bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Are you suggesting that the US domestic consumption does not partly come from imports from the Middle east and South America? Or what are you saying, they don't want Canadian bitumen? I already provided a link that enumerates all U.S. import sources. I am saying that there is presently no pressing need for additional Albertan (not Canadian) imports above present levels to meet current U.S. domestic demand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Therefore,be it resolved that a pipeline be built to Eastern Canada,in addition,further oil refining capacity be built in Ontario! Great....now you just have to wait many, many years while the usual internecine fighting happens between provinces, tree huggers, First Nations, etc., etc. If it was that easy, it would have been done years ago. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 (edited) I already provided a link that enumerates all U.S. import sources. I am saying that there is presently no pressing need for additional Albertan (not Canadian) imports above present levels to meet current U.S. domestic demand. Maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm saying is that Canadian oil should replace other sources from nations that hate the US and fund terror. The effort to get the Keystone pipeline built is interesting. Can you suggest why they want it if the US doesn't need the oil? Edited February 16, 2013 by sharkman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm saying is that Canadian oil should replace other sources from nations that hate the US and fund terror. No...that is the so called "ethical oil" argument. Sweet crude trumps bitumen even with a large discount. Mitt Romney tried that pitch and it did not work. Petroleum extraction and distribution is a global enterprise, it's not just about the U.S. or Canada. Dick Cheney understands that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Maybe I'm wrong, but what I'm saying is that Canadian oil should replace other sources from nations that hate the US and fund terror. The effort to get the Keystone pipeline built is interesting. Can you suggest why they want it if the US doesn't need the oil? The U.S. buys oil - and Canada wants the sale to come from Canada, which is why Canada wants the pipeline built. We have other sources, however, and are producing more ourselves. Perhaps that's why Obama isn't speaking of the pipeline as a forefront issue; however, I personally think it will get built, and I think Canada believes so, also. As for the idea that Canadian oil should replace other sources from nations that hate the US and fund terror, I can't find anything wrong with that idea in theory; however, you suggest this as Canada is looking to China as a major buyer - as some are criticizing the U.S. for buying from places like Venezuela, yet promoting selling to China. I'm not sure how that's much better. Stephen Harper said Canada has "abundant supplies of virtually every form of energy" and will sell to whoever wants to buy. "It's that simple," he said. http://usatoday30.us...ions/53041882/1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharkman Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Interesting responses, there are many sides to this issue! I didn't realize the price differences between sweet crude and bitumen. And Canada, and Alberta has to sell their products though I'd hate to see China end up as a big buyer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Interesting responses, there are many sides to this issue! I didn't realize the price differences between sweet crude and bitumen. And Canada, and Alberta has to sell their products though I'd hate to see China end up as a big buyer. The only thing in Alberta's favor is the economics of transporting by pipeline or train, but that limits potential markets. Canada does not presently have the pipeline, refinery, or tanker terminal infrastructure to scale as a major international player/supplier beyond the U.S. I think there was genuine shock in Canada/Alberta when the Keystone XL was blocked, because it shattered some erroneous assumptions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Great....now you just have to wait many, many years while the usual internecine fighting happens between provinces, tree huggers, First Nations, etc., etc. If it was that easy, it would have been done years ago. Great to see your on board to keeping Canadian natural resources within Canada! And yes there are currently pipelines directly connecting Alberta to Ontario,so your contribution to how we can make this a reality pretty much ends where reality starts. But thanks for your enthusiasm and please check in at the door for your consolation prize! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Great to see your on board to keeping Canadian natural resources within Canada! In this case, they are Albertan resources.....another cute issue you guys seem to have. And yes there are currently pipelines directly connecting Alberta to Ontario,so your contribution to how we can make this a reality pretty much ends where reality starts. Then I wonder why more of that "oil" actually ends up at a refinery just miles from my home in the United States of America. But thanks for your enthusiasm and please check in at the door for your consolation prize! Let's hope it works out better for "Canada" than the softwood lumber fiasco. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 In this case, they are Albertan resources.....another cute issue you guys seem to have. I guess you never worked out in oil rich Saskatchewan? Your consolation prize awaits! