Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Shifting Sands, Part II: The Texas Connection

The kinder, gentler energy superpower

DAVID EBNER AND BARRIE MCKENNA

From Monday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 9:09 PM EDT 23/02/08

The Lone Star state — and its refineries — are hungry for the gooey crude from Alberta's oil sands ...Read the full article

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  1. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: "puts a bigger onus on Canadian policymakers to make their voices heard in the US..."

    Do we actually have "policymakers" in Canada?

    Now, that is news!
  2. westcoastgroovin victoria from Canada writes: Its time for Canadian oil companies to start buying into US refineries now we have a strong dollar. Maybe when labor costs level off we can build them in Canada.
  3. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: It could be, we are the "kinder gentler" oil superpower. Who says? At what cost?

    Aww shucks, Harper will sell us out in a heartbeat.
  4. 20 20 from Canada writes:
    In the face of US demand for Canadian oil, the greatest challenge we face is maintaining our sovereignty and democracy. Already that demand has dictated for us Canadian policy on greenhouse gas emissions and the SPP (which is principally about securing energy security and prosperity for the US). The Canadian electorate's opinion is simply bypassed and the important long-term decisions on the future of our country are made behind closed doors by unelected elites.

    For example, it was a Jan. 2006 meeting in Houston, Texas, kept secret from the Canadian public for over a year before Radio Canada got a hold of the minutes, that called for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span" and encouraged decision-makers "to streamline the regulatory approval process" with a "one-stop-shop" for project proposals to facilitate that expansion.

    Snapping right to, "Harper has said the oil sands could produce 4 million barrels per day by 2015 and has indicated he would work to see that happen," and established the "Major Projects Management Office" to "streamline the regulatory system for major resource projects" and "provide a single point of entry into the federal regulatory process for industry".
  5. 20 20 from Canada writes:
    Harper's resistance to Kyoto and climate change measures is also directly tied to this. He refuses to reduce emissions because he's intent on satisfying those US demands for 4-5 times more oilsands production.

    In another example, the unelected political-corporate elite made sweeping long-term decisions behind closed doors at the secret "North American Forum":

    http://vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20060919132553106

    "Session III: Toward a North American Energy Strategy"
    "Session V: Demographic and Social Dimensions of North American Integration"

    The single greatest threat to Canada as a nation is the Deep Integration agenda. And the more significant we are to the US as an energy supplier, the greater this threat to our sovereignty.

    The US has a habit of interfering in the internal politics of countries that have oil, covertly influencing, destabilizing, or overthrowing democratically-elected governments that try to retain more of the oil wealth for their citizens, and covertly supporting political-corporate elites that would sell off their countries' oil assets to US interests.

    We have to be aware of this and keep a watchful eye on our sovereignty, our independence, our unity, and the integrity of our democracy.
  6. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: 20 20 from Canada:

    What you have said is quite true.

    Every one of the current Presidential candidates is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations except one -- as are many Canadian politicians.

    As many of us already know, there is already a blueprint for a North American Union...

    So, how come our leaders and "free media" are not honestly talking about these issues in Canada when some of those in the US are?

    Instead, our "leaders" spout of about "jellybeans" and "intergalactic highways"...

    Being an "energy superpower" would involve having an actual leader who recognizes that those who have the power have the power...
  7. Frank Turner from United States writes: The North American Union is inevitable and the old days of nation- states and sovereignty is over folks. Canada became a country (or almost-country) too late in the game anyway. Globilization, corporate feifdoms, dwindling resources, non-nation-state adversaries, etc make the rules very different now. So Canada will play the new game, like everyone else, and make Northern Alberta look like a colder version of the Saudi sandbox for a couple generations of wealth. The Islamic mosques of the immigrants will fittingly be built on the new Canadian toxic desert of Alberta, and the new southern pointing pipelines will be easy pickings for the terrorist factions of those immigrants. That will of course require that the US send in a security army to protect those pipelines.
  8. desiderio manzanal jr from montreal, Canada writes: Lets see 3 000 000 per day, 365 days a year at 90 dollars a barrel....HMMM we too stupid....to multiply that lots of billions. Wonder how much we get out that ! I think the billions of dollars foreign companies spend on development are recuperated within a few years and yet Canadian Gov. seek outside investors to develop the tar sand oil industries. How much canadian royalties...50% , 40%, 30%......lower...keep going.

