This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.

Guest Post: Global Market Needs Canada's Crude

Tyler Durden's picture





 

Submitted by Daniel Graeber of Oilprice.com

Global Market Needs Canada's Crude

Canada's natural resources minister told delegates at the International Energy Forum in Kuwait that his country was on the cusp of becoming an "energy superpower." Canada ranks No. 6 in terms of global oil production, but much of its crude exists in the form of oil sands. European leaders are considering a measure that would classify oil sands as an environmental issue, prompting Canada to threaten to take the issue to the World Trade Organization. With the U.S. political system in a deadlock over Canadian crude, the Ottawa government is now working to convince the international community that the global market is in jeopardy if polices "discriminate against oil sands."
 
Drill-happy critics of the Obama administration are painting the Keystone XL oil pipeline planned from Alberta as a panacea to U.S. economic woes. Because of debates over the planned route through Nebraska, however, the White House has pushed the issue aside for now. The pipeline company behind the project, TransCanada, has opted for a smaller leg in the United States while the Canadian government has thrown its support behind the Northern Gateway pipeline meant for Asian exports.
 
Canadian Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver said his presence at the IEF summit in Kuwait proved his country was "an emerging energy superpower." Canada has around 175 billion barrels of proven oil reserves, which means it’s the only non-OPEC member in the global top five, just behind Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.
 
European leaders in March were unable to reach a decision on whether or not to characterize oil sands as an environmental issue. Critics of oil sands note that its production releases much more CO2 into the atmosphere compared with regular crude oil and its tendency to sink in water makes it a particular concern if spilled. Some critics have dubbed it the dirtiest form of oil on earth and advocate an outright ban. The European government is set to consider the issue by June.
 
Oliver, however, complained to IEF delegates that any policy that would discriminate against oil sands would be harmful to the global market and overall energy security. Last year, the global economy was threatened by a loss of crude oil from war-torn Libya, OPEC's No. 7, so sidelining oil sands from Canada could be much more severe.
 
"Our government believes that the free market is the most efficient and cost-effective means to ensure the proper allocation of resources for the development and supply of energy," said Oliver.
 
Just as Obama said there's no "silver bullet" that can magically push U.S. gasoline prices to something American consumers consider fair, there's nothing in a global market that's easily replaced. Singling out Canadian oil means potentially sidelining an oil supply larger than Iran's, something a depressed European economy could hardly stomach. But as with Iranian crude, if the Europeans don't want it, they don't have to buy it. While that's an oversimplification of the issue, the world still needs as much oil as it can get. Europe is embracing a greener economy. But until global economic engines run on something other than petroleum products, when Canadian crude oil is at stake, it's time to just let it flow.

 


- advertisements -

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Tue, 03/20/2012 - 17:51 | Link to Comment macholatte
macholatte's picture

I don't get it.  Why not build some refineries in Detroit instead of making a pipeline to Louisiana and the South?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 17:54 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

It takes 30 years to build one and the ones we have right now can't process it because it's nearly 100% Bitumen, it's tar.  Hence tar sands.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:22 | Link to Comment Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

Are you real? Or just shill? Canada pushes sythetic oil thru the lines, transformed to almost comparable to sweet crude. Just think man! how you push tar over few thousand of miles of pipeline?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:31 | Link to Comment Eally Ucked
Eally Ucked's picture

Thanks

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 21:07 | Link to Comment Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

It's only transported in the extraction process as Dilbit (step 2), but it's sweet synthetic crude when it ships out to the US (step 4)

http://www.cdnoilsands.com/operations/ProductionProcess/default.aspx

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:46 | Link to Comment BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

It's a mix. Some upgraded, some as diluent and bitumen.

The region is remote and not easy to find skilled workers so infrastructure construction there is significantly more expensive. Meanwhile, the majors have their infrastructure in places like chicago or texas already paid for at costs much higher than new pipeline construction.

So: to the extent they can, as much upgrading is done locally as possible. This still does not absorb the production. Canada has no strategic energy plan. If they had a plan, it would make obvious that the governments are highly affected by oil company donations to entrenched parties and that maximum taxpayer value isn't always aligned with maximum multinational oil company value. In Alberta the same party has won successive majorities for over 40 years. The previous government lasted almost as long and most of its supporters were rolled into the current governing party.

Canada is one of the few countries left in the world where there is excess production and it is not secured by national production monopolies. The lack of export methods basically means all production is exported to the US at less than competitive prices.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 00:43 | Link to Comment Ahmeexnal
Ahmeexnal's picture

Send that tar to Portland. They like their black tar out there.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 06:18 | Link to Comment onthesquare
onthesquare's picture

As the politicians have inferred; the economy comes first, the free market will be fed and the environment does not matter.  Sooner or later they will process the dirty elements out of the tar sands and send a slightly cleaner product to the American refineries.  The environmental impact predictions will be reported as insignificant compared to the jobs created and the system will continue as it always has. 

We are not preparing to get rid of the internal combustion engine; not now not ever.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:51 | Link to Comment Ceteris paribus
Ceteris paribus's picture

"Are you real? Or just shill? Canada pushes sythetic oil thru the lines, transformed to almost comparable to sweet crude" One problem with that statement tar sand oil has only about 2.5 million BTU and sweet crude has about 5.5 million BTU per gallon so for fuel it is hard to refine and that is why it is so much cheaper because it makes crap fuel , but as a lubricant it is the best.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:21 | Link to Comment CrashisOptimistic
CrashisOptimistic's picture

Crude has 5.6 million BTUs PER BARREL, not per gallon.  A barrel is 42 gallons.

Oil from oil sands has the same.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 21:10 | Link to Comment Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

It's upgraded to light sweet synthetic crude as good or better than any other.

http://www.cdnoilsands.com/energy-marketing/ProductSpecifications/default.aspx

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:25 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

I correct myself...these guys have the refineries pre built and drop them in a year.  Impressive.

http://www.minirefineries.com/about-quickfaqs

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 06:23 | Link to Comment onthesquare
onthesquare's picture

American and international interest want the nasty stuff left in Canada and want to pull the maximum benefits out of the material to their highest benefit.  Full refineries can be built virtually overnight.  Ask  China to build them.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:27 | Link to Comment oddjob
oddjob's picture

Ever heard of an upgrader?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 21:42 | Link to Comment Carl Spackler
Carl Spackler's picture

Clearly CPL, you are not in the commodities industries, nor are you a geologist.

