Does the GOP need a new ("white knight" ) candidate?

[RangerM]

That's not what he said though. He intimated that gas was high because Obama was limiting refineries.

I admit I came into the discussion a little late, so if I've misinterpreted something you've said, I am sorry. However....

The reality is a couple of things.

 

1. the need for gas dropped last year according to Connoco's filings and they had been losing money.

2. The pipeline capacity for that area is full and trucking oil in is expensive, along with other means of transport. Is this pipeline issue an Obama one, i am not sure.

3. With the recent push for Tar sands oil, many current refineries are unable to handle the heavier, less sweet oil and most be shut down or re-done.

4. With fracking increasing the amount of natural gas, many dual refineries are feeling profit pinch with huge supply of natural gas and sinking prices.

I can't speak for Connoco specifically, but the question as to losing money is WHY have they been losing money?

 

Is it "windfall" taxes? (No, I know it's not, but it could have been taxes or fees or merely the cost of complying with the rules, in general).

 

Is it the cost of oil? Could be. Sunoco is thought of as an oil company, but the truth is it's a refining company. Sunoco does no drilling and has to buy their oil from the market and hope to make enough money refining it to remain in business. (Connoco may be in a similar situation)

 

Could it be as you say, "many current refineries are unable to handle the heavier, less sweet oil and most be shut down or re-done"? Could be. As with my client (mentioned above), the profit margin is thin enough that a business case cannot be made to upfit the plant to meet the requirements; be they processing, environmental (as with my client), or other costs related to conducting business. Whenever an older facility goes through an upfit, they are often required to meet the new(-er or -est) environmental regulations; just as though they were building a brand new plant. Often this regulatory requirement is cost-prohibitive, and as is the case with my client, the remaining lifespan of the facility is too small to justify the cost.

 

I can't specifically say anything regarding natural gas. I'm aware that the price has fallen due to supply, but if you believe Obama's arguments against "Drill Baby, Drill", supply has nothing to do with price.

Edited March 14, 2012 by RangerM

[RangerM]

As for the thinly veiled Obama barb, i don't think that supply is the issue as much as speculation and fear mongering.

We are talking past each other here. The issue isn't supply as in having enough, it's the stability of that supply. Advocating for "drill here, pay less" is more about stabilizing the supply, than increasing it.

 

IIRC, Iran affects about 10% of the world's daily supply of oil. Drilling here effectively dilutes their influence on the world market.

We've been on the pay less, get less plan for the longest time and consequently we get even less than we planned. Our energy, transportation, and even internet infrastructure needs an overhaul.

 

I don't disagree that we could use some infrastructure spending, however we're also deep in debt. We cannot support the current growth of spending already spoken for AND that additional spending. Obamacare is already growing from the $900B originally promised a year or two ago to $1.8T, if you believe the CBO's recent 10-year estimate. And that's before SS, Medicare/Medicaid, or anything else.

Edited March 15, 2012 by RangerM

[Imawhosure]

OK, let me give you an example that happened right down the road from me.

 

1. Do you remember the spike in gas prices in the Midwest in either 2007, or 2008? Well here is what happened, and I live within 30mls of this refinery, and know a few of the local politicians who had to deal with this,-------->the Whiting Indiana BP oil refinery paid untold millions to refit its huge facility over 3 or 4yrs to be one of the 1st, if NOT the 1st to have the ability to refine Canadas tar sands oil. This refit created over 900 new jobs upon its launching; virtually all union mind you.......and today the average pay is 25 bucks an hr.

 

During its refit, greenies from numerous areas picketed, tried to block the dozers, etc. At one point, the refinery asked to have police presence to stop the greenie obvious slowdown tactic, plus of course.........the press when interviewing the greenies, left the impression it was big business trodding on the little guy. Very, very, bad press to say the least.

 

The local Indiana politicians involved had enough, so they made a public statement about how much the refinery meant to the local economy, and while peacful picketing and the protestors 1st amendment rights would be protected, any attempt to illegally slow down or halt the finish of construction would be met with arrest, and fines.....and they DID!!!!

 

When the refinery was complete, what do you think the protestors did, lol. Since the greenies knew Indiana wasn't going for their nonsense, and since that refinery was on Lake Michigan not 5mls from the Illinois border; they went into Chicago and filed suit to block it from continuation of firing up on water pollution matters.