    I say, finance this expansion by Canadian bonds and then keep most of the future massive revenue in Gov. hands to pay the debt...so that we can reduce that tax. OH i just remembered, sticky hands all over the place.. and no brains because its too Green to see anything. And why not use the 1 percent cut in GST to fund Canadian investment in oil exploration and then issue canadian dividends for their share of the burden.

  9. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Frank Turner from United States:

    Sounds peachy, Frank, but you have obviously underestimated one thing...

    Our fearless "Canadian policymakers" that are "going to make their voices heard in the US..."

    Cue Stelmach!
  10. Kevin Chew from Germany writes: Silly question: why can't refineries and thus jobs be created in Canada in order to keep more of the wealth at home? Is this analagous to the silly practice of exporting raw logs?
  11. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: Kevin Chew from Germany... I have to ask the same question... I don't have a problem with Americans but why not build refineries in Canada (Alberta, BC, Ontario, etc)?? Shouldn't the provincial and federal gov'ts encourage such investment from the private sector? Maybe someone knowledgeable in the industry can respond...
  12. Dollars and Sensez from Canada writes: The article says: "...Canada is the anti-superpower: a gentle giant that doesn't wield its oil clout as a geopolitical club (think Russia or Venezuela), or set a benchmark for world prices (like Saudi Arabia). It isn't lawless or war-ravaged (Nigeria or Iraq)..."

    With the US just a step away, outnumber and out arm us, can we not be anti-superpower???
  13. Eddie 'mush' Montanaro from montreal, Canada writes: Yes great idea. Let's just ship all of our unprocessed raw materials to Texas without extracting any value for our people and our country. We need to tell Texas where to go.
  14. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: As far as the refining and upgrading goes it's two separate things. Hopefully the G&M will find space in this series to talk about upgrader alley to be built NE of Edmonton along the North Saskatchewan River.

    And the scale of bottlenecks involved.
  15. Kevin Mager from Edmonton, Canada writes: Alberta already has refineries, even new ones built in the last five years or so (Google/Wiki Scotford Refinery and Upgrader). Maybe it's a question of time, since a goal of four million barrels per day is too much for the local plants to handle? Scotford now can produce 200K barrels/day of light grade crude from the cleaner oilsands bitumen, expanding to 300K per day (but not until 2010, if everything goes smoothly). Either way, it's going to be much cheaper and faster to build a pipeline, especially when looking for short term corporate prosperity and international political gains. Texas sounds like a stale oil economy with piles of infrastructure ready to work. Oil companies will keep their costs down by piping it to refineries that already have the teeth to chew on the heaviest, dirtiest, most impure oilsands crude.
  16. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: Some ask why not build a refinery in Canada? For the same reason our city's cannot find new dump sites. There are enough people for whom its a no never not in my back situation, that it becomes a political minefield for any politician vaguely involved. Opponents can create problems at the municipal, provincial or federal levels, not to mention using the courts and environmental protection laws. In short decide that you want to invest in a refinery today, and then watch years and years go by without any real likelyhood of success.
    Not that this is necessarily a bad thing...
  17. Don Quixote from the Banana Belt Ont., Canada writes: We need to build new, up to date refineries right here in Canada in addition to the ones existing already.
    There is not only the U.S. waiting as a customer, but the rest of the world ahead of time before Mid East Oil Supply becomes economically and politically unstable and less accessible.
  18. 20 20 from Canada writes:
    The implications of this dramatic increase of pipelined oil for the US are sweeping.

    Besides nixing Kyoto and embracing the SPP agenda by installing a permanent council of 30 unelected, unaccountable, majority-foreign CEO's to call the shots, another thing Harper has done to ensure delivery of the oil on a silver platter to the US is to pre-emptively shut out competitive bidding from a second potential client. ("China wary of investing in Canadian oil sector", globeandmail.com)

    After reading the "Viva 'Danny Chavez'!" article ("That's Danny Billions to you", globeandmail.com) this weekend, my thoughts were that Canadians could really use Danny Williams as Prime Minister of Canada right now.

