Liberal three huggers and the Keystone pipeline

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Here is what I know.

Virtually EVERYTHING around you is made with some oil byproduct.
If you control oil, you rule the world.

So when Saddam decided to nationalize his oil production while under sanctions, he became a terrorist sympathizer and was a threat to freedom around the world.

When Chavez decided to nationalize his oil production and cut out the US big oil cats, he also became a tyrant and an other evil freedom threatening bum.

When 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers turned out to be from Muslim fanatic Saudi Arabia.....well nothing happened because they already are controlled by US big oil.

Wanna be a good Canadian who ships his jobs snd money down the tube to the USA?
You better, or Canada will suddenly be accused of harboring terrorists and weapons of mass destruction.

It's simply ridiculous to think that shipping cheap crude to Texas, so they can extract resin and truck it back up to us is somehow going to be cheaper than extracting the resin here, keeping what we need, and selling the rest to the USA and others at premium price.

Our once thriving Canadian manufacturing industry is now dead.
This could very well bring it back......if they weren't so busy painting anyone who opposes selling cheap crude as a tree hugging liberal.

What kind of work do you do in the energy field?

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Keeping the oil here and refining it here would create hundreds of thousands of jobs here in Canada.

Building and manning the following:
- Oil refineries
- Tire factories
- Factories for anything made of plastics.
- Candle making factories.

The list of jobs created by keeping the cheap crude here is endless.

And we are told only three hugging liberals oppose that Keystone?

Well, I for one am considering proudly wearing the three hugger liberal label if it's going to help Canadian economy that much.

OK, now take off the rose coloured glasses and look at the reality. Building a refinery is not all that easy because it is one of those NIMBY issues. You want one built but you don't really want to live near it. Nobody does. The next issue is that a refinery takes oil in and produces many products that then require shipping. So generally refineries are built near demand. To this end putting one in Alberta is unlikely to happen and unrealistic if one is so inclined. Southern Ontario is the most reasonable spot to locate one. But the Lieberals in Ontario are not real keen on oil and they have the most expensive energy and labour costs on the continent.
By the way, the reason manufacturing generally fails in Canada is because although most governments claim to be pro business, they then raise corporate taxes, raise energy costs, increase regulation (labour, environmental, taxation etc) all of which make operating a manufacturing business in Canada more expensive than operating it elsewhere.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by JamesB

By the way, the reason manufacturing generally fails in Canada is because although most governments claim to be pro business, they then raise corporate taxes, raise energy costs, increase regulation (labour, environmental, taxation etc) all of which make operating a manufacturing business in Canada more expensive than operating it elsewhere.

And they say I am anti-government?

[hal53]

Originally Posted by Pepe

And they say I am anti-government?

That's not anti-government,, those are facts.....

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by hal53

That's not anti-government,, those are facts.....

Pepe is more of an idealist then I am. reason and idealism don't necessarily mix as you know

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by JamesB

The next issue is that a refinery takes oil in and produces many products that then require shipping.

Yeah, because the oil itself doesn't need to be shipped down to Texas. It's just going to walk itself down there on it's own.

Look, shipping could be greatly minimized if the oil is refined here. If the USA wants diesel and China wants plastic resin, than it gets split up right here. And shipped direct to where it's needed.

And I really don't think two dozen environmentalist protesters in Vancouver carry any weight at all. They suddenly carry a lot of weight when it's about keeping our money here. But carry no weight at all when it involves giving up all our cheap crude to the USA.

If you think protesters mean anything to anyone, go down to town hall and organize a protest with a 100 gun owners. You will soon find out protests only carry weight when it facilitates the big oil and the big business. Your little 100 gun owner protest likely won't even get an article between the sports section and the rub-and-thug ads.

In fact, if I were a big oil big wig, I'd have no problems gathering 20-40 people to start a protest with anti-refinery signs.

Virtually EVERYTHING around you is made with some oil byproduct.
You control the oil, you control the world.
On the other hand, if you are an environmentalist protester, you mean f*** all.......unless you are useful to big business.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by hal53

That's not anti-government,, those are facts.....

Maybe so. But if I were to say it, it would get dismissed as anti-government ramblings.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by JamesB

By the way, the reason manufacturing generally fails in Canada is because although most governments claim to be pro business, they then raise corporate taxes, raise energy costs, increase regulation (labour, environmental, taxation etc) all of which make operating a manufacturing business in Canada more expensive than operating it elsewhere.

