is growing daily...Meanwhile, such methods do nothing to make Canadian manufactured goods competitive on the global market, which means there will be no export business. Unless of course, we subsidize the exports, which will piss off all the other countries in the world and get them to ban OUR products!we're not talking about manufactured goods we're discussing refined oil, and again what methods are you talking about? they've never been in government so you have nothing to compare to..Unless these "lefties" offer a suggestion that would mean Canadian products would truly be more competitive, nothing they offer will actually WORK!it's oil whether the value added to the oil that occurs with refining happens in US refineries or Canadian refineries the end product is the same china will buy all we have to sell as will the USA...ever since I was a kid(a very long time ago) a major complaint in western Canada was that we(the west) were being used as resource well by the east denied the opportunity to become a manufacturing center the exclusive domain of Ontario and Quebec, that was a sentiment held by every political party, now Harperite ideologues condemn the idea because a socialist promotes it and for no other reason... Edited July 13, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
cybercoma Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 leftists wishing the leftist mentality the leftist's inherent distrust Hook. Quote
Wild Bill Posted July 13, 2012 Report Posted July 13, 2012 and you know it won't work how??? you don't know you're being an ideologue, if Harper came up with the suggestion you be all over it... first they've never been in government so you have no idea what will work and what will not... Where did you get the idea I'm some sort of blind partisan Harper supporter? Obviously, you haven't read anything I've been posting for 5 or 6 years now. Please find another straw man. Or I will treat you like you just treated me! As for the idea that because they haven't been in government I can't tell what they would do, are you suggesting that all the suggestions I have heard from the NDP since the late 60's when I started paying attention are invalid and worthless, since if they ever got into power they would do something completely different? I think I'll just put you on ignore. If you can label me a Harper blind partisan then in my opinion you are just a hack who pays no attention to who says what and just lashes out at anyone who disagrees with your POV. Life is too short to waste. Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
wyly Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) Where did you get the idea I'm some sort of blind partisan Harper supporter? Obviously, you haven't read anything I've been posting for 5 or 6 years now. Please find another straw man. Or I will treat you like you just treated me! As for the idea that because they haven't been in government I can't tell what they would do, are you suggesting that all the suggestions I have heard from the NDP since the late 60's when I started paying attention are invalid and worthless, since if they ever got into power they would do something completely different? I think I'll just put you on ignore. If you can label me a Harper blind partisan then in my opinion you are just a hack who pays no attention to who says what and just lashes out at anyone who disagrees with your POV. Life is too short to waste. mulcair proposes something that every premier/political party in western canada has promoted for the last 100 years and suddenly because you're such a astute political observer it's only the NDP that has made such AN outrageous proposal Premier Lougheed suggested the same SO I guess he was a worthless NDP member as well, OUCH!!feigning an objective manner doesn't disguise your slant, an ideologue if I ever saw one... Edited July 14, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 gee maybe you never studied Canadian geography, last time I looked at a map Canada bordered on three oceans with ACCESS TO SHIPPING on all three!Right. But that means the crude has to be shipped to the coast which people are trying to do but face endless opposition from BANANAs like Muclair.The refineries in Czech are tiny: Kralupy Refinery, (Ceská Rafinérská), 55,000 bbl/d (8,700 m3/d) Litvinov Refinery, (Ceská Rafinérská), 120,000 bbl/d (19,000 m3/d) Pardubice Refinery, (PARAMO), 15,000 bbl/d (2,400 m3/d) They only serve the domestic market. The same will be true of other land locked locations. Alberta already has 3 times that refining capacity. We are talking about building refineries for EXPORT of product. The simple existence of a refinery does not provide any support for your POV. The fact is there no need for additional refining capacity in North America. Quote