What form of petroleum is in Alberta is what is coming out of Orinoco...yeah, the place where Hugo Chavez has made his money.

While it doesn't take that long to build a refinery up (logistically speaking). See "Minnesota, Duluth," and "tar sands."

It does take time to get an EPA approval because liberal Democrats don't want middle-class Americans to get beyond their historical political control by having an opportunity for high-paying jobs and upward mobility or, stated otherwise, the pursuit of happiness.

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 21:54 | Link to Comment goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

 BULLSHIT

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:21 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

The only politics there is the corrupt mercantilism supporting a choke point cartel on downstream products.

Democrat, Republican...they're all in the same crony pipeline.  My favorite excuse 'the government' uses for not building more refineries is the environmental pollution argument....that is the tell that Big Oil regularly uses eco-Fascism to maintain artificial scarcity and support high prices (and petro dollar inflation/currency consumption). 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 17:58 | Link to Comment Carvasarus
Carvasarus's picture

Transcanda wants to ship refined product from Louisiana overseas to china.

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:00 | Link to Comment Herkimer Jerkimer
Herkimer Jerkimer's picture

There's a lot of people asking that question in Southern Ontario right now, considering they get their oil from the mid-east. You could ship it right down the St. Lawrence or pipe it south.

Energy self-sufficiency. What a concept, eh?

 

Can you say, "I'm sorry, what are you calling us for, mid-east quasi-dictatorship?"

 

30 years to put up a refinery? 5-7 more like it. They don't want to build one because it would increase supply, and higher prices.

 

Simple math.

 

•J•
V-V

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:15 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

It's not just American and Canadian refineries, it's around 70% of them across the world in the last six months.  

 

So is that a condition of price controls in effect in somewhere like South Africa?  

 

Or is it really a symptom of the underlying supply issue that was expected?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:32 | Link to Comment memyselfiu
memyselfiu's picture

As long as NAFTA exists, Canada is locked in to selling a fixed percentage of all its production, this Keystone stuff is all noise and it's just a matter of time before we're merrily shipping oil to be refined in the US for Asian markets. And guess what else, 30 bucks a barrel more once keystone starts shipping- so much for $2.50 a gallon LOL!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:55 | Link to Comment BobPaulson
BobPaulson's picture

I think it has more to who already has built refineries and that for such large facilities you don't really have a free market. This is the kind of thing Adam Smith warned of. The free market is a neat idea when there are limitless supplies and alternatives. Once logistic issues affect the delivery of a product to market, you see politics and influence peddling controlling things.

There is a big push to get the Gateway Pipeline to Prince Rupert to give free access to competing markets in Asia. It is at least 5 years away IMHO.

The reason we don't sell it to Ontario is because Gulf crude is cheaper for you folks and as I commented above, anything that looks like planning or securing strategic national interests is always panned as communist, and against NAFTA. Locals here in Alberta are easily sold the fear that people from Ottawa are coming to steal our oil. They'd rather willingly give it to Houston. It's an amazing feat of propaganda actually.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 02:19 | Link to Comment Savvy
Savvy's picture

Or a refinery in Alberta and we process our own raw resources.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 17:59 | Link to Comment SHEEPFUKKER
SHEEPFUKKER's picture

Time to liberate the Canucks......

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:14 | Link to Comment jonjon831983
jonjon831983's picture

Failed blueprint:

 

Canadian Bacon

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109370/

 

"The U.S. President, low in the opinion polls, gets talked into raising his popularity by trying to start a cold war against Canada."

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 01:44 | Link to Comment tickhound
tickhound's picture

"Land war would be over in days... claims Salvation Army could kick Canada's ass."

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:53 | Link to Comment prains
prains's picture

Time to liberate the Canucks......

 

please just take Luongo and Kessler

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:10 | Link to Comment Manthong
Manthong's picture

I want to emancipate the Montreal strippers.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:09 | Link to Comment WhackoWarner
WhackoWarner's picture

I assume you hail from the lower 50. How about your clean your own house before you

 come in to give me advice about mine. Liberate yourself. IDIOT

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 02:14 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Hahaha! What a posturing joke. Robert Paulson has you Canuckistanians NAILED!

Enjoy your Police State with some of the lowest royalty rates in the world (~23c CAD/barrel if memory serves) suckers. You kept asking for it, you finally got it, yay! And don't forget to clean up afterwards either. No, no, stop thanking me already, I assure you that I had nothing to do with it, but you're welcome anyway.

PS If you think you've lost all the sovereignty you can with NAFTA, return your seats to the full upright and locked positions: CETA's gonna mop up whatever is left. You getting thirsty yet?

You know, I give USeans who deserve it a rough ride here on ZH, but I'd wager even the most deluded, stupidest of them would never vote for a party with a leader who spews crap like,

"And we cannot be effective at major economic matters any longer unless we work with our economic partners around the world and work with them closely and intimately. That is essential. I know some people don't like it. It is a loss of National Sovereignty but it is a simple reality. It is a simple reality."
- Canuckian PM Stephen Harper

Bonne Chance!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:10 | Link to Comment WhackoWarner
WhackoWarner's picture

Sorry double post

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:06 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

"Our government believes that the free market is the most efficient and cost-effective means to ensure the proper allocation of resources for the development and supply of energy," 

He is correct.  The problem is that there hasn't been a free market in over a hundred years.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:12 | Link to Comment WhackoWarner
WhackoWarner's picture

Another problem with this remark is that it ignores the will of the people

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:07 | Link to Comment jonjon831983
jonjon831983's picture

Got pipeline?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:11 | Link to Comment fonzannoon
fonzannoon's picture

Someone help me out here. This one seems to easy. Why have the Canadian energy income and oil sands plays not risen a lot here?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:20 | Link to Comment CPL
CPL's picture

Because as long as it takes 9 barrels of real energy to process 10 barrels of dirty crude, it'll stay exactly where it is right now.  Until that process is made significantly better all current resources will be used against a very difficult to process and make useful raw material.