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Let's hope it works out better for "Canada" than the softwood lumber fiasco. Once the conservatives are gone in 2015,soon the line will be pumping into Ontario. Don't worry,the US will have to wait in line like anyone else You want that consolation prize or what? WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckistani Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 How do you figure that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 cry me a bitumen bubble!!! as raw bitumen 'sludge' from the tarsands, the price will always be significantly lower than the benchmarks. Do you have a cite for that? Untreated raw bitumen would require more refining, but the upgraded oil already commands, as far as I know, a price close to that of 'normal' heavy oil. Or would were it not being dumped into the overloaded mid-american choke points. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Americans are less and less interested despite Alberta handing them virtually all the associated refining jobs. There is an administration in place willing to offer more than lip service in reducing green house gases. Where? You're not talking about the US, are you? Because lip service is pretty much all they've done about it. With 70% of British Columbians opposed to pipelining this sludge to the coast, Harper will have to ram through this project - putting at risk 30+ seats and his majority. The man in the pocket of big oil has a problem. I wonder how BC would feel about pipelines if Alberta stopped sending them ANY oil. I bet they'd suddenly develop a real fondness for the things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Good luck with that. Come of with a plan that has reasonable assurances of safety, and makes the people profiting from the pipeline carry the total cost of any cleanup, and I'm all for it. I agree that the pipeline companies should bear full responsibility for all costs related to any spills. However, I think the majority of the opposition to the pipeline is emotional, and not based on realistic dangers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 How do you figure that? The conservaties have the interest of certain groups up front and centre! Once they're gone,the focus will change. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 The U.S. does not need additional supply for domestic consumption, which is actually going down in the case of gasoline. The U.S. does have excess refining capacity that exists now and would take years to build in Canada, hence eventual exports by tanker. But the US wants extra supply from north America secure supply so it no longer has to rely on the likes of Venezuela. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Great....now you just have to wait many, many years while the usual internecine fighting happens between provinces, tree huggers, First Nations, etc., etc. If it was that easy, it would have been done years ago. I haven't heard any opposition from any of the eastern provinces to bringing oil in from the west. As far east as the Maritimes they seem to be all for it. Most of Canada's wack job eco freaks are in BC. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Interesting responses, there are many sides to this issue! I didn't realize the price differences between sweet crude and bitumen. And Canada, and Alberta has to sell their products though I'd hate to see China end up as a big buyer. The thing is the Chinese are eager for it and willing to fund just about any infrastructure to get it. I'd rather sell to Japan myself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 I wonder how BC would feel about pipelines if Alberta stopped sending them ANY oil. I bet they'd suddenly develop a real fondness for the things... Ya right! Then where would Alberta send their oil? No coast=no imports/exports=end of game WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 I think there was genuine shock in Canada/Alberta when the Keystone XL was blocked, because it shattered some erroneous assumptions. You mean that the US would do what was in its own best interests rather than what was in Obamas short-term political interest? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 But the US wants extra supply from north America secure supply so it no longer has to rely on the likes of Venezuela. You forgot who you are debating with. This guy hates to acknowledge Canada. But good luck anyways WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Ya right! Then where would Alberta send their oil? No coast=no imports/exports=end of game But everyone in BC seems intent on ensuring there is no pipeline to the coast anyway, and if Alberta can get pipelines running east, and the keystone built, then I guess they can just shut off the taps to BC if they want to. After all, if BC has the right to stop pipelines then so does Alberta... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 Most of Canada's wack job eco freaks are in BC. Wouldn't come to that conclusion by the number of seats the conservaties have in BC. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted February 16, 2013 Report Share Posted February 16, 2013 But everyone in BC seems intent on ensuring there is no pipeline to the coast anyway, and if Alberta can get pipelines running east, and the keystone built, then I guess they can just shut off the taps to BC if they want to. After all, if BC has the right to stop pipelines then so does Alberta... Shuting off taps=shuting off profits You sincerely believe greed is easy to shut off? Ok buddy,if you say so. WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.