wyly Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 Right. But that means the crude has to be shipped to the coast which people are trying to do but face endless opposition from BANANAs like Muclair. The refineries in Czech are tiny: Kralupy Refinery, (Ceská Rafinérská), 55,000 bbl/d (8,700 m3/d) Litvinov Refinery, (Ceská Rafinérská), 120,000 bbl/d (19,000 m3/d) Pardubice Refinery, (PARAMO), 15,000 bbl/d (2,400 m3/d) They only serve the domestic market. The same will be true of other land locked locations. Alberta already has 3 times that refining capacity. We are talking about building refineries for EXPORT of product. The simple existence of a refinery does not provide any support for your POV. The fact is there no need for additional refining capacity in North America. and how is exporting a refined product any different than raw bitumen? there isn't any difference the logistics are the same other than we keep refining jobs here rather than in Texas or China...canada isn't landlocked nor do we lack ports... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 and how is exporting a refined product any different than raw bitumen?1) You need many different pipes for each type of product (the enviros have sent the message that getting one pipe built is next to impossible so what rational person would invest money that depends on getting 10 built?). 2) The products are often more dangerous to transport than crude (which makes building pipelines even tougher).But the real issue is there is too much refining capacity in North America. Alberta brings nothing to the table that would allow it to compete in a saturated market. That is why no one is building refineries. Quote
Tilter Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 in regards to some of those Eastern U.S.refineries closing/slated to close... while Texas production increases dramatically yet no pipelines exist to get that Texas product to the Eastern refineries... tied in with their negative margins that associate to a reliance on some of the most expensive type/sourced foreign oil delivered by tanker. Of course, from a tarsands perspective, those Eastern U.S. refineries closing down aren't capable of refining the tarsands product... anyway. Of course, refined fuel prices have been tempered by lower consumer demand (fuel-efficient vehicles, more emphasis on reformulated gasoline blends, economic downturn). Anything else in that mix, hey? of course, there are 2 markets... the current downturn one in developed countries and the ever expanding/growing one in developing countries. In the attached link we have Muclair speaking to a want, for Canada, to refine the tarsands product 'in-house' for those developing expanding/growing markets overseas... not withstanding to lessen Canada's own import ratio. It's quite easy for you to simply offer a drive-by labeling Muclair an, "ignorant buffoon" when it comes to economics; however, your unqualified commentary can only be matched by your own highly suspect MLW historical track record on "economics". Saw an article today on the I-net--- American gasoline consumption has fallen 49% since 2004--- "as goes Exxon so goes America" Most people living in their cars can't afford the gas to go on vacation Quote
cybercoma Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 and how is exporting a refined product any different than raw bitumen? there isn't any difference the logistics are the same other than we keep refining jobs here rather than in Texas or China...canada isn't landlocked nor do we lack ports... Well, raw bitumen tends to sink when it's in water, as opposed to the refined stuff. That makes it pretty much impossible to clean up if there's any spills. Quote
capricorn Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 and how is exporting a refined product any different than raw bitumen? If we were to build facilities to refine the bitumen for export, our GHG emissions would increase, would they not? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
CPCFTW Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 If we were to build facilities to refine the bitumen for export, our GHG emissions would increase, would they not? No problem. Then we just raise taxes even more, buy some carbon credits from some 3rd world tyrannies, declare ourselves carbon neutral, and hold hands singing kumbaya. Quote
TimG Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) If we were to build facilities to refine the bitumen for export, our GHG emissions would increase, would they not?There is nothing more ridiculous than GHG obsessives arguing that we should refine more in Canada when their pet anti-GHG laws would be telling businesses that they got to move as much of the production as possible out of the country. It is one of the reasons why you can't trust the Muclairs of the world. They only care about one thing: shutting down any development that they consider 'dirty'. Excuses like building refineries here are just excuses designed to obscure their real agenda. Edited July 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