While I agree with you to some extent, you will notice that USA business has absolutely no problems dealing with all these issues when it comes time to move up here and populate the oil patch.

Think about it......

[coreya3212]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Maybe so. But if I were to say it, it would get dismissed as anti-government ramblings.

Hal asked you questions you didn't answer. Then he answered it for you. You ignore the reasons why a refinery won't work here and go on another useless rant about products that require oil. What's your point? Or are you having some sort of attack and can't call 911?

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Yeah, because the oil itself doesn't need to be shipped down to Texas. It's just going to walk itself down there on it's own.

Look, shipping could be greatly minimized if the oil is refined here. If the USA wants diesel and China wants plastic resin, than it gets split up right here. And shipped direct to where it's needed.

And I really don't think two dozen environmentalist protesters in Vancouver carry any weight at all. They suddenly carry a lot of weight when it's about keeping our money here. But carry no weight at all when it involves giving up all our cheap crude to the USA.

If you think protesters mean anything to anyone, go down to town hall and organize a protest with a 100 gun owners. You will soon find out protests only carry weight when it facilitates the big oil and the big business. Your little 100 gun owner protest likely won't even get an article between the sports section and the rub-and-thug ads.

In fact, if I were a big oil big wig, I'd have no problems gathering 20-40 people to start a protest with anti-refinery signs.

Virtually EVERYTHING around you is made with some oil byproduct.
You control the oil, you control the world.
On the other hand, if you are an environmentalist protester, you mean f*** all.......unless you are useful to big business.

Now try thinking before posting. If you need a pipeline to move the oil, then you will need at least as much capacity to move the finished products. Go to the biggest transport centre in Alberta and see how little capacity it has compared to where most refineries currently reside. The idea of building a refinery in Alberta is quite frankly stupid.
As for your nonsense about nobody protesting refineries, unless you are about 20 you must know about the continuing problems in Edmonton and with the past refinery here in Calgary. I truly doubt that if a refinery proposal was floated by the NDP that the general leftish riff raff would not be out protesting in a heart beat.

[JamesB]

Originally Posted by Pepe

While I agree with you to some extent, you will notice that USA business has absolutely no problems dealing with all these issues when it comes time to move up here and populate the oil patch.

Think about it......

Resource extraction is generally not considered to be manufacturing, but thanks for playing.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by JamesB

If you need a pipeline to move the oil, then you will need at least as much capacity to move the finished products.

Agreed. We need to move it no matter what it is we produce. But you want to move cheap crude or premium product sold at a premium price while creating more jobs here?
Isn't it a no-brainer?

Go to the biggest transport centre in Alberta and see how little capacity it has compared to where most refineries currently reside. The idea of building a refinery in Alberta is quite frankly stupid.

We don't have to build tge refinery in Alberta. It can be shipped to anywhere else in Canada to be refined there. And yes, no matter where the refineries are built, a transportation network needs to be build as well.

You want to ship cheap crude to tge USA. So they can extract resin there. Than American truck drivers get a job trucking it back up to us.

I say refine it here, keeping the refinery jobs here. And creating trucker jobs here.

Again a no-brainer.

As for your nonsense about nobody protesting refineries, unless you are about 20 you must know about the continuing problems in Edmonton and with the past refinery here in Calgary. I truly doubt that if a refinery proposal was floated by the NDP that the general leftish riff raff would not be out protesting in a heart beat.

I'd rather put up with a few protesters up here while creating jobs up here. Instead of hearing about those protesters down in Texas along with all the jobs pipelined down there.

[Pepe]

If you need a pipeline to move the oil, then you will need at least as much capacity to move the finished products. Go to the biggest transport centre in Alberta and see how little capacity it has compared to where most refineries currently reside.

Basically you are saying we don't have the ability to transport the product here. And where the refineries are, they have that ability. Correct?

That's like saying we don't need to create more jobs here because there are not enough fast food restaurants to feed all those new workers.

If you build it, they will come.

The truckers, the cho-cho train drivers, the pipelines, the McDonald's, they will all come where they can do business.

Not producing anything here because we don't have to transport network is a retarded argument.