    But would the US even let us vote in Danny Williams or someone like him, or would they interfere in our sovereign democracy as they do in Venezuela, covertly funding opposition parties, business elite groups, and think tanks?

    We can hope they would respect our sovereignty and democracy, but their record, both abroad, now and historically, and here (CFR/CCCE, NAFTA Energy "Proportionality Clause", SPP) speaks otherwise.
  19. P Martin from St. John's, NL, Canada writes: Nice to see how Ottawa allows Alberta to send oil though Saskatchewan and Manitoba. Unlike Ottawa that continues to force NL through Quebec. If Ottawa even treated NL remotely fairly, there would be no need to try and bypass Quebec to ship power outside our province. Of course this led to the 1969 Upper Churchill deal that will result in nearly $100 billion to Quebec and a pittance to NL. And Ottawa will STILL do nothing about transmitting power through Quebec. Good to see how well this federation works - for Quebec and Ontario that is.
  20. M Spiker from Ottawa, Canada writes: The world has reached "peak oil" so why do you need more refineries?

    It makes even less sense to build new refineries when you have US refineries that are under utilized and already have the distribution infrastructure in place. Even if for political reasons you wasted the money building more Western Canada refining capacity, you'd still need to build pipeline capacity to distribute the refined products to the customers.
  21. Thomas Tansley from Canada writes: A deal with the Devil! Good luck ever trying to cut back the amount of oil being shipped to the States. It is no longer Canada's oil, it is the United States. Here is a idea. How about these countries start investing in alternative energy that doesn't require severely damaging our environment by using pipelines for thousands of kilometers, and tons of energy just to refine the stuff. The real issue here is how weak Canada is, and how money rules over the environment, and regular societies needs and wants. Every person on earth knows that it is only a matter of time before the oil runs out. Perhaps it is time that someone sersiously stepped up to the plate and looked at another option.
  22. Jim Quinn from Richmond ON, Canada writes: From 20-20 .... "The US has a habit of interfering in the internal politics of countries that have oil, covertly influencing, destabilizing, or overthrowing democratically-elected governments .... covertly supporting political-corporate elites that would sell off their countries' oil assets to US interests" and "would the US even let us vote in Danny Williams or someone like him". You've got it. Where did Harper come from and does anyone know what his agenda is, other than ensurring that the George et al is pleased with his (oops our) performance? We've supposidly got a trade deal with the US but it's all one way ... remember the tax on softwood lumber or closing the door to Canadian beef. The one place where there was a working agreement was on automobile production but with dollar parity that's down the drain, subject to government subsidy ... but then again so are the big three. From time to time Harper will have to take issue with US policy and issues such as softwood but that's politics. No problem as long as oil keeps flowing. If we want refineries I am sure that the China or India will partner with Canadian firms to build them and a pipeline to the coast. That would not please US interests so forget it. On re election I am sure that we will have to tackle the next big issue for the US, i.e. there are $ to be made from the water in "them there" streams, rivers and lakes in Canada. We've got golf courses to be watered in Arizona and Nevada, pools to be filled in California, etc. You get the drift. Sorry Danny no room for you on the agenda. Jim Q.
  23. Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States writes: "Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: Kevin Chew from Germany... I have to ask the same question... I don't have a problem with Americans but why not build refineries in Canada (Alberta, BC, Ontario, etc)?? Shouldn't the provincial and federal gov'ts encourage such investment from the private sector? Maybe someone knowledgeable in the industry can respond... "

