Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Obama Losing Canada's Oil to China

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Doktor View Post
    So why there are no 'under construction' sites from Canada to Texas ;)
    The answer is in my post #27. :)

    Comment


    • #32
      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 representatives
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Doktor View Post
        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 representatives
        Guilty as charged, totally missed the winky.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Julie View Post
          Sure, 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.
          The EPA has been out of control for decades and I don't think any president will be able to stop that run away train. Its been decades since you can get something as simple as a decent gas can. Bit of irony here. The state department officially doesn't approve of illegal immigration but that has not stopped anyone. Hasn't even slowed down the 20 million that are not supposed to be here. In that respect there isn't any reason the oil companies can't just start the pipeline without approval. Worse case scenario is that the pipeline will end at the border and the oil can get shipped by truck/train the rest of the way until the government pulls its head out. One thing to consider is that if we are able to get our oil needs met by Canadian oil that would put the brakes on the, "drill baby drill" mantra the oil industry is currently pushing. We also have to look at what would happen to the profit margins and speculation of oil prices if we had a steady and uninterruptible supply for awhile.
          Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by 7thsfsniper View Post
            The 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.
            One 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.
            Removing a single turd from the cesspool doesn't make any difference.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by bonehead View Post
              The EPA has been out of control for decades and I don't think any president will be able to stop that run away train.
              Let'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?

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by Julie View Post
                Let'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?
                Lets see. The price of a new plant/refinery would plummet since emissions would be tossed. Spill containment would be nonexistent. That alone would be a huge direct cost savings. The trick is to get the companies to pass that savings to the consumer instead of pocketing it. We could make cars more fuel efficient instead of pandering to emission output. My MPG was regularly 15-20% better after removing emissions from my vehicles. That type of gas milage across the board would curtail demand and lower prices at the pump if the price at the pump was truly based on supply and demand. Best of all, I can get a good gas can again.

                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


                • #38
                  Originally posted by bonehead View Post
                  The associated health cost of all that added pollution may more than offset what we could save at the pump and our electric bills.
                  Then 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?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Julie View Post
                    Then 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?
                    The EPA is a prime example that when you give an inch they take a mile. Like any other government agency, the EPA should be non political and should have a clear definable mission. Unfortunately, the EPA is a part of the D.C. political machine so it is simply yet another tool used to club you, me and small businesses over the head. Only the big political players have any influence over the EPA. The little people like you and I don't matter much.

                    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


                    • #40
                      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


                      • #41
                        Ah the delusion of self interest and the "invisible" body parts that lead to prosperity. You are missing the bigger picture here.You need to put the bait on the hook first in order to get the fish.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Versus View Post
                          Ah the delusion of self interest and the "invisible" body parts that lead to prosperity. You are missing the bigger picture here.You need to put the bait on the hook first in order to get the fish.
                          What the heck are you talking about?

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Julie View Post
                            What the heck are you talking about?
                            Well, 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.
                            Last edited by Versus; 10 Jul 11,, 12:35.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Versus View Post
                              Well, 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.
                              Not only is the hand of the US invisible, it is non-existent, which is why Canada is looking to China as a new customer.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by bonehead View Post
                                One 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.
                                Right, and what surprises me is that BHO and other dems are blocking union jobs by blocking oil drilling.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X