Just was reading this morning that our PM has made the decision to send out oil to Asia even with Obama saying he would reconsider the Keystone pipeline. He says Obama's indecisiviness has forced us to look to other markets, and that such a move to export our oil to Asia would be beneficial to Canada as currently we offer the US a substantial discount on the oil we export. With increased demand from the Asian markets, this is expected to drive up oil prices so the US will end up paying significantly more for our oil. I'm sure this is no worries to Obama though, who would probably rather buy his oil from his muslim brothers in Saudi Arabia, or his socialist pals in Venezuela. To him, supporting these regimes seem more "ethical" than buying our dirty tar sands oil.

So, seems like another Obama success story. With him already driving up the cost of coal, I have to wonder if you will all be sitting in the dark come the end of his next four year term.

BRYN WEESE | WASHINGTON BUREAU
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- Even if President Barack Obama approved the controversial Keystone XL pipeline tomorrow, at least some Canadian oil would still flow to Asia, according to Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
In a public one-on-one interview here with Jane Harman, head of the Wilson Centre think-tank, Harper said Obama's rejection of the controversial pipeline -- even temporarily -- stressed Canada's need to find other buyers for oilsands crude.

And that wouldn't change even if the president's mind did.

"Look, the very fact that a 'no' could even be said underscores to our country that we must diversify our energy export markets," Harper told Harman in front of a live audience of businesspeople, scholars, diplomats, and journalists.

"We cannot be, as a country, in a situation where our one and, in many cases, only energy partner could say no to our energy products. We just cannot be in that position."

His wide-ranging question-and-answer at the influential non-partisan think-tank -- which also touched on border security, trade, the Arctic and Syria among other topics -- followed a meeting with Obama and Mexican President Felipe Calderon at the White House for the sixth North American Leaders' Summit.

Harper also told Harman that Canada has been selling its oil to the United States at a discounted price.

So not only will America be able to buy less Canadian oil even if Keystone is eventually approved, the U.S. will also have to pay more for it because the market for oilsands crude will be more competitive.

"We have taken a significant price hit by virtue of the fact that we are a captive supplier and that just does not make sense in terms of the broader interests of the Canadian economy," Harper said. "We're still going to be a major supplier of the United States. It will be a long time, if ever, before the United States isn't our number one export market, but for us the United States cannot be our only export market.

"That is not in our interest, either commercially or in terms of pricing."

Earlier this year, Obama rejected TransCanada's bid to build the $7 billion pipeline that would carry crude from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico.

Obama blamed Republicans in Congress for imposing an arbitrary timeline on him to decide on the project, which he said did not allow enough time for sufficient reviews even though Keystone had been under review for three years already.

Supporters of the project, which include big labour unions and the business community, estimate construction jobs alone to build the pipeline would be in the thousands at a time when the U.S. economy is struggling to recover from the recession.

Polls show some 60% of Americans also support building the pipeline.

But opponents argue developing Canada's oilsands cause high greenhouse gas emissions and worry the pipeline could leak in sensitive environmental areas along the route.

Last month, Obama tried to take credit for expediting the southern leg of the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas that is going ahead, but the White House has no jurisdiction over the pipeline except where it crosses an international border.


http://www.sunnewsnetwork.c...20120402-195920.html

I don't blame Canada in the least.

I do hope that our next 'leader' can undo the damage The O has done to our relationships with our friends. Remember we all don't feel like he does, and do appreciate our neighbors up north.

^ ^ ^



I'll tell this to anyone who will listen.

Furthermore, Since he is so fond of offering apologies, I'll offer an apology for the sorry excuse for a leader that we now endure.
He does NOT speak for me.

[This message has been edited by Raydar (edited 04-03-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Raydar: ^ ^ ^ I'll tell this to anyone who will listen. Furthermore, Since he is so fond of offering apologies, I'll offer an apology for the sorry excuse for a leader that we now endure. He does NOT speak for me.

No need to apolagize...even if your leader is a moron, the rest of ya's are still our friends..(well, most of ya anyway, there was this one girl in Livermore...LMAO )

Time to sit back and wait for the lame excuses from Democrats. Or listen to the crickets.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Time to sit back and wait for the lame excuses from Democrats. Or listen to the crickets.