    Because it's really, really expensive, and all the environmental permitting is a nightmare. It's far cheaper to sell the oil to an existing refinering than to build one, generally. From inception to production can be as long as 10 years. That's longer than alot nuclear power plants take to get running. But to answer your question, yes, it seems like Canada ought to be encouraging the development of its' own infrastructure. Short of nationalizing all the oil reserves, I don't see how you do it except by giving huge regulatory streamlines and cash incentives. Plus people plain hate oil companies, so any politico who reccommends such things is probably not looking at easy re-election.
  24. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: How will you ride the slide?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ulxe1ie-vEY
  25. Thomas Tansley from Canada writes: "Where did Harper come from and does anyone know what his agenda is, other than ensurring that the George et al is pleased with his (oops our) performance?". Good call Jim! Canada needs a leader who will fight for CANADA'S RIGHTS, and not try to appease other countries and their power struggles. First it is the oil in Alberta, next it is the water in the Great Lakes.
  26. The Bubble from Canada writes: The Rednecks have gained power. Canada has more oil than any other country in the world but gurarantees a supply for Americans before guaranteeing a supply for it's own citizens. Americans may see friendly Canadians with barrels of oil. I see a sucker born every minute. It's not Albertans vs Eastern Canada now, it's Americans vs. All of Canada. It's hard to live in a country where our government spends so much time hiding the truth and watching citizens eat up the lies.
  27. Ian St. John from Canada writes: "As the U.S. seeks to decrease its dependence on crude from unstable regions and OPEC countries, and with the oil sands booming, Canada has supplanted Saudi Arabia as the leading supplier of crude to the U.S., claiming the No. 1 spot in 2004."

    It is not surprising. Most people are unaware that Canada is the #1 exporter to the U.S. since the 70's or before. This was from 'conventional crude' from the Leduc fields. We only lost out to SA for a few years as declining production reduced exports before the oil sands took up the slack.
  28. Chris Lalonde from Singapore writes: Mark H from Columbus, IN, United States ... Thanks for the reply. Yep, that sounds about right...
  29. david mathews from St. Petersburg, Algeria writes: Canada is destroying a huge chunk of pristine wilderness and generating a desolate, polluted moonscape for the sake of the obese SUV-driving American hyperconsumer.

    Thanks a lot, Canada, thanks a lot!
  30. John Fedup from Canada writes: david mathews from St. Petersburg... huge chunk of pristine wilderness

    It might have been that 200 million years ago. It looked like a moonscape long before the oilsands development started.
  31. david mathews from St. Petersburg, Algeria writes: Is that so, John? Contrast the before-and-after pictures of the oil sands development as featured in this pro-oilsands documentary: "Walking on Oil" http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-9131292553850309417 "Is the World running out of, or into oil? Do Alberta's oil sands support the theory that the World is running into oil? They seem to. ... all » "Walking on oil – Alberta's oil sands" is a narrative driven Television essay that melds natural history, spectacular scenery, and technological and scientific explanations to tell a timely story. It identifies 10 major energy companies: Syncrude, Suncor, Shell, Western, Chevron, Albian Sands, Terasen Pipelines, EnCana, Imperial Oil (Esso), and Petro-Canada. These are all involved in oil sands projects in Alberta, and are featured rather as "lead actors" that help in telling a very informative, broad-approach-story about Alberta and its oil sands potential. Alberta's landscape forms the backdrop of the program. The scenery scenes assure that the viewers, in particular international, can locate Alberta geographically, and can see what Alberta looks like." This is the sort of ecological damage which will linger for thousands of years after the oil age has ended. Perhaps Canada shouldn't destroy its forests for the save of the SUV?
  32. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Why can't we refine the oil here?
  33. Alistair McLaughlin from Canada writes: 20 20, I thought the SPP was all about the NAFTA Superhighway and the Amero currency. Anyway, not all of us are against oil sands expansion. Some of us see it as a massive economic opportunity for this country. Off-shore oil & gas on the Pacific coast will be the next big frontier. We kept China from investing for reasons that had nothing to do with the US. We no longer allow our own government to buy into industries, why should we allow someon else's. The real threat to Canada's sovereignty and resources comes not from the US, but from the so-called "sovereign wealth funds" of wealthy dictatorships. US corporations invest for one reason - PROFIT. Government owned wealth funds invest for God knows what reason, ususally to secure cheap resources to fuel their own industry. Before you accuse Americans of doing the same thing, remember that US oil companies do not sell oil cheaply; they sell it at full market price. A Chinese-owned firm would not necessarily do the same thing.
  34. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Bubble writes: "It's hard to live in a country where our government spends so much time hiding the truth and watching citizens eat up the lies."

