Canada Fed Up With Barack Obama - Will Sell Oil To China

They are safe. You are talking out of your ass.

 

Thank you for posting a source

I am astounded at the amount of people however on this forum that think that its acceptable to make a claim and then tell people who want your source to "quit being lazy and look it up".

That is not, and never has been, how it works on this forum.

If you make a claim, its your responsibility to back it up. This isn't a new concept. Asking other people to vindicate your claims is the utmost of arrogance and a (*)(*)(*)(*)ty smug attitude.

 

they are safe because of regulatory bodies forcing them to not cut corners.

same thing that is going on here.

 

You all do realize that oil sands don't even make up 50% of Canada's oil sources. Meaning that Canada exports very large amounts of oil from traditional sources which does easily transport through pipelines.

Not to mention the suggestion that Canada must mix their oil with oil from the ME in order to transport it is absolute non-sense.

Hence why we ask for sources. So we can call out the bull(*)(*)(*)(*) easier.

 

The regulations are already in place Einstein.

It is great to hear your finally admit how safe they truly are.

WIN.

 

And you can take this smug non-sense and shove it up your ass.

Both defending Margot's ridiculous non-sense and failure to back up the (*)(*)(*)(*) that falls out of her mouth and then to suggest in some smug way that I must be ignorant for daring to question her bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

 

yes we had regulations in place 30 years ago too....but we make them stronger and increase safety still.

and yes I admit that strong govt oversight has made them FAR safer that in the past.

 

The legwork was pretty easy. I was able to confirm what she was saying in about 10 seconds flat with Google.

I think providing a link in the OP is a forum guideline.....however I don't think there's anything in the forum rules about providing links to every contention you make in every post.

 

The pipe line is not about jobs at all.

It's about giving the tar sands owners an ice free port for exporting.

How many jobs would this create? Maybe 50 permanent jobs. Maybe 6500 temporary construction jobs.

While we can use those jobs, the majority of jobs will be created in China.

The pipe will come from China and Korea. The welding rod will come from what ever low wage country.

If it's about jobs there would be a requirement that all materials would be produced domestically. But I've heard nothing about that.

So I can only conclude that the XL pipeline is for the benefit of the 1%. If it's not going to help as much as it's going to hurt, screw it!

 

The information re: the quality of Canadian oil has been posted dozens of times on THIS forum and many others.

http://ostseis.anl.gov/guide/tarsands/index.cfm

Quote:

Tar sands are mined and processed to generate oil similar to oil pumped from conventional oil wells, but extracting oil from tar sands is more complex than conventional oil recovery. Oil sands recovery processes include extraction and separation systems to separate the bitumen from the clay, sand, and water that make up the tar sands.

Bitumen also requires additional upgrading before it can be refined. Because it is so viscous (thick), it also requires dilution with lighter hydrocarbons to make it transportable by pipelines.

 

Then there is no reason that the person presenting the fact not back up their own points.

How ridiculous is it to expect that I present a fact and you have to go research it to figure out if its true or not. Searching through ridiculous amounts of information trying to find the source that the presenter could simply provide?

That is not and never has been how we debate on this forum.

You were able to confirm that Canada will be forced to thin oil exports to the US through the pipeline with oil from the ME?

No. You weren't.

And neither was she, which is exactly why she didn't want to provide a source to the claim.

All that has been presented this far is to show that SOME canadian oil, and less than 50% of their production, can not be piped by itself. The claim however was that it would have to be mixed with ME oil which is patently false and supported by nothing. Which is precisely my point.

Margot just makes facts up as she goes, and its the rest of our responsibility to sift through her non-sense to figure out what she means and what is true? BS.

Got it.

So in that case, I say that the planet mars is made out of red marshmallows.

Go find the source that proves me wrong.

This is WAY more logical than you asking me to provide my source saying that it is.

Absolutely ridiculous concept of debate.

 

ALL Canadian crude is sour and heavy.. hard to refine.. Tar sands oil is just more so.. much worse.

You are expected to have at least some basic knowledge of the subject or make and effort to be informed.

 

http://www.politicalforum.com/current-events/209743-canada-oil-pipline-side-will-admin-support.html

Oh looky here. It appears that Margot likes to present the same "facts" over and over never backing them up.