 

I'm afraid most of what was sold about the TAR sands, not Oil, is very simple.  You got BreX'ed.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:23 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

There you go.  At least with the deep-well OIL we can still invest a barrel of energy and get almost three back.  Thermodynamics is a bitch like that.  When i try to explain to people why TAR sands will only be aggresively pursued after oil is $200 per barrel, they try to remember every political talking point the MSM has ever stated.  Facts, no so much.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:36 | Link to Comment GoldmanSux
GoldmanSux's picture

Are you kidding? Not agressively pursued? It's been the biggest capital expenditure project on the continent for over a decade and the production increase reflects that. Production will further double by 2020.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:46 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

 Remind us, for all that "biggest capital expenditure" how much of the oil on the world market comes from tar sands again?  Is it even more than 3% yet?  Production is fucking irrelevant to the corporate world, profit is what matters.  My point is simply that expensive oil makes tar sands, profitable, but then the whole diminishing returns thing becomes a problem with fiats dying around the world.  I'd bet on fusion reactors before oil from tar sands makes up even 20% of the international market. 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:06 | Link to Comment GoldmanSux
GoldmanSux's picture

Yes, it's getting close to 3%, and 25% of US imports, going to 50%. Good luck with your fusion investment.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:10 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

LOL!  Ignoring the water issue, the dollar and the American "market" is becoming less relevant every day.  Good luck with the tars sands.  If you are saying the world will use tar sands, then I am glad I bet on the energy companies I did, but they are investing in a lot more than tar sands. 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 00:29 | Link to Comment GoldmanSux
GoldmanSux's picture

I can't follow what you're trying to express frankly. You said it would never become a big production zone. It's been one for 10 years. It's made Canada the number 1 U.S. supplier of imported oil and the spread with number 2 is widening by the day, never to reverse.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 02:10 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Yeah, I'm not sure what he's on about either. Last I heard the tarsands were profitable at ~40CAD/bbl, and that's including the price of the joke of the Oil producing nations royalty rates and the joke of the dirt munchers 'reclamation' costs.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:48 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Sorry, that is just not going to happen.  To even maintain production over the next few years will become even more difficult due to the lack of freshwater availability.

Study shows fresh-water levels in rapid decline with implications for Alberta oil-sands industry

http://www.tarsandswatch.org/study-shows-fresh-water-levels-rapid-decline-implications-alberta-oil-sands-industry

 

Obviously water for this mining process is a rate limiting step, and perhaps Albertans might just want some water for themselves.

Oil sands mining is licensed to use twice the amount of fresh water that the entire city of Calgary uses in a year. The water requirements for oil sands projects range from 2.5 to 4.0 barrels of water for each barrel of oil produced.

 

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:57 | Link to Comment LawsofPhysics
LawsofPhysics's picture

And then there that, but hey, maybe we can burn some oil to generate some power to desalinize some ocean water - FAIL.  Diminishing returns and the failure of humankind to accept knowledge and truth or understand what exponential equations really mean for growth relative to resources. 

The fucking noise from bullshit make-believe propaganda machines is starting to make the real signal difficult to see. 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:02 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

It's virtually only when people have to eat their neighbours dog and maybe even their neighbour out of desperation that they'll wake up.  For now it's back to dancing with the stars, until hyperinflation makes it impossible for me to even pay my cable bill.  Sons of bitches!

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 04:18 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

Diminishing returns and the failure of humankind to accept knowledge

_______________________________________________

Ah, humanity. US citizen hijacking human beings.

No, the denial comes from US citizens, not humanity.

Even if, admittedly, for US citizens, most of those who did not comply are subhumans or non humans.

Resources when handled by US citizens, is handled the US citizenism way. Because US citizen nature is eternal.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:14 | Link to Comment GoldmanSux
GoldmanSux's picture

It most certainly will. I'm sorry, but tarsandswatch.org is not a source of facts, but of propoganda. Most of future production growth comes from the SAGD process, not mining.

http://www.aosc.com/corporate-overview/technology.html

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:53 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

SAGD typically uses water from deep reservoirs.  Taken right from their website.  Oh but Calgarians wouldn't want to drink freshwater from reservoirs would they?

The quantity and use of water in Alberta has become a high-profile issue due to many factors. The consecutive years of drought, dwindling water supplies and the rapid growth and expansion of industries and population in Alberta have all played a role in increasing the demand on Alberta's water supply, thereby raising stakeholder concern about the supply of water for the future.[25] As part of its Water for Life – Alberta's Strategy for Sustainability, the Alberta government is currently assessing water demands and at the watershed level.[26] The Senate Committee on Environment and Natural Resources expressed particular interested in these issues during a recent hearing with the Honourable John Efford, Minister of Natural Resources Canada.

 

In mining projects, water is used create a slurry of the oil sand ore that is then transported by pipeline to the extraction plant where more water is added and the bitumen is separated the from the sand. Water is also used in integrated operations to upgrade the bitumen to synthetic crude oil. About 70 percent of water is recycled, leaving a balance of two to three barrels of water being used to produce one barrel of synthetic crude oil.[28]

 

http://www.nrcan.gc.ca/sustainable-development/freshwater/2543

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 00:16 | Link to Comment GoldmanSux
GoldmanSux's picture

Calgarians most certainly don't want to drink out of water reservoirs that are a nine hour drive away. They are quite happy with their water supply from two rivers coming from the Rocky mountains within sight of the city.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 02:03 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Yeah, Ft.McMurray is around 8 hours away north at highway speeds; you can fit how many Texases (Texi?) in Alberta again? Anyway, pretty safe distance from Mordor, no doubt.  OTOH, the natty heating your 4,000 square ft. cardboard box construction homes comes from much closer by, no? Have the fracking co.'s conceded to disclose what's in their 'secret sauce' yet?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:58 | Link to Comment Ceteris paribus
Ceteris paribus's picture

Well who gives a fuck if we turn Alberta into one great taling pond , the canadians dont so why should we .