If we ship it to Texas, what do you think they will do?
They will promote their own jobs by refining it there. Than if we need a truckload of resin or a pipeline of diesel, they will build it if they haven't already.

Right now we don't have the ability to pipeline all that oil to Texas. Building a pipeline is not a problem. Why do you think if the build the same pipeline to ship premium refined stuff that just can't be done?

Look, oil rules the world....we both agree on that, right?
Without oil, the world stops turning......agreed?

Guess what buddy. Good news, we got oil!
So why are you so hell bent to surrendering all that power, all that money, and all those jobs to the USA?

[Bergerboy]

Crude oil is easy and cheap to ship. Its products are not. It is sent to hubs to be refined at the best area of distributorship. That's why.

[nelsonob1]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Yeah, because the oil itself doesn't need to be shipped down to Texas. It's just going to walk itself down there on it's own.

Look, shipping could be greatly minimized if the oil is refined here. If the USA wants diesel and China wants plastic resin, than it gets split up right here. And shipped direct to where it's needed.

And I really don't think two dozen environmentalist protesters in Vancouver carry any weight at all. They suddenly carry a lot of weight when it's about keeping our money here. But carry no weight at all when it involves giving up all our cheap crude to the USA.

If you think protesters mean anything to anyone, go down to town hall and organize a protest with a 100 gun owners. You will soon find out protests only carry weight when it facilitates the big oil and the big business. Your little 100 gun owner protest likely won't even get an article between the sports section and the rub-and-thug ads.

In fact, if I were a big oil big wig, I'd have no problems gathering 20-40 people to start a protest with anti-refinery signs.

Virtually EVERYTHING around you is made with some oil byproduct.
You control the oil, you control the world.
On the other hand, if you are an environmentalist protester, you mean f*** all.......unless you are useful to big business.

I think you are over simplifying the problems in relation to shipping. Generally, it is easier to ship one type of product through one transportation line to one point of shipping. Many efficiencies come into play. A single pipeline to a refinery is such an example. Distributing a multitude of products to a global client base is much more complex and inherently expensive. usually these types of industries locate close to international shipping hubs. Alberta does not have one of those, neither does BC.

Whilst I agree that Canada needs to invest in a tertiary economy, building a broader manufacturing base including conversion of primary resources, the steps to that are much more complex and expensive than building the factories or refineries. Goods with a lower material index, require efficiency in production but proximity to market is usually the single most critical factor. Unfortunately Canada's geography is a major barrier to change.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by Bergerboy

Crude oil is easy and cheap to ship. Its products are not. It is sent to hubs to be refined at the best area of distributorship. That's why.

Than ship it to the Maritime provinces or the BC coast.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Pepe

Than ship it to the Maritime provinces or the BC coast.

Hmm that could work. Now all we need is everyone on side with a pipeline.

Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

What is it you do in the energy field again?

[cover]

Any by-product of the petro-chemical industry ( plastics etc.) can be made from hemp and hemp seeds. Research it for yourself. If I recall there are
10 000 uses for the seed alone. Plastics can even be made from feathers.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by cover

Any by-product of the petro-chemical industry ( plastics etc.) can be made from hemp and hemp seeds. Research it for yourself. If I recall there are
10 000 uses for the seed alone. Plastics can even be made from feathers.

You know how much hemp you would need to grow to replace even 10% of current plastic production?

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

You know how much hemp you would need to grow to replace even 10% of current plastic production?

Does it matter? who would even suggest that?

I know it's not pot, but pot is hemp's embarrassing cousin.

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Does it matter? who would even suggest that?

I know it's not pot, but hemp is pot's embarrassing cousin.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Hemp seeds are $15 for 500 gr. at Costco to put on my friggin goatmeal in the morning. How much would it take to power my truck?

[Wild&Free]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Hemp seeds are $15 for 500 gr. at Costco to put on my friggin goatmeal in the morning. How much would it take to power my truck?

30-40% oil, then mix in the methanol to make bio diesel... expensive.

better off to convert your truck to run off a gasifier, you could get ~30'000k per acre of hemp stalk. loose 25% power in the conversion plus your box space for the gasifier.

[ctd]

One thing I have noticed by many is what it is to build a refinery here in Canada.
Right now as it stands Canada is a net exporter of fuel products from our refinery's.
That means we actually already produce more refined product then we use. Through agreements we import and expert fuel/ chemical product from the US.