I will await the "easily found fact" that Canada will be forced to cut their oil with oil from the ME to transport it through a pipeline.

Try searching for that on Google. You will find only information about oil sands.

Yet Margot will hide behind cherry picked facts to GENERATE a conclusion which is not validated.

Unbelievably stupid.

 

That may be what you expect, but it's not formalized in the forum rules..I don't understand why you played that card.

No. Because that's a strawman. No one claimed that the hydrocarbon additives for transporting oil sands in pipelines came from or had to come from the Middle East.

Yeah... I don't think that's what she was saying....

But I'm not going to speak for her....

I disagree with Margot a lot, but I've found her to be, for whatever reason, knowledgeable about issues regarding oil production.

 

The crude used to thin the Canadian crude doesn't have to come from OPEC, but Mexican crude is also sour and heavy.

So consider the options. Should they buy and transport Texas Sweet or Libyan crude (also OPEC) to Canada to cut the viscosity of Canadian sour?

 

My previous forum had that as a rule.

None the less, sourcing of information is always on the author. To suggest otherwise is simply illogical.

Who exactly would Canada be buying oil from to "thin it"?

Even if it wasn't the middle east, that suggestion is patently false. Canada has a huge supply of oil that allows it to cut its own crude with, there would be no reason to "buy it".

 

Can you show me an NPVR of those green jobs? Use 14% discount rate for each period, and let's just see how fruitful those green jobs are. My guess is that the investment will far exceed the foreseeable returns especially when opportunity costs are considered.

Can you name these countries that are inflating current energy supplies and subsidizing green production with some significant positive results as far as citizenry standard of living?

Dude used the word "instead" which means invest in green energy and not petroleum.

If they are safe, what exactly is the argument?

Are you attempting to sale the idea that cheaper means of producing energy will not benefit society?

 

so you think there wont be petroleum without federal invesment?

they are safer because of strong oversight....oversight republicans are trying to bypass

 

Good question.. maybe they are using the best quality of Canadian crude to thin that Tar Sands gunk..

Its a problem because ALL Canadian crude is heavy and sour.

But, you can look up viscosity and specific gravity of Canadian crude.

 

I believe plenty light crude is also produced in Canada....

http://www.cnrl.com/operations/north-america/north-american-crude-oil-and-ngls/conventional-light-crude-oil-and-ngls.html

http://www.baytex.ab.ca/operations/canadian-light-oil-and-gas-bu.cfm

So I don't see how they would need to import it just to use it as an additive.....

 

One of the stupidest things you've ever posted.

 

We already have plans to build a pipeline to an "ice free port" (as opposed to our many ice laden ports that we currently export oil from... I'm at a loss here really.) in Kitimat or Prince Rupert with the Enbridge pipeline. This project is planned to go through whether or not the Keystone pipeline goes through.

The Keystone XL pipeline is about securing the oil for American refining and jobs for America, believe me, the tar sands owners and Canada are not concerned whether or not it goes through.

 

The leftist hatred for fossil fuels stems directly from their religious devotion to the farcical man-made global warming hypothesis; as such, they will never think rationally about our energy policy. They are hell-bent on imposing their pie-in-sky green energy fantasy on the world no matter how economically damaging and technologically unfeasible it may be.

 

Here's a great idea. All lib enviro types sell all your vehicles, and buy a bike or walk. That will cut emissions and oil consumption by 50% right there. Unless, of course, that you guys are all mouth and no action, which is what I see. You won't give up your Volvos and Mercedes any more than I will give up my pickup, which I need for my farm work. I grow and raise my own food, and can justify my fuel expenditures, how about you?

 

We shouldn't expect any different from a President that makes a guy who said this...........

“Somehow we have to figure out how to boost the price of gasoline to the levels in Europe.” - Steven Chu

.......the Secretary of Energy. This is why we need 13 more seats in the Senate and 19 in the House to get this country off it's Obama knees. Instead of building a pipeline from the top to the bottom of the country, why not build a few refineries in North Dakota? The first step will be firing everyone at the top of the EPA and replace them with folks that have more common sense than billy goats.