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 01:06 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

Exactly.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 21:50 | Link to Comment Carl Spackler
Carl Spackler's picture

After this Winter's snow up North (due to a South American ocean current), they'll be drowning in water come June, July, August, and September.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 14:50 | Link to Comment Canaduh
Canaduh's picture

ORLY? I'm in the agriculture business in northern Alberta, and the snow level is one of the lowest ever, and the last few years have been some of the driest in my life, so please don't be insulted when I call you a misinformed idiot.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:39 | Link to Comment samsara
samsara's picture

What's two times zero?

What do they produce today? A million, two three a day? THe US it's self inhales 18 million a day.

using a colorful country saying

'It ain't Fly Shit on a Cannonball"

Double by 2020?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 21:32 | Link to Comment Fedophile
Fedophile's picture

9 barrels of to make 10? Tell me are you simply ignorant or a zellos eco-nut?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:57 | Link to Comment hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

(Shaking head and deep sigh)

 

"In conclusion, tar sands are an economically and energetically viable, although hardly ideal, approach to maintaining liquid fuel supplies. The most severe problem is probably their local and global environmental impact, and they are already impacting Canadian CO2 releases significantly. But the tar sands are unlikely to make a large impact on overall supply of liquid fuels because their supply is likely to be rate, rather than total resource limited. If the maximum rate were to grow to about 2 billion barrels a year this would approximately meet Canada’s demand and could leave relatively little for export if Canada’s production of conventional oil continues to decline. Achieving even this rate of production from tar sands is uncertain because of growing concerns about environmental impacts downstream and insufficient hydrogen and water."

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839

The EROI on tar sands is open for debate, you have to include all the energy expended to produce the oil  Gail Tverberg did a pretty good analysis on this issue but I cannot find it at this time. All in it is very expensive oil to produce and it is flow rate restricted.  If I recall correctly, the current break even point is around nintyfive dollars a barrel. that was last year(or maybe the year before.... sorry, wish I could just cite the article, it was well done) , the process is becoming more efficient, so perhaps that is better today.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:18 | Link to Comment R_Soles
R_Soles's picture

It's not and never was tar sands doofus, they are OIL Sands-the oil is in the sand.

If the socialist French et al don't want it. Fuckem they can pay 23 euros a gallon and riot for all I care. All i know is car sales in China will be 20m this year and they don't have any superiority problems about using plentiful oil. Canada will just sell to them. Eventually the Europeans can sing kumbaya while they freeze in the dark

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 06:35 | Link to Comment onthesquare
onthesquare's picture

because it is the "free market"

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:22 | Link to Comment Diet Coke and F...
Diet Coke and Floozies's picture

Oh you don't want our oil Europe? Ok. No Problem. I'm sure we can find another buyer somewhere...

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:30 | Link to Comment Let them eat iPads
Let them eat iPads's picture

The Chinese will take it, they love filth.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:44 | Link to Comment Diet Coke and F...
Diet Coke and Floozies's picture

Exactly. Green is great until you have to change lifestyle...

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:44 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

.

European leaders are considering a measure that would classify oil sands as an environmental issue, prompting Canada to threaten to take the issue to the World Trade Organization.

Another uneducated idiot.

Yes, it is self-evident that production from oil sands is an "environmental issue" --- but that does NOT necessarily or automatically imply that it is an environmental problem!

Would you damned ignoramuses learn the difference between the words "issue" and "problem" already?  The two words are in NO WAY synonymous!

"Issue" = a subject or topic of discussion; a matter under consideration

"Problem" = a matter involving doubt, uncertainty or especially difficulty

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:54 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

For the EU Politburo, "issue" is invariably policy and that policy is de-industrialization and energy scarcity courtesy of the carbon tax.

Not unlike in NA with Obama's canceling Keystone and other projects it will soon all be about reducing energy freedom and establishing a more integrated energy (feudal serf) grid.

As demonstrated in Europe recently with the carbon taxes to be imposed on airlines...a carbon tax to combat Global Warming...isn't it?

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/international-business/Europ...

Makes me think TPTB have seen the movie Total Recall too many times and when they are not geo-engineering (Hello Chemtrails!) they are social engineering (Mars Need Air!)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5x9HXwlkBo

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:24 | Link to Comment DarthVaderMentor
DarthVaderMentor's picture

What do you mean at the cusp? It's already an energy and minerals superpower. It just hasn't priced it in their exports yet.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:25 | Link to Comment Yellowhoard
Yellowhoard's picture

The answer is obvious.

We put windmills on cars.

The faster we drive, the more electricity we produce!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:03 | Link to Comment FinalCollapse
FinalCollapse's picture

You must be kidding...

The windmill on top of the car will be producing electricity because it will be a drag, for which your car's engine will have to work harder to compensate for. 

In your next life, please do not drop out of the elementary school...

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:00 | Link to Comment Ceteris paribus
Ceteris paribus's picture

It was a joke !

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:25 | Link to Comment IrritableBowels
IrritableBowels's picture

Idiot.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 03:12 | Link to Comment Harbanger
Harbanger's picture

Mary Moon.  She drives a wind car....but she doesn't eat meat.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4-BfZnNnks

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:25 | Link to Comment haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

I know few of you clowns will ever find yourself in a Canadian Forest and really, why would you want to go to the tundra anyway.... However, have you seen some of the settling ponds in Alberta? Home of the majority of oil sands?

All of the largest companies are making a hell hole out of that providence.