I wish that were actually the case. It would be a nice change of pace if they would bow their heads in shame and STFU. But alas, we get looking glass explanations, justifications, finger pointing, and buck passing instead. THAT is what makes it so frustrating.

quote Last month, Obama tried to take credit for expediting the southern leg of the pipeline from Oklahoma to Texas that is going ahead, but the White House has no jurisdiction over the pipeline except where it crosses an international border.

LOL. Veto the pipeline then take credit for another part that he had nothing to do with.

Classic!


I have come to a better understanding of this project and am no longer ambivalant. It significantly increases the pipe capacity which is all I needed to hear. I wish they were clearer about it from the beginning rather than selling the other minor benefits.

Thats sucky for us.

Glad Canada listened to me.

In all seriousness, this is what needs to happen. President Obama was a douche about the pipeline, which effected Canadians more than Americans.

As soon as President Obama said no, the entire pipeline should have been scrapped, and oil sold to China. No free turns, Do not pass Go, etc. etc.

If they are going to survive the next 10 years or so, Canada needs to separate it's economy from the U.S. as much as possible. The first step should be to sell to other markets as much as possible.

Brad

quote Originally posted by twofatguys: Glad Canada listened to me. In all seriousness, this is what needs to happen. President Obama was a douche about the pipeline, which effected Canadians more than Americans. As soon as President Obama said no, the entire pipeline should have been scrapped, and oil sold to China. No free turns, Do not pass Go, etc. etc. If they are going to survive the next 10 years or so, Canada needs to separate it's economy from the U.S. as much as possible. The first step should be to sell to other markets as much as possible. Brad

But buying oil from Canada will mean we will just have to buy it from our good friend in the Middle East and pay higher shipping costs to boot, Oh goody. And if the cost of energy goes up, then us evil consumers will have no option but to change to green technology for about the same or even more money. Yeah, I see the Obama "logic"...and it scares me to death.

quote Originally posted by Toddster: But buying oil from Canada will mean we will just have to buy it from our good friend in the Middle East and pay higher shipping costs to boot, Oh goody. And if the cost of energy goes up, then us evil consumers will have no option but to change to green technology for about the same or even more money. Yeah, I see the Obama "logic"...and it scares me to death.

We are the idiots that voted him in charge. At some point there has to be consequences for our actions. Even if those consequences suck.

We can't coast on stupid forever.

Brad

Did I miss where the issues of oil sands toxicity and possible pipe line leaks had been solved? If so then I'm happy too. Can someone tell me if there is a difference between "tar sands oil" and "oil sands"? Are they the same thing, just different names? I have concerns, but I'm not an expert for sure.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Did I miss where the issues of oil sands toxicity and possible pipe line leaks had been solved? If so then I'm happy too.

I found an avatar picture for ya!



The "issues" you have are not real problems, but made up excuses.
The pipeline already exists, so "upgrading" to a new one would lessen leak issues.
And toxicity? Of oil? Come on man. Since when is oil a non toxic thing on any level?

Brad

quote Originally posted by dratts: Did I miss where the issues of oil sands toxicity and possible pipe line leaks had been solved?

IMO, if you factor in the amount of fuel required to ship oil halfway around the planet, and the potential for environmental devastation caused by a humongous tankership breaking up, I suspect oil from the Alberta tar sands is actually quite clean in comparison to most other sources for use in the US and Canada.

Plus the money (for the cost of the oil and the pipeline) is kept in North America. Seems like a win/win situation for both Canadians and Americans alike.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-03-2012).]

We already have oil tankers all over the world. If Canada can get a better price for it abroad they absolutely have that right. Any oil that hits the world market will help keep prices down (supply and demand). At least that's what I'm always told, so if Canada supplies the world market and thus holds down world prices we all benefit. I still think that mining oil sands has some very serious environmental consequences but if Canada wants to take a chance on polluting their own country I support their right.

Duh.
Canada's oil was always going to go to China.
The pipeline would have made it easier/cheaper for the Chinese to get it.
We used to buy a lot of it, BUT:
The USA now exports oil to China.
This is news?
Hardly.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Time to sit back and wait for the lame excuses from Democrats. Or listen to the crickets.