    So, no other country EVER misleads it's citizens? What are you, some wide-eyed, naive college kid? Every government lies to it's citizens, and ALWAYS HAS throughout history. It's human nature. There's a quote that applies nicely:

    "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges where there are no rivers." And who said that? Nikita Khrushchev...

    If it's so hard to live here, so very objectionable, what can I say?
  35. Bill Garrison from Tuttle, Oklahoma, United States writes: Some funny things happen in the States concerning energy.
    There is more oil locked up in the sands and shales of Western Colorado and eastern Utah than there is in all the middle east. Tests have proven that.
    The north slopes of Alaska has much more oil than Venezuela does. Again, tests have proven that.
    The State of Florida prohibits drilling of oil wells within 200 miles of it's gulf shores. There is much oil there; the Chinese know it and because they are unencumbered by United States and Florida law are developing it for Cuba.
    Envioromental laws that some call whacko is the reason that these and other energy sources are not developed. Oklahoma and Texas, which have been pumping oil out of the Earth for eighty years or more are not enviromental wastelands. They are pretty nice places to live.
  36. Khrys Tee from Canada writes: They are building a new refinery in Canada, http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2007/05/28/nb-eiareax.html?ref=rss
    in Saint John NB, Thanks to Irving. perhaps Irving should build another one on the west coast.
  37. david mathews from St. Petersburg, Algeria writes: Oh my, oh my, the environmental laws are to blame for America's energy woes! The United States of America currently consumes 25% of the world's daily oil production ... but the oil industry would prefer that America consume more!

    These people would destroy the entire planet for the sake of the oil industry & the SUV. Look at the mess which they have already created: Alaska's suffering horrendous impacts from Global Warming, Greenland's and Antarctica's icecaps are melting at an accelerating pace, and the oceans are rising.

    How bad do things have to get on this Earth before the oil industry realizes that burning oil is bad for a planet's health?
  38. The Bubble from Canada writes: I'm glad you agree with me Tony, I hope you really are from Edmonton. I disagree with your insinuation, however, that we should be OK with allowing the Alberta and the Federal government under Harper to lie to us because everyone else has done it. Quoting a comunist leader to get your point across is telling. The oil sands need some kind of brake applied, it's only going gangbusters to support the war in Iraq. All the oil and most of the profits go to the states, the oil workers are constantly displaced from their families, the per capita ghg emissions are far and away the worst in the country, and the Americans drop a few dollars on the Alberta legislature while cautioning the politicians there to watch out for the communists back east and laughing all the way to the bank.
  39. John Spafford from Canada writes: At $90. or more for a barrel of oil, how does the good folks in Canada think they are going to survive if Alberta doesn't sell as much as possible into the US. If Alberta and a lesser extent Ontario stopped propping up all the other provinces with transfer payments they would be looking for food in garbage cans. Funny how this country works. Quebec and Nf for instance only survive because of charity from the rest of the country but they have a huge problem with us. Why not cut off transfer payments for one year and give them a real problem. Canada is very fortunate that Ontarians and Albertans are so patient and generous. Besides, try building a new refinery in Canada anywhere. It's not on.
  40. Dave Jansen - Obama for PM from Canada writes: Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Politicians are the same all over. They promise to build bridges where there are no rivers." And who said that? Nikita Khrushchev...

    Sorry Tony, quoting a communist dictator to make a point about how it's okay to lie to people says a lot about where you stand on the issue...