waldo Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) There is nothing more ridiculous than GHG obsessives arguing that we should refine more in Canada when their pet anti-GHG laws would be telling businesses that they got to move as much of the production as possible out of the country. It is one of the reasons why you can't trust the Muclairs of the world. They only care about one thing: shutting down any development that they consider 'dirty'. Excuses like building refineries here are just excuses designed to obscure their real agenda. there is nothing more ridiculous than a GHG apathetic arguing that we should export raw bitumen when their hated emission reduction "commitments" are not being recognized/enforced. Equally, in the face of continuing record business profits, there is nothing more hypocritical than a GHG apathetic arguing that the economics of CCS projects preclude deploying demonstrated viable CCS technologies. oh wait... what's this recent days announcement: Alberta's Energy Resources Conservation Board has approved the Shell Canada Energy/Chevron Canada Ltd./Marathon Oil Canada Corp. request for the construction of Alberta's first CCS facility. what do you think TimG? Will Shell, ultimately, follow the previous lead of the TransAlta/TransCanada/Enbridge "Project Pioneer", and similarly bury this Scotford upgrader CCS project under the (false) guise of, "technologically viable... just not financially practical"? Edited July 14, 2012 by waldo Quote
wyly Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) If we were to build facilities to refine the bitumen for export, our GHG emissions would increase, would they not? GHG emissions will occur regardless whether it happens here or China GHG emissions do not respect borders, if it occurs here we have more control over the technology used to reduce those emissions to minimal levels...and then there's the obvious benefit of thousands of permanent jobs...one of the key points brought up with bitumen is how the industry is not sufficient in it's cleanup which amounts to a taxpayer subsidy as taxpayers will be left to pay for the cleanup...it's the issue harperites want to deflect and avoid discussing because every Albertan even those employed by the energy industry want an environmentally responsible process, and every canadian taxpayer(except Derek) expects the industry to pay the full price for the cleanup... anyone opposing permanent job creation and responsible environmental development(user pay) are blatant ideologues it's an indefensible position to support as demonstrated throughout this thread the excuses are ludicrous and desperate..."we don't border oceans" "we're landlocked" "we don't have ports" "it's an NDP idea so it can't work, because I say it can't" Edited July 14, 2012 by wyly Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
TimG Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 (edited) GHG emissions will occur regardless whether it happens here or China GHG emissions do not respect bordersYou are now adopting a skeptical position on GHG control which will get you called a 'denier' by the GHG wackos. It is also a position that would require that Canada reject any future Kyoto protocol since the premise of such agreements is that emissions in developing countries are less important than emissions in developed countries.anyone opposing permanent job creation and responsible environmental development(user pay) are blatant ideologues it's an indefensible positionHoly red herring batman! Of course no one opposes "permanent job creation" but the issue here is whether "permanent jobs" in an industry that makes no economic sense can be created by government fiat. The problem with the NDP and its followers is they actually believe that the government can succeed at such "jobs by fiat" ventures despite all of the evidence that such a belief is a delusion (look at all of those "permanent green jobs" created in Ontario).I would be interested to see any example of an industry created by government fiat did not end up being completely dependent on government subsidies. If you can't provide an example then what basis do you have to believe that refineries in Alberta would be any more successful? Edited July 14, 2012 by TimG Quote
capricorn Posted July 14, 2012 Report Posted July 14, 2012 anyone opposing permanent job creation and responsible environmental development(user pay) are blatant ideologues it's an indefensible position to support as demonstrated throughout this thread the excuses are ludicrous and desperate... The problem is separating the politics from sound economics. From an economics perspective, what's the use of refining here in Canada if the finished product is so expensive (due to the increased costs to companies) no one will buy it? China and other countries can produce the same product at a lower cost due to lower wages and essentially disregarding GHG emissions. From a dollars and cents perspective, with regard to ramping up our refining capabilities seems to me we're in a no win situation. On the other hand, talk about the potential of thousands of high paying jobs falls mostly into the political realm. Anyway, there are complex questions around this "to refine or not to refine in Canada" quandary, not easy for a layman such as I to comprehend. When politics and economics come into play together it's a veritable maze. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
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.