It won't matter, the die-hards will come up with some justification how they're just being mean, it's really the fault of Republicans, or how Bush put us into this position to begin with. Or they'll cite some garbage statistic that's taken out of context that would somehow show that Obama has actually done something good.

quote Originally posted by dratts: We already have oil tankers all over the world.

Well yeah, that's kind of my point. All these oil tankers are potential environmental disasters just waiting to happen (or have happened).

Living in Idaho, you may not be immediately concerned with the ocean and associated beaches being destroyed (I'm being facetious due to your geographical location), but it's a very real concern for those of us right on the coast.

Fortunately for the USA, the shipping lanes from Canada to China do not come anywhere near the fishing areas of Alaska or Washington so, nothing bad can come from this.

quote Originally posted by FriendGregory: Fortunately for the USA, the shipping lanes from Canada to China do not come anywhere near the fishing areas of Alaska or Washington so, nothing bad can come from this.

I lol'd

Brad

I've spent most of my life on the pacific coast and only four years ago moved back to Idaho. I share your concern with the ocean in more ways than just oil, but I think that the Canadian oil being shipped either directly overseas or as said shipped from the other end of the pipeline is a tiny part of the whole picture. Thank you for your concern about our ocean.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Thank you for your concern about our ocean.

And I thank you for your concern about northern Alberta. Seriously.

However, I would trust the environmental standards set here in Canada regarding oil exploration/drilling/etc a heck of a lot more than any regulations that might be set in a place such as... oh, how about Nigeria (just as one example). And then the oil still needs to be shipped via supertanker half way around the planet.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-03-2012).]

I wish that one of the more intelligent conservatives on the forum would shed some light on why you HATE the "NAFTA Superhighway" but you love the oil pipeline.
Don't they basically do the same thing?
I, for one, miss John Striker. He'd explain it with logic, facts, and figures.
Me?
I'm just waiting for more flames from the usual suspects.

------------------

Drive safely!

[This message has been edited by NEPTUNE (edited 04-03-2012).]

So this is great news and everything, etc. etc., but how can we achieve cheaper oil here at home?

Prices are going up again tonight for gasoline... $1.40 / L for regular 87 octane... thats about $5.30 per US gallon... premium gas will be even more. I need to get myself a motorcycle.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: And I thank you for your concern about northern Alberta. Seriously. However, I would trust the environmental standards set here in Canada regarding oil exploration/drilling/etc a heck of a lot more than any regulations that might be set in a place such as... oh, how about Nigeria (just as one example). And then it still needs to be shipped via supertanker.

I was seriously thanking you too. Actually I'm pretty sure that we're going to run out of oil and when we do it won't be just tankers that disappear. I only have a few years left, but I'm really worried about my kids and grand kids as we make the transition away from oil to renewables (hopefully clean renewables). I don't have a 20-20 crystal ball, but I think that the sooner we begin to plan for that day the less stressful it will be.

quote Originally posted by doublec4: Prices are going up again tonight for gasoline... $1.40 / L for regular 87 octane... thats about $5.30 per US gallon...

Quitcherbitchen...

Regular gas has already been about $1.45/L here for a couple weeks now.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Quitcherbitchen... Regular gas has already been about $1.45/L here for a couple weeks now.

Somebody has to start whining

Things are getting out of hand.

quote Originally posted by dratts: This while we have historically high production and lower demand. I don't know how the system is being gamed, but supply and demands affects on pricing doesn't seem to be working.

quote Originally posted by dratts: We already have oil tankers all over the world. If Canada can get a better price for it abroad they absolutely have that right. Any oil that hits the world market will help keep prices down (supply and demand). At least that's what I'm always told, so if Canada supplies the world market and thus holds down world prices we all benefit. I still think that mining oil sands has some very serious environmental consequences but if Canada wants to take a chance on polluting their own country I support their right.

quote Originally posted by dratts: I was seriously thanking you too.

I didn't think otherwise. I just wanted you to know I was sincere as well.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Actually I'm pretty sure that we're going to run out of oil...

This has been "predicted" for a long time. Great way to keep the prices up.