 

They tied that refinery up for 8 or 10 weeks, and the press painted former samples as not complying with the most modern enviro standards, which was correct. But they were grandfathered in for the last increase in regulation because the EPA had the plan for refit in its hands! Gas prices here soared since the Whiting refinery now not only could NOT refine the tar sand oil, all of their capacity went offline, and the refinery was basically shutdown! They had been refitting 20% of the plant at a time to keep 80% capacity online during the project, and now they were at 0! As their storage areas began to drain of gas and diesel, the prices went through the roof, and the greenies and their paid lobbyists were in their glory.

 

To make a long story short-------->after the case was shown to have no merit, a deal was cut for everyone to save face (meaning Illinois) and a fine was imposed, BP promised to do better and the refinery fired up, the summer driving season was over before they could refill the consumer pipeline, so another summer driving season went into the tank thanks to the green lobby. Understand------>the most modern, clean, refit at the time was taken OFFLINE by greenies; after the refinery was upgraded to insure it was the cleanest refinery in the country. Sound logical to you? Instead of cheering, they had to stop it, didn't they?

 

Now I ask you, does any of this sound familiar to you? Ever hear of the Nebraska pipeline from Canada! It is the green lobbys modus apperendi. It is all politics and vision. It is run by spin control by telling you they are doing these things for your enviroment. I am sure in some instances they do have a point, and I am also sure that was the original mission statement of these groups when they 1st came online. Now they try and block everything to keep you paying through the nose, and as far as their mission statement today, who they support, and who supports them? Well, you figure it out!

Edited March 15, 2012 by Imawhosure

[rn4]

BP refinery threatens Great Lakes ecosystem

 

Another view of the refinery.

[Imawhosure]

BP refinery threatens Great Lakes ecosystem

 

Another view of the refinery.

 

 

A liberal Rahm, and someone from the GOP in a liberal run state. Perfect example of exactly what I am saying, and I thank you very much for proving my point.

 

And just to further my point, you know where a lot of the BOTTLED; so called crystal clear water sold across the country comes from? It is TAP WATER from Chicago put in plastic, lol. As soon as an article says OZONE, that is when you know the green, green, goofball machine had something to do with its publishing.

 

And again......aren't we one planet? So are you suggesting that we have refineries in Mexico, Brazil, Chile, or any where else that has way LESS stringent regulation on air quality refine for us, put WORSE stuff in the air across the PLANET, then claim you actually did anything but raise the price of fuel?

 

Seriously, who are you all trying to kid!

 

I know, I know, you are going to beat the drums some more..........and no matter what is proven as far as this all being politics, 40 to 60% of the people are not only never going to know it before this years election, but also probably 2016 and after. But one thing we have found out is that more ARE finding out, and smaller blocks of voters are having a huge impact on even national elections. Just ask the enviro fanatic, Al Gore.

 

In Indiana today, the price of gasoline hit 4.19 a gallon. We know that the Middle East has caused this rise, but smart Americans also know that the rise would NOT be to from where it was to 4.19, it would have started less, and ended at a lower set point if not for the enviro green fanatics, and their liberal lobby in Washington. If Obama loses because the price of fuel chokes off the feeble economic recovery we have, I think it will be great justice, since his support of the green goofy machine will in the end, have caused him to lose.

[xr7g428]

As for Keystone, once again your barking up the wrong tree. The Nebraska DEQ hasn't finished its report on the alternate route asked for by the Nebraska Legislature and its RNC Governor. Obama choosing not to grant a permit till after that is nothing more than political maneuvering.

 

Citation please. The EPA has approved three different routes.

[Imawhosure]

X, i sited my sources in the Keystone thread concerning last Novembers Nebraska state legislature's bills.

 

As far as i can tell the entire Nebraska House voted in favor of a bill that would allow DNR/DEQ (whatever Nebraska calls it) to study alternate routes proposed by Trans Canada. This was a State rights issue and when Congress and Obama got in a pissing contest the Nebraska study was not complete and ultimately shut down after Obama rejected the proposal.

 

but here's the latest i found. Nebraska is looking at restarting the DNR/DEQ work on possible proposals

 

Bill would put pipeline back on track

 

 

You are not a states rights person are you? The EPA is not Nebraska State Department of Environmental Quality and as such it didn't matter what the EPA said or did. Nebraska with its Republican controlled Congress and it's Republican Governor wanted to remove the pipeline path from the Sand-hills. They told Trans Canada and voted to do a study on new routes in November . Thus the initial hold up President Obama hid behind and then the Republican hypocrisy at demanding he go ahead and authorize it before the States did. (Big Government!!)