    As well, it's NOT okay under ANY circumstance to have our government lie to us. PERIOD. Saying it's okay because it's been done before is akin to supporting slaverly simply because they used to do it in 1704...
  41. The Bubble from Canada writes: The least the politicians could do there is to divert some oil for Canadian reserves, in case, just in case of depression. It's not the environmental concerns that make me angry, it's the pathetic management of the stuff. Why would Albertans hate eastern canada more than the Americans who are clearly the most ruthless people on the planet today. Have the people out there not seen what the Americans did to softwood lumber here? Do Albertans trust Americans will treat them any better than any other part of this country now. It's a real testament to the ability of the Americans to disrupt another country that they have Albertans so in the dark about their very existence.
  42. The Bubble from Canada writes: The globe should identify the actual origin of posters on here, it's obvious some posters are American who come on here to deliberately create animosity between eastern and western Canada.
  43. George Hall from Canada writes: How many people are going to die from the pollution caused by the buring of these fossil fuels?
    Oil men of this day have no social conscience they are blinded by greed.and selfishness. Greed and gluttonyare without boundaries.
    Canadians should not be lap dogs to the liars like George Bush of this world, but stand up for what is right.
  44. david mathews from St. Petersburg, Algeria writes: "... it's obvious some posters are American who come on here to deliberately create animosity between eastern and western Canada" If you think that's terrible, you should see what the Americans have done to Iraq! Americans are the most ruthless and violent people on the planet. America's oil addiction has provoked a war which cannot end in the Middle East. Western countries have a long history of violence in the Middle East in order to secure the resources of that region for Western consumption. But Canada just gives its resources away to America ... a very kind and gentle nation indeed! Canada need not fear an invasion because you have already surrendered your natural resources to us. We're burning your resources up, too, at a horrendous pace. When Canada runs out of oil and natural gas, what happens to Canada? I also wonder: What happens to Canada when the United States of America goes bankrupt and collapses? A nation which relies so heavily upon debt to finance its excesses cannot survive forever. By feeding America's oil addiction you people are making the situation down here much worse than it would otherwise become. Americans already import 60% of our daily oil consumption. Yet Americans demand more oil. Our appetites are insatiable. Canada is engaged in a dangerous game trying to feed the addict and promising more, forever. Should a day ever come in which Canada desperately needs its own resouces I wonder how you could ever say "no" to a potentially violent oil addicted Superpower?
  45. Thomas Too from Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Why can't we refine the oil here?

    I wonder why the Canaian oil is friendly to US. Why the price of gas is higher in Canada ( we are exporter) than that in US.
  46. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dave Jansen - Obama for PM from Canada writes: Sorry Tony, quoting a communist dictator to make a point about how it's okay to lie to people says a lot about where you stand on the issue...

    As well, it's NOT okay under ANY circumstance to have our government lie to us. PERIOD. Saying it's okay because it's been done before is akin to supporting slaverly simply because they used to do it in 1704...

    I NEVER said it was OK. It's just that that's they way it is, and has always been. To pretend otherwise is simply naive.
  47. paul rankin from Canada writes: Why aren't we refining this goo?

    Once again a nation that is resoucre rich but process poor. Keep the jobs here.

    Lets employ Canadian at nice, new refineries in Canada rather than employ Americans. Hey.........sounds like Ford, BM, Chylser, Boeing.....
    sorry thought they were keeping jobs here!
  48. The Bubble from Canada writes: It's naive to think the liars should be kept there because everyone else does it. The liars we've had governing us were never in the game of selling the whole country out like Harper is. Living next to the states we need a government that at least recognizes Americans will take everything if you let them, what we have now is a bunch of Oil Men throwing their legs in the air with wild abandon to keep their business going with the Oil Men of Texas, it's pretty obvious.
  49. paul rankin from Canada writes: Bill Garrsionis right about oil deposits in the shale of Colorado!

    The Americans don't tell you about this! Wait until oil hits $2-300 a barrel for them to start extracting here and really have the world by the balls..........
  50. L Harder from Canada writes: The current free for all environment is a result of a failed wannabe oil man president. As far as I knowl, none of the new candidates on either side have these overt ties so these machinings may come to naught if ghg emmissions are finally taken seriously. I have no dought that when the US finally puts its mind to it that they can reduce dependence on all oil drastically over a short period of time giving them the muscle to take on big oil.

    Stelmach and Harper may be on the wrong side of the curve. I would love to see a change in US direction that would make them scramble revealing them as the toadies that they are.
  51. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Bubble writes: "Quoting a comunist leader to get your point across is telling."

