Originally posted by Doktor
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China
Collapse
X
-
I know, that's why I was winking.
Then you wonder why people from around the world can't understand you.
Even you can't understand your representativesNo such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Julie View PostSure, here is an article dated today from WSJ:
Jobs in the Pipeline
The EPA tries to scuttle oil transport from Canada's tar sands..
Review & Outlook: Jobs in the Pipeline - WSJ.com
So, in answer to your question, I would say by this article, the EPA and the State Dept., Hillary Clinton.Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View PostThe only things the GOP is blocking is more spending. You won't find one repub that wants to block oil energy development and on top of that there a lot of dems for drilling too. Remember that Oil workers are union jobs.Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bonehead View PostThe EPA has been out of control for decades and I don't think any president will be able to stop that run away train.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Julie View PostLet's say hypothetically that a President did get in with a majority in Congress, and totally disbanded the EPA. What impact, if any, do you think that would have, especially on gas prices?
With no EPA and an associated green light to build more refineries and pipe Canadian oil into the U.S., the oil companies would not be able to hide behind the big bad government when it comes to increasing the supply of oil and finished product. No EPA may also allow smaller companies to start up and compete against the big boys in at least a few small markets. Not many current entities can cough up nearly a billion for a new refinery. As for the actual cost reduction I would be farting in the wind if I came up with an actual percentage, but there is no reason to believe the cost to fill up your car, truck, or gas can, would be cheaper that what we have to pay today. However, that is looking at the small picture. The associated health cost of all that added pollution may more than offset what we could save at the pump and our electric bills.Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bonehead View PostThe associated health cost of all that added pollution may more than offset what we could save at the pump and our electric bills.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Julie View PostThen I believe there is a justifiable need for the EPA, however, their regulations do seem a bit over the top at times to the point of choking the economy. The cause of that is the current administration, is it not?
Choking the economy? Maybe. However you have to include all the anti pollution industries that have arisen because of the BPA standards. Look at all the new chainsaws, lawn mowers around that would otherwise not have to be built under older standards. Look at the industry that filters mercury out of coal fired plants. New car engines are being built because the old models would not pass the new standards. Look at health care costs. They are already bankrupting the nation. How much higher would healthcare be if we had no pollution standards? Then again I would still be buying an older, more efficient style gas cans but someone made a mint designing and building those new "safety cans"Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.
Comment
-
Wouldn't it be cheaper to pay for a campaign to educate the people they should use more environmental friendly products and impose eco-tax on those that don't comply, rather then to feed EPA?No such thing as a good tax - Churchill
To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by Julie View PostWhat the heck are you talking about?
As far as invisible body parts, I was referring to the invisible hand of self interest, in a sarcastic way.Last edited by Versus; 10 Jul 11,, 12:35.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Versus View PostWell, from the strategic point of view, the Canada is much closer to the US than it is to China, right? This means in essence, that the US can put pressure on Canada much easier than it can on China, if it feels the need for it. So hooking up the China on the Canada oil, gives the US opportunity to make influence on China's ambtions in the most direct way possible.
As far as invisible body parts, I was referring to the invisible hand of self interest, in a sarcastic way.
Comment
-
Originally posted by bonehead View PostOne thing the GOP has been perfectly clear on is that they do not want any more union jobs. They would kill any legislation on that philosophy alone.
Comment
Comment