 

Now are you happy?

 

 

More spin control-) Notice that the pipeline answer will be after the election when Obama will no longer need enviro backing.

 

As far as states rights------>you say that is the issue, but its not. If States rights were something Obama championed 100% of time, then we would have to take the good with the bad and admit at least he is consistent. But, what about Arizonas states rights on their border? What about their right not to have to finance illegal aliens healthcare which is sinking them?

 

So, since he is not really a champion of states rights but actually federal government expansion, but now in this instance is, we can extrapolate that this is really all about the pipeline, which is all we have been saying anyway-)

Edited March 19, 2012 by Imawhosure

[Imawhosure]

I have never said the decision to delay it till after the election wasn't a political one. It was.

 

 

 

Again your not getting the point. It's your side that champions states rights until you can force the issue on a national level. The choice of congress and the GOP to join in the political game of Keystone before the State Dept had a chance to really kill the DEQ survey/study was one of Conservatives not following their own beliefs, not the DNC/Obama.

 

I never claimed that Obama champions states rights, i called out the GOP and conservatives for their hypocrisy on it. They should have gone after the State Dept for not getting the memorandum done quickly enough for Nebraska to finish it's states rights work and then pushed for Obama's approval after it was done.

 

 

If that is your point Daddy, then I will apologize. As we can both see, politicians are a pain in the derriere regardless of which party they come from.

[xr7g428]

Dad, as you now seem to be aware, the Obama administration is still firmly in control. If they do not issue the Memorandum of Understanding, then no pipeline will be built. The attempt by the Nebraska legislature to develop a new law that would allow them to go forward with the study WITHOUT the MOU is in no way compelling to the federal government. The point of all of this is that the delay is intentional on the part of Obama. He owns this is issue and everyday voters see his handy work in the price of gas.

[fmccap]

Just wondering if anyone thinks that the devaluation of the dollar has anything to do with the price of oil? The rising deficits (from Obama and all candidates plans except one) and the endless money printing machine.

[xr7g428]

The GOP didn't care to see the project go forward as that didn't pit Obama against people they could steal votes from. If it did go forward, Obama would still get sizable amount of the green vote and a majority of the union vote too. So going forward was a win for Obama while making him shoot it down was the only win for the GOP.

 

And that's your story and you are sticking to it! That is probably the biggest stretch I have ever seen. I nominate this for spin of the month.

 

So how is that $4+ a gallon gas thing working out for Obama? LOL!

[Savetheplanet]

And that's your story and you are sticking to it! That is probably the biggest stretch I have ever seen. I nominate this for spin of the month.

 

So how is that $4+ a gallon gas thing working out for Obama? LOL!

 

It's not working so well for Obama's re-election, but higher gas prices means lower consumption, and thats good for people with asthma, and good for the biosphere.

But my guess is he will be re-elected, the senate will remain in democratic hands, and the house will be a republican majority.

 

I still think that there is a chance that there will not be a GOP primary winner before the convention.The most troubling part about a brokered convention is it leaves the nominating process to be decided by backroom dealing. Instead of a mostly democratic process of electing the nominee, the nominee would be chosen by political hack.

 

History might repeat itself, ( Rockefellr/Goldwater 1964 )

It did not work so well for Republicans in "64"When you have ideological fights inside the nominating process, you are dooming yourself for the general election.

 

Should be interesting

[Imawhosure]

It's not working so well for Obama's re-election, but higher gas prices means lower consumption, and thats good for people with asthma, and good for the biosphere.

But my guess is he will be re-elected, the senate will remain in democratic hands, and the house will be a republican majority.

 

I still think that there is a chance that there will not be a GOP primary winner before the convention.The most troubling part about a brokered convention is it leaves the nominating process to be decided by backroom dealing. Instead of a mostly democratic process of electing the nominee, the nominee would be chosen by political hack.

 

History might repeat itself, ( Rockefellr/Goldwater 1964 )

It did not work so well for Republicans in "64"When you have ideological fights inside the nominating process, you are dooming yourself for the general election.

 

Should be interesting

 

 

Should be interesting is putting it mildly, lol.