    Anyway, how is it "telling"? It merely demonstrates that politicians are the same everywhere. And where IS that political Utopia that you're were planning on heading for?

    How about this one: "Politics is not the art of the possible. It consists of choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable." That's by a guy born in Dutton, in southwestern ON - John Kenneth Galbraith.

    I can quote all kinds of people - including you, bubble :)
  52. Doug - from Canada writes: refining- we do do it here for our own market, refined products are not usually shipped long distances. But there is refining and then there is upgrading. the mines have an upgrader with them. Almost all of the SAGD sites do no and ship bitumen to market at a lower price. If you want value added then require that only upgraded oil be shipped.

    =

    There is an exception to the shipping refined product. The Irvings have tha largest oil refinery in Canada. Way more than what is required for all of Atlantic Canada. They bring in crude and ship it around the world , mostly States in smaller tankers that they own.
  53. The Bubble from Canada writes: I guess we've chosen the disatrous.
  54. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: Mr. Bubble, c'mon, what are you smoking today? For months you have been blasting Western Canadians, at the extreme calling oil patch workers from all of Canada "dirty". Now you are preaching that Americans are your enemy, not Western Canadians. Which is it?
  55. robert F from Toronto, Canada writes: Also, why Canada doesn't build more refinereies and process the oil here is beyond me.

    Sure, be Banana Republic and provide the cheap product to be "built" and reshipped to us.

    Another sad fact is that from what I hear, Canadians don't and will never enjoy the oil sands. Our domestic product is provided...by Saudi Arabia still! So we sell all our own oil, and either re-buy it refined, or from off shore for more money. We never actually use our own product.

    How stupid, but how predictable. This government has no Balls, and is weak and more akin to Vichy France then anything coming close to a ruling government. They march goose-step with the imperials in office down south.

    Thanks Canada for getting screwed again.
  56. The Bubble from Canada writes: Ravensbud, what was the date of that comment I made?
  57. agent sixtynine from Calgary, Canada writes: This is provincial jurisdiction and Albertans are not American haters as many of my fellow Canadians are.
    Do we tell you where you can sell your products?
  58. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: I would say sometime in November 2007. The comment will live in my memory forever as I was disappointed that a Canadian would imply that hard working fellow citizens are inferior because of their occupation and province of residence.

  59. The Bubble from Canada writes: EJ it's clear that Albertans (assuming you are one) can carry a grudge for a long time, hence the constant references to Trudeau. I guess you're natural disposition to hating the east (or desire to foment this hatred) overrides the apology I gave you at Christmas. I was a pressman for many years and my hands were as dirty as an oil workers for that whole time.
    We are not the enemy.
  60. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: Agent 69, you have it correct. Canadians, especially in Ontario and Quebec are so quick to dump on Americans, yet howl in protest when Americans suddenly wont buy our lumber, potatoes, and other commodities and goods. They embrace their media and sports and still dump on Americans as imperialists and war mongers.
    Canadians accept the fact, Americans are an enormous influence on the world and our survival economically and politically is totally influenced by them.

  61. Greg Ast from Nanoose Bay, Canada writes: If an oil pipeline is being built from the tar sands then a water pipeline needs to be built from the destination to the tar sands. We need non-potable water to extract the oil from the tar sands and we can't afford to be using the clean water of the Athabaska for this purpose. The refineries at the end of the pipeline use water to cool their processing so send it back to Canada for our use in creating the crude needed as feedstock for the refinery.
  62. globefan EH from Canada writes: Texas has weaker environmental restraints than we do, and OSHA has even fewer teeth. Rustbucket refineries flourish in the morning pollute. Check out the pollution pouring into the waters off Houston and Galveston, you can see it on Google earth, check it out and check out the tar sands too, you just can't smell the air.
  63. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: Mr. Bubble, please tell me who is the enemy? This country is tough enough to govern without each region despising another. Now you seem to say that the Americans are the enemy. I want these guys as my friend, not my enemy. I live ten minutes from the border and the folks on the other side treat me with respect and kindness.
  64. The Bubble from Canada writes: Actually American influence in the world is now dependant on Canada.
  65. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: I guess we've chosen the disatrous.