Yet again, who the fuck cares about the middle of nowhere anyway?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:33 | Link to Comment Sockeye
Sockeye's picture

I've been on the ground and on site in Ft Mac. I've also seen it from 30000ft. It really is a numbingly monstrous eyesore. Most who work there are also genuinely proud of the scale and pleased to be part of something so big.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:44 | Link to Comment haskelslocal
haskelslocal's picture

No gripe towards the workers or their proud respect for what they do nor for the overall sense of purpose derived from participation. A paycheck is a paycheck afterall and I'm sure there's a sense of dignity held by many.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:44 | Link to Comment akak
akak's picture

I have flown over the region on numerous occasions, and I can tell you that I was dumbfounded at what I saw. The PROFOUND environmental devastation in Alberta must be seen to be believed --- which is perhaps why so few images of it are ever seen, or even to be found online.  I suspect that that region is going to be damaged and poisoned for many decades if not centuries to come, most particularly the groundwater.  But hey, we've got the casually wasteful lifestyles of soccer moms in Hummers and SUVs who have to drive their fat and spoiled brats every fucking place instead of making them get an erg of exercise by God-forbid walking, and wage slaves with 60-mile one-way, one-passenger commutes to subsidize, not to mention a monstrously bloated oil-sucking worldwide military imperial machine to keep rolling --- what's a few tens of thousands of square miles of environmental destruction compared to the infinite value of that?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:02 | Link to Comment prains
prains's picture

don't be fooled by the oil companies spin on reclaiming the land either, as their cure all for all the damage. University of Alberta researchers have shown conclusively that the reclamation of mined land does in NO way match the existing ecosystem, just man made forest that holds no appreciable water for wetlands. 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 06:42 | Link to Comment onthesquare
onthesquare's picture

But I have seen the TV commercials.  They tell us they are growing forests on top of the spoiled land and that...wait there goes a squirrel!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:24 | Link to Comment gmrpeabody
gmrpeabody's picture

So..., you're saying that I should worry about building a position in SU.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:18 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Yup.  It's large scale and dirty.  Here's a National Geographic article from 2009 complete with slideshow

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/kunzig-text

http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2009/03/canadian-oil-sands/essick-phot...

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:56 | Link to Comment misnomer
misnomer's picture

Yet, we Canadians will still pay way more at the pump, our own government will find some way of screwing this up...trust me.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 02:00 | Link to Comment GoinFawr
GoinFawr's picture

What do expect after giving majority gov'ts to the oxymoronic abomination calling themselves 'The Progressive Conservatives". WTF?

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:29 | Link to Comment Lost Wages
Lost Wages's picture

Tar Sands are an abomination.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:38 | Link to Comment ThisIsBob
ThisIsBob's picture

Less so than gangs of rabid diaperheads.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:10 | Link to Comment Dr. Engali
Dr. Engali's picture

Friggen red diaper doper babies bitch about peak oil and the fact we are running out of energy but then they try to suppress extraction of any kind.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:26 | Link to Comment TMT
TMT's picture

Why?

My unicorn powered car didn't fire up this morning, so I had to drive my big ass SUV to work.  I liked it.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:26 | Link to Comment TMT
TMT's picture

Why?

My unicorn powered car didn't fire up this morning, so I had to drive my big ass SUV to work.  I liked it.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:54 | Link to Comment WhackoWarner
WhackoWarner's picture

You are right about that. But Alberta is gung ho for this economic driver.  Seen the commercials lately where the WOMAN (read warm and fuzzy mother earth) engineer shows clips of the oil sands extraction from underneath a pristine forest? There is a great deal of money being spent on advertising here in BC  touting the "cleaned-up" extraction.

This atricle refers to the current gov't minister foregoing, as public policy, any approval process to get this oil to market somewhere. Currently there are ongoing, legislated hearings regarding the approval of the Northern Gateway pipeline. The current gov't appears to be paying no attention to this democtratic process.

The population of Northern BC is uniformly against this . WE Shall see.  This issue may bring down our current arrogant government. One can only hope. THEY want to run a pipeline through some of the  last prisitine natural wilderness on the planet. Then they want to run hundreds of super tankers through some of the most treacherous waters in the world.

Give our collective head's a shake.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:06 | Link to Comment Ceteris paribus
Ceteris paribus's picture

Come to Alberta and see what a real shit hole looks like .

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:22 | Link to Comment WhackoWarner
WhackoWarner's picture

BC may see it soon enough.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:29 | Link to Comment FranSix
FranSix's picture

To give you an idea what B.C. is like, they banned all uranium exploration.  At one time, it was the source of heavy water and uranium in the 1940's.  You can't build a hydroelectric power dam in this province, even though the province has one of the best river valleys in the world for this kind of production. (Stikine)

They turned down the Prosperity copper project several times now.  Its a mining province, but is so unfriendly to mining that you would rather bet on Venezuela, or Cuba, hoping for the untimley demise of either Chavez or Castro.  B.C. also has one of the greatest untapped supplies of natural gas.

But it is one of the last frontiers in the world where native land claims remain unsettled to this day.  Films turned in the 1920's still depict the First Nations going about their lives in their costumes and carved boats.  They look a little like Hawaiian First Nations mixed with Mayans.  They're gone now, but their totems are still extant. 

Consider it a proto-California, largely unsettled, but lost to urban vegans wearing awful socks with their sandals.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:01 | Link to Comment goldfish1
goldfish1's picture

Thank God.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:30 | Link to Comment Matt
Matt's picture

Why should we take on the risks involved without substantial compensation and a major government backstop?

I say we (BC) should get at least $10 per barrel for any oil pipelines going out to sea, and the Federal Government should set up a $300 Billion contingency fund for cleaning up oil spills. I mean, they backstopped mortgages $600 Billion, so why not oil pipelines?

Of course, there are tons of hardline environmentalists out here who will chain themselves to trees, bulldozers, etc and even a few willing to blow stuff up. A lot of Americans who fled here during the Vietnam era, amongst them. Even with money and programs in place to clean up spills, they will fight the pipeline tooth and nail.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 12:33 | Link to Comment IrritableBowels
IrritableBowels's picture

So a pristine landscape is something to scoff at now? Wtf have we become? Why don't you come up here to eastern mt / western nd and have a shot of the well water that 'used' to be drinkable prior to all the fracking.