If we really wanted to make a serious move we would actually ship more semi refined product to the east. Have them refine it and then not import any raw or finished product from the US or over seas.

The few issues we are not looking at is the cost of the raw product compared to a finished product. Plus what the customer wants.
Right now as it stands we do not ship raw material anywhere. At some point between the well and the sales pipeline that product has gone through a process.
We have already employed people to do this.

We can say all we want. How I look at this is when you buy lumber, do you prefer to buy lumber and build your own, or should the logging company demand that you buy a fully assembled house from them.
In one way you are buying a raw product/ semi refined product, the other way you buy a fully refined product.

[traderal]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Does it matter? who would even suggest that?

I know it's not pot, but pot is hemp's embarrassing cousin.

Actually Hemp byproducts are being actively researched in Vegreville at the Alberta Research (AITF) facility.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by ctd

One thing I have noticed by many is what it is to build a refinery here in Canada.
Right now as it stands Canada is a net exporter of fuel products from our refinery's.
That means we actually already produce more refined product then we use.

Based on those on here who claim they have years of experience on the oil patch, what you are talking about is simply impossible since Canada is apparently too dumb/challenged/retarded to refine our own oil here.

Through agreements we import and expert fuel/ chemical product from the US.

Well, we should only be exporting to the US since we are pumping it out. There is absolutely no need to ship it to them so they can refine it and sell it back to us at a premium.

I happen to know that virtually all of the resin we use in my business comes from either the USA or China. Nobody can tell me with a straight face that it makes sense to ship cheap crude to them so they can refine it and sell the resin back to us at a jacked up price.

If we really wanted to make a serious move we would actually ship more semi refined product to the east.

Yup, East, or West, send whatever they want. As for the neighbor to the South, send them refined stuff.

Have them refine it and then not import any raw or finished product from the US or over seas.

Apparently I am not the only one with more than 3 cells floating around up there on this forum.

The few issues we are not looking at is the cost of the raw product compared to a finished product. Plus what the customer wants.

The customer to the South likely wants to make as much money as possible from resources which belong to us. But most members on here appear to think it's a great idea.

Right now as it stands we do not ship raw material anywhere.

But-but-but......how are we distributing it to anyone if we don't apparently have a way to transport it?

How I look at this is when you buy lumber, do you prefer to buy lumber and build your own, or should the logging company demand that you buy a fully assembled house from them.

Bad example since it's too complicated in most cases to build a house in a factory and truck it around to the US or Japan.

If you want to be fair, you will ask if we should ship raw lumber to the US or if we should sell them plywood and processed wood.

In one way you are buying a raw product/ semi refined product, the other way you buy a fully refined product.

The more is done locally, the more money, jobs, and business is injected into our economy.

And while we are at it, is there a valuable reason why most of those companies on the oil patch should be American? Are we not equipped to pump out our own crude? Or do we really need Yanks breeding down our necks to do it?

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by Wild&Free

Pepe is more of an idealist then I am. reason and idealism don't necessarily mix as you know

I wouldn't be so kind as describing your views as 'reason'.
More like pro-American and anti-Canadian.
But potato/poteyto . ......I digress.

[Pepe]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Hmm that could work. Now all we need is everyone on side with a pipeline.

Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?

I am sure plenty of people thought about it. But America wants for cheap crude is the agenda. So you won't hear any of this on your TV.

What is it you do in the energy field again?

Does it matter?
Would my words make more sense to you if I claimed I worked 20 years as a rigger?

How much did you study geopolitics, international moneytary policy, and world trade?

[Battle Rat]

Most of the oil companies in Canada are American owned. If it was economically feasible to refine here they would. The economics say move the raw product through one big pipeline to a refinery close to the consumer where is is split out into several smaller different portions.
If the profit margin was in refining here then they would, but it is not.
We are not giving it away. Good god do you have no knowledge of how many jobs are created by Alberta oil?

[Redfrog]

"Does it matter?
Would my words make more sense to you if I claimed I worked 20 years as a rigger?

How much did you study geopolitics, international moneytary policy, and world trade?"

Of course it matters, that's why I asked. I'm trying to discern if you actually know anything about the industry. I have my answer thanks.

Not sure what my education has to do with your expertise in the energy field or your vast knowledge of refineries.

Does knowing someone educated in those fields make you smarter or more credible?