 

1. Don't think the convention is going to brokered, I think Romney is going to win.

 

2. If they are smart, Romney would name Santorum as his VP running mate.

 

3. If they are really smart, they will name DRP as head of treasury, or something to do with domestic economics.

 

4. They do this, and Obama hasn't a chance in hell.

 

Solidifying all the players under 1 tent in some form or another, dooms Obama. Many would suggest that a VP be from a needed state, but I disagree. I think that it is more important for everyone to feel involved since Obama is weak, even in liberal states. Everyone GOP or independent just wants an excuse to vote against him, and putting all 3 or 4 GOP candidates on the ticket in different capacitys would do that nicely, since it draws every emotion from voters that are anti Obama.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Imawhosure

[NickF1011]

2. If they are smart, Romney would name Santorum as his VP running mate.

 

Ugh. Please no. Santorum anywhere near the Republican ticket would be enough to lose most of the indepedent vote, including mine.

[Imawhosure]

Ugh. Please no. Santorum anywhere near the Republican ticket would be enough to lose most of the indepedent vote, including mine.

 

 

Sorry Nick, but you need the conservative base excited to oust Obama. Romney isn't going to do that. Conversely, Santorum isn't going to get the moderates motors going either. We have a choice to try and blend them to get everyone voting, or put up with Obama for another 4yrs. I don't think that is much of a choice.

 

You vote in the primarys who you think the best person is to promote your personal vision. In the general, you hope your guys create a team inclusive enough to draw everyone under the tent so as the most important thing is drive the culprit out of office.

 

The last thing any of us should want is to have anybodys supporters running for the GOP nomination staying home because their guy has been froze out. It is much more important to be inclusive and win, then to NOT be and let Obama win.

[NickF1011]

Sorry Nick, but you need the conservative base excited to oust Obama. Romney isn't going to do that. Conversely, Santorum isn't going to get the moderates motors going either. We have a choice to try and blend them to get everyone voting, or put up with Obama for another 4yrs. I don't think that is much of a choice.

 

You vote in the primarys who you think the best person is to promote your personal vision. In the general, you hope your guys create a team inclusive enough to draw everyone under the tent so as the most important thing is drive the culprit out of office.

 

The last thing any of us should want is to have anybodys supporters running for the GOP nomination staying home because their guy has been froze out. It is much more important to be inclusive and win, then to NOT be and let Obama win.

 

If Romney can't get the conservative base going on his own, then the party is doomed in the election anyway. They cannot win without the independent vote.

 

Conservatives will vote for Romney because he's a Republican. Independents will stay away from Romney/Santorum because it would be one bullet away from voting for Santorum.

 

Heck, look how much good it did for moderate McCain to run with ultra-conservative Sarah Palin. Time for a new game plan, folks.

Edited March 20, 2012 by NickF1011

[Ralph Greene]

If you look at the futures market for RBOB gasoline, every month after April of this year has a declining price. Not a lot, but some each month. RBOB gasoline futures set the price for gasoline. A producer can either sell his production to this market, or buy his product in this market. Gamblers anywhere in world can take opposing sides of either trade. That's what determines what we pay....producers hedging their sales or buys, and gamblers figuring they are wrong and taking opposing positions. It's laughable to think politicians directly control this. Politicians can control world wide saber ratling, that makes so many be buyers only of contracts, running the price up. There is no shortage pf product, just fear of shortage.

Edited March 20, 2012 by Ralph Greene

[xr7g428]

Ralph, nice try. What the market wants to know is whether there is likely to be more production, and therefore an increase in supply, or less production and a reduction in supply. The money is on less production. The US and China are the big market drivers. China doesn't have the luxury of not producing it's own oil so China demand is predictable. A change in US policy, controlled by Obama, that would encourage more oil hitting the market, is about as likely as getting you to stop claiming to be a converted conservative. Blocking the Keystone pipeline proved conclusively that Obama would sacrifice jobs, the economy, and the quality of life of ordinary Americans to promote his alternative energy fantasy.

[xr7g428]

Ralph, If you are doing more than watching the market you might want to take a look at the bookings for VLCC's. And check out oil sales from Suadi to he US. And look where those LVCC's are headed. Don't tell us that the fix is not in. Oil prices will be down ahead of the election, the Canadian oil will end up going to China, and the US will be the big loser once again.

 

Save, You are right on the money with the election prediction.

 

What the right can't seem to grasp is that middle class middle aged white men are no longer required to win elections. Obama has put together his own coalition of voters: Women, Blacks, Hispanics, environmentalists, union members, teachers, academics, civil employes, and the vast number of food stamp and unemployment recipients. Through in a little white guilt on top and you have enough votes to win the election. The Senate will ride on his coattails.