WHAT A FUCKTARD

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:38 | Link to Comment gwar5
gwar5's picture

If Europe doesn't want Canadian oil then they don't have to use it. If oil upsets their delicate sensitivities so much why don't they shut down Norway's oil fields and stop asking everybody else to kill Arabs for it?  Let's see how tough they really are.

The Liberty Rig, biggest oil Rig in the world, is set to tap Gull Island and the Alaskan North Slope oil which is legendary. Said to have more proven reserves than all of Saudi but they were capped in the 1970's to sandbag. Maybe hard one to swallow, but then why the record rig? Google it. What are the effetes going to say about that? 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:02 | Link to Comment WhackoWarner
WhackoWarner's picture

History will not be kind to all of this.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 21:01 | Link to Comment Baleful Runes 4 U
Baleful Runes 4 U's picture

www.offshore-technology.com/projects/liberty-project/

"British Petroleum's (BP) Liberty offshore oilfield is located four miles off the northern coast of Alaska in Foggy Island Bay in the Beaufort Sea. The estimated recoverable reserves of the oilfield are approximately 100 million barrels of oil "

yeah, given that the US uses almost 20 million barrels a day, that is FIVE DAYS of oil

haha

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:42 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

In the spirit of free market enterprise and technological competition they should really open that field to Russian deep well drillers as well.

Have a contest where whomever recovers the most from the first four wells and establishes the real proven reserves at depth is then entitled to the majority of the well-head profits from the field....

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 04:33 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

The estimated recoverable reserves of the oilfield are approximately 100 million barrels of oil

_____________________________________________

It dwarves saudi estimated reserves indeed.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:44 | Link to Comment azzhatter
azzhatter's picture

Oh for fucks sake, just ignore those fucking euro morons. Those assholes would be putting sails on top of their Priuses if Brussels told them to. What a disgusting weak livered spectacle Europe has become. The fact they allow the raping of sovereignty just to appease a bunch of bitches in Brussels makes me think they've all become cunts.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:58 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

What are you howling on about, both the U.S. and Canada are next in line anyway for our "please take all my sovereignty sir"  We'll all be giving it up to the IMF and the UN soon enough.  So all of us due the banking elite and crony politicians will be put in the same place as the Greeks and soon to be most everyone else.  Resource wars will abound and slaves to the feudal system will many become.  So stop your bitchin and grab a pitchfork, cause you got some horseshit and hay to clean up!

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:06 | Link to Comment WhackoWarner
WhackoWarner's picture

Perhaps sails on a Prius is where our collective intelligence should be focused. Perhaps local economies should be fostered. Perhaps we have gone down the wrong path here. Perhaps we need to rethink this all.

However, your mind is closed.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 18:52 | Link to Comment Bunga Bunga
Bunga Bunga's picture

"oil from Canada that we deserve"

 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 19:32 | Link to Comment RoadKill
RoadKill's picture

Canada should do what Aust has done and sell itself to China.  Those guys don't give two shits what the UN, IMF or World Bank think.  I'm not a huge China fan, and I do think the China miracle is due for a set back or two (and the inevitable transition to Democracy will be painful) BUT I do love watching them shit on world Technocrats.

Oh and their IS a silver bullet to lowering oil prices.  Open every single piece of federal land - onshore and offshore - to drilling, fraccing and pipelines.  Keep royalties, land lease prices and taxes reasonable.  Remove some of the least effective, most onerous safty and fuel mix requirements.  I used to own a Geo Metro that got 70 MPG 20 YEARS AGO so a 100 MPG car could be done today if we didn't require our cars to be tanks that shit flowers.  Remove all land from the federal refuge programs and let anyone that wants to grow corn or sawgrass for ethanol farm it.  Finally, get rid of bans on ethanol imports.  And while we are at it - it takes 3 years to build a refinery or power plant in China - but 5-7 years and 3x more $ here.  We should be able to do something about that - rather then worrying about CO2 boiler regulations.

Put togeather, those ANNOUNCEMENTS would take $1 off gas prices.  US has SHIT TONS of shale oil.  If we allow it to be developed the way shale gas was, in 5 years the US will be producing 10mm bbls/day.

Also, I don't like ANY government subsidies.  But getting our truck fleet on CNG would decrease US oil demand by 25%.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:25 | Link to Comment WhackoWarner
WhackoWarner's picture

Too right. Let's let them milk the profits until the last penny. And leave nothing.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:08 | Link to Comment FranSix
FranSix's picture

Placentia Bay

http://www.altiusminerals.com/nlrc.php

Let those Eastern Bastards freeze in the dark.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:44 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

...Ohh, Danny Boy

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:32 | Link to Comment AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

Canada

you can come  peacefully

or

... 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:34 | Link to Comment AN0NYM0US
AN0NYM0US's picture

and then there is all that crystal clear icey cold water

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 20:48 | Link to Comment FranSix
Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:14 | Link to Comment CollectiveAction
CollectiveAction's picture

No, it is time to cut off the flow.  Entirely.  The unrestrained exploitation of the oil sands may well result in runaway climate change and a world that will be largely uninhabitable for our species.  Those who cherish our addiction to fossil fuels love to claim that we have no alternative but to consume fossil fuels.  The converse is true -- that we have no alternative but to end our addiction to them.  As rapidly as possible.  Alternatives to fossil-fuel dependency exist, but the pursuit of those alternatives will require massive public and private investment and a collective determination to alter fundamentally the way in which we live.  These goals are achievable.  Those who tell us otherwise are soothsayers who are leading us down a path of self-destruction. 

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:12 | Link to Comment hardcleareye
hardcleareye's picture

Oh to be so idealistic.... again, your post made me smile.