I don't know who to believe anymore, but I'm becoming more and more convinced we're all just pawns in a world-wide game controlled by big business/banks/whatever. They control the supply and the demand (and therefore the prices). Collectively, we're all fools.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 04-03-2012).]

quote Originally posted by NEPTUNE: The USA now exports oil to China. This is news?

Actually, that is news. As I understand it, we export refined fuel, not oil.

quote Originally posted by Patrick: Plus the money (for the cost of the oil and the pipeline) is kept in North America. Seems like a win/win situation for both Canadians and Americans alike.

Damn right. And I can't imagine dealing with a better neighbor country than Canada (except for one or two guys I can think of )

quote Originally posted by Patrick: This has been "predicted" for a long time. Great way to keep the prices up. I don't know who to believe anymore, but I'm becoming more and more convinced we're all just pawns in a world-wide game controlled by big business/banks/whatever. They control the supply and the demand (and therefore the prices). Collectively, we're all fools.

BINGO!

quote Originally posted by Patrick: This has been "predicted" for a long time. Great way to keep the prices up. I don't know who to believe anymore, but I'm becoming more and more convinced we're all just pawns in a world-wide game controlled by big business/banks/whatever. They control the supply and the demand (and therefore the prices). Collectively, we're all fools.

"Kings and pawns, emperors and fools"


From one of my favourite movies and books.

quote Originally posted by fierobear: Are you *actually* expecting a liberal to discern the difference?

So we're sending gasoline and keeping the oil? Although I'm not a liberal I'm not able to discern see a big difference either.

[This message has been edited by dratts (edited 04-03-2012).]

quote Originally posted by dratts: So we're sending gasoline and keeping the oil? Although I'm not a liberal I'm not able to discern see a big difference either.

It has to do with having more refining capacity than we have crude production capacity.
The big difference is one product runs in your car. The other doesn't.

I'm sure this is all a smoke screen!

The anointed one surely has made a secret agreement with the Canadians, he just can't let the cat out of the bag until after he is reelected!
Just no live mike picked it up this time.

quote Originally posted by dratts: Did I miss where the issues of oil sands toxicity and possible pipe line leaks had been solved? If so then I'm happy too. Can someone tell me if there is a difference between "tar sands oil" and "oil sands"? Are they the same thing, just different names? I have concerns, but I'm not an expert for sure.

...like you mean what happened not that long ago in the gulf is a better alternative? At least with our oil we just scoop it up in a front end loader (granted a very large one) and dump it on a very large dump truck.

Basically we are 'cleaning up' mother nature's oil spill - not like we are going around the planet looking for it and drilling holes in the planet to get at it - although the oil sands look more like an open pit mine if anything.

quote Originally posted by dratts: We already have oil tankers all over the world. If Canada can get a better price for it abroad they absolutely have that right. Any oil that hits the world market will help keep prices down (supply and demand). At least that's what I'm always told, so if Canada supplies the world market and thus holds down world prices we all benefit. I still think that mining oil sands has some very serious environmental consequences but if Canada wants to take a chance on polluting their own country I support their right.

Really??? Do you really think that? OPEC controls the oil and hence the price, the Saudi's control OPEC, if they start losing coin, they cut production. This is history...

If they were serious about reducing the price of oil, they would ramp up their production as they have said they could do many, many times now - but haven't for some reason.


BTW: I wish to know how one determines Canada's oil is dirty? Does one have a taste test or something? All this only became an issue when some ducks die when they landed on a tailing pond. Could it have been prevented - probably yes had they got out sooner with the deterrents. 100 ducks were lost, but this pales when one compares the number of bird lost due to wind farms. How many animals were lost with the recent BP oil spill on your southern shores?

BTW as soon as you come up with a real alternative energy source that is as efficient and cost effective as oil, I will be all over it. Solar cells for example cost more to produce than what they output and the byproducts produced by their production are far from better than oil. But you never hear about this. It takes far more energy to produce hydrogen for fuel cell use than they produce, nuclear energy produces a nasty waste that has a very long life span that is hardly good for the environment as well, shall I continue?

[This message has been edited by Mickey_Moose (edited 04-04-2012).]

quote Originally posted by Formula88: It has to do with having more refining capacity than we have crude production capacity. The big difference is one product runs in your car. The other doesn't.

I actually do understand that we can't burn crude in our cars, even if we're running a diesel.