 

For the right to win they need to put together their own coalition and they seem to be unable to comprehend that the best candidate is not the one that is the farthest to the right, but the one that can win the middle ground. This is not the year to purge the unfaithful, from the ranks this is the year to get more souls into the tent.

[Ralph Greene]

Ralph, nice try. What the market wants to know is whether there is likely to be more production, and therefore an increase in supply, or less production and a reduction in supply. The money is on less production. The US and China are the big market drivers. China doesn't have the luxury of not producing it's own oil so China demand is predictable. A change in US policy, controlled by Obama, that would encourage more oil hitting the market, is about as likely as getting you to stop claiming to be a converted conservative. Blocking the Keystone pipeline proved conclusively that Obama would sacrifice jobs, the economy, and the quality of life of ordinary Americans to promote his alternative energy fantasy.

 

 

 

http://www.zacks.com/stock/news/68201/Gasoline+Supplies+at+10-Month+High

 

I think you are the one drinking someone's coolaid. Gasoline supplies in US are currently at a 10 month high. We have gasoline coming out of our ears. There is plenty of supply and demand is reducing, at the same time prices are rising. It's purely a function of the futures market, where investors bet on the future price of gasoline and varoius grades of crude. If you think this market can be rigged, then you just don't understand how large, diverse, and liquid this market is.

 

Sure we can use more drilling, pipelines to carry to refineries, etc, but no particular hurry. And BTW....we import very little from outside N America. Oil people know all this, It's the Rush Limbough types who made way too big a deal out of all this.

 

Another thing....oil from tar sands can't just be put in pipelines and pump it somewhere. It doesn't flow. Chemicals have to be mixed with it and heated to make it flow, then those chemicals removed at the pipe end. The Fed and States are correct to study this and be very careful about building that pipeline. It's not like the pipeline that carries oil to the Alaskan ports. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands

Edited March 20, 2012 by Ralph Greene

[xr7g428]

Ralph, Ralph, Ralph... How many futures contracts ever result in delivery? Watching the futures market is like trying to determine how the economy is doing by going to Vegas. The supply and demand curves that matter are global production of crude oil, and global consumption of refined products. Move either of those curves and you get the real price in the market. The gas in storage is not what is being traded n the futures market anyway (spot market, yes) The futures market is trading on what happens in the future, and that means that some of the oil that will become gasoline is still in the ground right now. If you read your own article you would have seen that crude oil inventories are not high right now.

 

Analysis of the Data

 

Crude Oil: The federal government’s EIA report revealed that crude inventories fell by 3.44 million barrels for the week ending January 13, 2012, after jumping by 4.96 million barrels last week.

 

Analysts surveyed by Platts, the energy information arm of McGraw-Hill Companies Inc. (MHP), had expected oil stocks to go up some 2.6 million barrels. A sharp decline in imports led to the stockpile drawdown with the world's biggest oil consumer.

 

Importantly, crude inventories at the Cushing terminal in Oklahoma – the key delivery hub for U.S. crude futures – came off 832,000 barrels from last week’s level to 28.27 million barrels, the lowest level since November 6, 2009.

 

And the oil going into the pipeline from Canada is heavy crude, not bitumen. You really need better sources than Wiki... I used to live 20 miles from the Cushing Oklahoma hub. Every one I knew was in Oil and Gas.

[Imawhosure]

What XR said and thnx for the clear explanation.

 

At the end of the day, most of the world is surely chuckling away at us and probably wants to know why the largest user of said product who have reserves, just won't go get it. I am sure they ask themselves--------->

 

A. Are Americans that lazy?

 

B. Why do they keep excessive petrol dollars flowing to an unstable region much more than they have to?

 

c. Are Americans really this dumb?

 

D. If political proganda can control Americans this easily making them ignore their own best interests, then all the enemies should become propogandists, yes?

 

The oil/not to oil question when answered in the negative, is always supported by reasons/excuses that have absolutely nothing to do with oil. It is about water, the air, ozone, the land, etc, etc. And yet, they are willing to let much less regulated countrys take over this job, which means they are gonna pollute, mess up, screw up stuff way worse than we ever would; and of course prop up the price to boot.

 

Just the suggestion by some people on here that we need prices like Europe tells you exactly what result they really want, and are willing to STOP the free market from working to achieve those goals. When Americans ran into problems like this before, they unleashed their ingenuity and industrial might to overcome the problem. To stop this from happening, you have blocs of people doing everything in their power to stop 2 of the biggest assets this country has from fixing it.