But you have forgotten to consider on very important variable,,,,,

 GREED,,,,

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:50 | Link to Comment palmereldritch
palmereldritch's picture

Sounds like you have a myth addiction.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 01:47 | Link to Comment Savyindallas
Savyindallas's picture

Yes  -we must stop the exploition of the oil sands. What a tragedy. Why must we not exploit the oil sands? Why do we exploit black people? Black men need to have sex with your white daughters. It's necessary to give them self esteem after years of white racist oppression. Why do we force poor jewish kids to be subjected to insenstitive Christian kids who want to pray at school? Don't you think Dick Fuld's kids have enough pressure on them after Dick's $30 mllion annual salary got cut off? Jews have been subjected to Christian tyranny for centuries.  True-the Holohoax may be a grosssly exaggerated fraud, but don't blame Jewish kids  -they sincerely beieve that it was real. Ellie the Weasel is one of their heroes  -seriously. Your daughters should also have sex with jews also - otherwise they will think we do not like them. And you will also be considered an anti-semite. I don't think you want that to happen. The bottom line is that if you believe in the exploitation of the oil sands, you are likely a racist bigot and an anti-semite. If that is the case, you should give your daughter up for sex with a large black man, or  pencil nosed jew with a small dick.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:30 | Link to Comment kito
kito's picture

The extraction of oil from the sands reminds me of the foolishness of vigorously fanning yourself on a hot day.....

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 22:34 | Link to Comment Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

Let's examine this from the other side. Go ask the teenage school girl at the Tim Hortons drive through window in Fort McMurray if she will give up her job that pays $15-18/hour to help save the planet. Tell her she can move back to Calgary and work for $12/hour and she will be doing the world a great service. Oh, and she has to move back to the city on her own at her expense... just to save the world, ya know?

Try telling the 22 year old guy that never got past grade 10 that he should give up his $100,000/year ++ job in Ft. Mac because he's aiding the environmental destruction of Alberta and the world. Offer him a job for 1/2 those wages in some other city. See if he takes it.

Workers from all over the world are chomping at the bit to go work in Alberta. All the environmental groups don't stand a chance when they're competing with 20 year olds driving new $80,000 4x4's.

You think I'm kidding? I live here and see it daily. I'm not claiming to have just "flown over" the area. Companies in Calgary have permanent "hiring signs" on their front yards. Those signs have been there for YEARS! Welding shops can't keep even the most rookie welders. They always go to Ft. Mac so they can earn 3 times the money they make in the city. And that's just one example.

It doesn't matter what the world thinks about Alberta's tar sands. A 20 year old kid could be retired by 35 if he played his cards right, and have one hell of nest egg to ride out the rest of their lives. Politicians and environmentalists can't compete with that.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:29 | Link to Comment weyes1
weyes1's picture

With a name like McHugepenis, you had to be a canuck.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:59 | Link to Comment Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

It was my mother's maiden name.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 03:05 | Link to Comment ruffles
ruffles's picture

As an electrician having worked there a couple years, I can attest that what he says about Ft. Mac is indeed true, despite his poor mother's name.

Viva Alberta! It's fucking freezing half of the year but at least our province is solvent! ... and we'd be debt-free too if it wasnt for the equalization payments to liberal bleeding-heart Eastern bitches

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 01:26 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Sure the money's great, however, with extensive environmental destruction and resource depletion, what the hell is he going to spend his money on.  Everything even without money printing would be a helluva lot more expensive, and a supernatural deity only knows the population we might have to try and sustain if oil consumption not just production kept pace.  Shortsightedness and stupidity catch most of us in the end, but than again stupidity should be painful.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 02:56 | Link to Comment Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

Is your purpose here to discuss "supernatural deity's" or to educate the ZH crowd on how "painful" stupidity can be?

You want to know what a 20 year old making $100,000/year spends their money on? ASK them. Ooops, I guess you can't, because you've never lived beside such a person. So you must speculate about what it is like.

Slip a cunt over your head and go fuck some sense into yourself.

Tue, 03/20/2012 - 23:35 | Link to Comment jackinrichmond
jackinrichmond's picture

don't other oil export countries subsidize their national gas prices ? ( saudi arabia, venezuella, etc.)  

first canadian politician that promises to recycle some of canada's petroleum profits back into canadian gas prices gets my vote ! 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 00:46 | Link to Comment kennard
kennard's picture

As a branch of international socialism, radical environmentalism's objective is not to save the planet, but rather to bring the economy to its knees and thereby gain political control. In the petroleum industry, the recent examples are opposition to both gas fracking and the development of the Alberta oil sands. The Keystone issue overlays socialism's alliance with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. The Gulf Coast heavy oil refineries were constructed decades ago to refine Venezuela's heavy crude. Alberta's heavy oil would displace Venezuela's heavy crude. Chavez would be left with no refining capacity for his type of crude. This is an unstated reason why the Obama administration and other sub rosa friends of Hugo Chavez/Fidel Castro oppose construction of the Keystone pipeline. Interest groups in British Columbia, to include the aboriginals, are simply interested in extorting the maximum financial toll. U.S. interest groups, including environmental foundations, while titularly concerned with environmental concerns, are actually pro-socialist, anti-growth, supporting the Obama administration position and attempting to undermine Canada's Conservative federal government. These groups have supplied substantial financial, strategic and technical support to Canadian pressure groups, some of who were not even slightly concerned about the oil sands until someone in New York told them that they should be and handed them a cheque.

Consider the hysterical and illogical comments above and consider that:

(a) most environmental concerns about the Alberta oil sands rest on the quicksand of the rapidly self-immolating pseudo-science of AGW;

(b) simple math demonstrates that production of the entire proven oil sands reserves would not appreciably affect ground water levels available to Alberta farming;

(c) reclamation works and will be enforced; and

(d) the Europeans who oppose oil sands development are the same people whose welfare states are driving themselves into bankruptcy. Who would want to emmulate them?

It's the twenty-something in Fort McMurray who has it together.

Google "Fort McMurray jobs".

 

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 02:45 | Link to Comment Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

kennard: As Slim Pickens said to Harvey Corman in Blazing Saddles:

"You use your tongue better than a $20 whore".

Bravo for your very accurate piece.

 

"It's the twenty-something in Fort McMurray who has it together".

I think you just confirmed what I said in a previous post.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 01:51 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Those twenty somethings are just provided an opportunity here in Canada, that may not be available in every European country that so called rejected tar sands development.  If I'm not mistaken both the US and Canada have awfully significant welfare states as well, perhaps you just overlooked that one.

I don't know if you're a scientist or not, but using logic without an education or knowledge of the subject matter only places your own comments into both the hysterical and illogical.  Tell me, does a physicist with all their training equal that of a PhD chemist or even vice versa.  I spot a great deal of generalizations in your comments, and the old saying goes "To generalize is to be an idiot".  Funny thing all those native Americans and native Canadians who were well here before the white man and any other immigrant for that matter certainly didn't appear at least according to their history desire to bring an economy to it's kness and harness political control.  Perhaps it is not they but you who have taken things to an extreme and seem to think you can shit in your house, your front and back yard, poison it, pollute it, all the while damaging your internal ecology as well as the environment you live in and carry on like the shit doesn't matter.

If the math is so simple than perhaps you should explain it yourself to those concerned in Alberta, cause obviously you have all the answers, or so you seem to suggest.  You certainly have made lots and lots of accusations, and of course you might win in the court of public opinion, but provide your proof otherwise cause opinions are really moot if they can't be backed up by facts.  All you have stated is a position, so defend it.  Making a statement does not make it so.  As well this whole socialistic talk is not the real issue.  Capitalism is frank individualism, or if I do it in Africa it's called entrepreneurial exploitation of resources.  Capitalism's idea was great at first, but then it became a kind of narcissistic power structure and struggle between individuals, community and countries.  Progress has come at an awful price, as many vie now for growing ourselves literally to death, although obliviously.  These are not political issues, they are power issues, but of course they won't probably be resolved via mutual respect, but through mutually assured destruction.  And just like Pizza the Hut, we will, due to resource limits, destroy capitalism, and irrational compulsive consumerism by eating ourselves to death.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 02:44 | Link to Comment Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

Toxicosis (whatever): You're already barfing in the toilet with that diatribe. Finish it off by slamming your head with the toilet seat. Reach for the handle to your left and complete the transaction.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 03:13 | Link to Comment Toxicosis
Toxicosis's picture

Well once again a non-intelligent response.  Your analysis is quite exceptional. Perhaps I can attend your school of thought and learn not to apply critical thinking and instead insist on emotional and dismissive impulses like that of an awkward child in need of a sense of direction coupled with intellectual laziness and a lack of self determination and appropriate discrimination.

Good luck with your continued and oblivious consumption, but here's a little food for thought.  It won't go down well, but perhaps a beer and a stogie may help it along.

http://monthlyreview.org/2009/11/01/the-paradox-of-wealth-capitalism-and-ecological-destruction

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 03:46 | Link to Comment Angus McHugepenis
Angus McHugepenis's picture

Blah, blah, blah. You pseudo intellectuals are fodder for anyone who actually works for a living, or creates and builds things.

What was the last thing you ever used your hands for other than jerking off?

I'm always laughing at "educated" fools that have no idea about real life and what it is like to be 20 years old working in remote areas of the world. You use phrases like, "Well once again a non-intelligent response". I burst out laughing at that old trick!

Continue pontificating and I'll pass the torch of abuse to another ZH participant should they be so inclined. I gotta run now... I've gotta go rape another oil field. But first I've gotta kick a few farmers off their land.

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 04:26 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

(b) simple math demonstrates that production of the entire proven oil sands reserves would not appreciably affect ground water levels available to Alberta farming;

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

the same simple math that gives infinite growth?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 03:44 | Link to Comment Lore
Lore's picture

"European leaders in March were unable to reach a decision on whether or not to characterize oil sands as an environmental issue. "

European leaders are hobbled mentally by indoctrination spun off from Agenda 21, the "Green Agenda." Don't expect rational decisionmaking when their minds are already clouded by contrived sugarplum visions of Austerity That's Good for You.

http://www.postsustainabilityinstitute.org/what-is-un-agenda-21.html

Which is more galling - that our elected officials pay these types any mind, or that the public continues to refuse to educate itself?

"Critics of oil sands note that its production releases much more CO2 into the atmosphere compared with regular crude oil and its tendency to sink in water makes it a particular concern if spilled."

OILSANDS HAVE BEEN SEEPING FROM RIVERBANKS IN NORTHERN ALBERTA FOR EONS. Funny how the partisan scumbag groups always fail to mention that in their claims about two-headed fish and spill risk and everything else.

Rgds

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 04:31 | Link to Comment AnAnonymous
AnAnonymous's picture

OILSANDS HAVE BEEN SEEPING FROM RIVERBANKS IN NORTHERN ALBERTA FOR EONS. Funny how the partisan scumbag groups always fail to mention that in their claims about two-headed fish and spill risk and everything else.

_______________________________________________

Same US citizen line of thought that give somehow that human beings (or more exactly US citizens) are unable to impact the environment.

So lets see it throug common sense: if indeed the natural seeping flows were to match the US citizen caused flows, what should be the terminal point?

Because right now, there are oilsands, plentifully.

After US citizen treatment, it will be the same?

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 06:20 | Link to Comment cnhedge
cnhedge's picture

there's no way the ban could come through.  

http://www.cnhedge.com/

http://www.jinrongbaike.com/

Wed, 03/21/2012 - 06:53 | Link to Comment overmedicatedun...
overmedicatedundersexed's picture

kennard, well written..eco socialists will bring up the impact on polar bears soon, even though none live there.

so many desire the pristine north..as I have prospected in northern BC (atlin) you come quickly to understand why most eco sob-ists could never survive there without major support from the group tour types who promote "Pristine" as a good thing. in fact man must always change the environment to survive.

those who choose to call the far north home..know that life there for men is very hard - living and working there depends on using the land. most humans will never see or be affected by evironmental changes in the great white north man made or not. The Earth survived multiple giant physical changes that man could never impact. It will certainly survive scraping .1% of the top of it's crust by man. If you want to return earth to it's natural state you have no idea what you are asking for.

Do NOT follow this link or you will be banned from the site!