 

If you believe in this country, its ingenuity, its industrial power, then you can not accept this crap from the left and its attempt to hamstring this nation for a vision, that they as of yet have no technology to create. Much of your economic growth is on hold due to this, and if you are willing to allow it to continue, so be it.

 

If not, then know a vote for Obama and the left with their eco bloc will continue more of the same ole, same ole, and every time the economy begins to revive, the price of gasoline will choke it back off as it rises in lockstep with growth. The only way to keep prices down by using even rudimentary economic theory, is to have more of it in production, and on hand.

 

The eco propogandists fear that since the answer is so simple, everyone will be able to figure it out once the obvious is pointed out to them. This is exactly why they fight so hard to muddy the waters; and don't take my word for it, all you need do is just look on here what happens each and every time someone starts talking about these nonsensical, left leaning oil policys. It is certainly a microcosm of what happens in the media and everywhere else. They know they haven't a leg to stand on, so they hope they can confuse long enough to have their way!

[xr7g428]

 

This pipeline deal is actually a way to add cost to the oil instead of lower it.

 

From your own link:

 

Existing markets for Canadian heavy crude, principally PADD II, are currently

oversupplied, resulting in price discounting for Canadian heavy crude oil.

 

Different market area in the US are assigned PADD numbers. PADD II is the northern border area in the US. This area does not have much refining capacity.

 

 

Yes, prices for Canadian crude will mostly likely rise there when the area is not longer oversupplied. IF you agree with this assessment, then must also agree that increasing the supply in the gulf states region will exactly the opposite effect in that area. Only the difference is that the Gulf States area contains the largest refining capacity in the world. I suspect that the impact on the market is potentially much greater in Houston than it might be in Minneapolis.

 

Further, the VAST majority of crude currently being used at the gulf states refineries is currently being imported already. In particular, the heavy crude is coming from your buddy Chavez in Venezuela.

 

Most of the crude used in PADD III is imported. Imports have grown to 5.6 million B/D

(892 103m3/d) in 2007 or 77 percent of crude demand. Imports are forecast to decline initially

before 2010 as more of the domestic PADD III crude production is used in PADD III, and then to

increase by over 600,000 B/D (95.4 103m3/d) by 2020.

 

Most of Venezuela’s crude production is heavy crude. Over half of the production is

exported to the U.S.

 

You need to come to grips with a few facts:

 

Canada has the third largest supply of recoverable oil in the world. At current rates of production, it could last over 350 years.

 

Current technology limits recovery to less than 10% of the total oil deposits known to exist. Improvements in technology, as we have seen occur continuously in the industry, will increase the recoverable amount of oil, and gas.

[Imawhosure]

From your own link:

 

 

 

Different market area in the US are assigned PADD numbers. PADD II is the northern border area in the US. This area does not have much refining capacity.

 

 

Yes, prices for Canadian crude will mostly likely rise there when the area is not longer oversupplied. IF you agree with this assessment, then must also agree that increasing the supply in the gulf states region will exactly the opposite effect in that area. Only the difference is that the Gulf States area contains the largest refining capacity in the world. I suspect that the impact on the market is potentially much greater in Houston than it might be in Minneapolis.

 

Further, the VAST majority of crude currently being used at the gulf states refineries is currently being imported already. In particular, the heavy crude is coming from your buddy Chavez in Venezuela.

 

What XR has said again. You heard it, 350 years......so lets cut in half just to be nice to daddy and make it 175.

 

Are you all getting pissed yet.....you autoworkers especially? It is just a political game, and right now the liberals have more propoganda, and fret you might figure it out before November.

 

Duh! If you don't, then take what you get. Out of job, oh well. You savedtheplanet, lol. And for your efforts, all they did was move production elsewhere, which means you didn't do a thing, except give your jobs away for a vision...........and they will thank you very much!

 

 

 

You need to come to grips with a few facts:

 

Canada has the third largest supply of recoverable oil in the world. At current rates of production, it could last over 350 years.

 

Current technology limits recovery to less than 10% of the total oil deposits known to exist. Improvements in technology, as we have seen occur continuously in the industry, will increase the recoverable amount of oil, and gas.

[Savetheplanet]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Current technology limits recovery to less than 10% of the total oil deposits known to exist. Improvements in technology, as we have seen occur continuously in the industry, will increase the recoverable amount of oil, and gas.

 

Great, what could go wrong?