    Not from where I sit. I guess it depends upon whether you view the oil barrel as half full, or half empty.

    Most other countries in the world would be doing national "high-fives" if they had a resource like this. All half of this country can do is complain endlessly about it. I dunno...
  66. D Mol from Camrose, Alberta, Canada writes: Too bad that Canada's high taxes and over regulation have made it more economical for our oil companies to use Texas facilities and not build our own. So much GDP floating south down the pipes and the Globe spins it as chest thumping proof of our 'gentle giant' status. Too cute.
  67. EJ Ravensbud from Canada writes: Yes, Mr.Bubble dependent on the Alberta oilpatch and the oilpatch workers. What else do they need from us? Water? Maybe in the future, but they possess more than half the Great Lakes and will ship water from Alaska before they trouble us.

  68. The Bubble from Canada writes: EJ it's a common thing to get your own personal relationships confused with the way America is continuing to destroy the planet. I like the individual Americans i've met too but they have nothing to do with the American Government which is what I'm talking about, not the American people who are overwhelmingly trying to get George W Bush out of office before he nukes Iran. You have to see the difference. My biggest hero is Frank Zappa who was reviled by the American government. Check out Franks appearance on Crossfire on youtube in 1986. Twenty plus years ago Frank identified America as becoming a Fascist Theocracy and it's really starting to look like reality. The man was so far ahead of his time it's scary. To label people who are opposed to this manic development of the oilsands so the Americans can continue to waste the stuff doesn't make me a communist or anything like that, i'm just a dad living in Ontario who can see that the direction we're heading is going to come to a very violent and abrubt end no matter what anyone says. It's time the whole country realized we have the ability to control geopolitical events in a more peaceful manner.
  69. The Bubble from Canada writes: Arguing for the sake of arguing.
  70. Michael B from Canada writes: All I can say is, "repent sinners!"... The American elite, who have sucked the life out of so many weaker nations, not to mention their own middle and especially lower classes, is starting to find these sources running dry... More and more, they will turn to the friendly anti-superpower (read "weak" - a condition which, I can assure you, they don't respect) up North, populated by people who support a liar for Prime Minister, whose thirst for power blinds him to the fact that he's pushing us down the road of national serfdom and vassalage.
  71. Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: To David Mathews in Algeria who wrote: "it's obvious some posters are American who come on here to deliberately create animosity between eastern and western Canada"---- The East vs. West nastiness in Canada, unpleasant comments about Newfoundlanders (Newfies), etc. predates the world wide web. There was an article about Black Tickle, NL, a town that lacks infrastructure and is struggling to survive, that appeared in the online edition of G&M in December. Canadians wrote very nasty post about the people, the town, the East Coast of Canada, Newfies (although the town is in Labrador)... that included one remark suggesting that the residents of Black Tickle are inbred. Most of the comments that were supportive of the town came from Americans. When there are negative comments in this forum made by Americans, the subject is usually politics. We do not get into the pecking that goes on between provinces. Why should we dislike a province or part of Canada based on Canadian rivalries and Canadian history? That sort of thing has nothing to do with us. I suggest that you read American online publications. It is unlikely that you will find a single comment against Canada, and I guarantee that you will not find any comments bashing Newfoundlanders or Canadian provinces, or regions of Canada. Some people need to get a life!
  72. The Bubble from Canada writes: Dawn, maybe you should just keep your American nose in your own country instead of infecting the debate up here. There are Americans who come on here and foment hatred between east and west, it's patently obvious and is done so Albertans can keep hating the east so the Americans have an easier time pilfering all the oil.
    There is nothing so low that and American hasn't or wouldn't do.
    This is not paranoia, this is America.
  73. Howard Beale from Canada writes: There is nothing to prevent the good folks of Ontario from building refineries and pipelines. Albertans will be more than happy to sell you either bitumin or synthetic crude at prevailing market prices.
  74. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: Actually American influence in the world is now dependant on Canada.

    Hey! Look at us - we're the tail that wags the dog! So does that mean that every bad foreign policy move that the US makes is somehow our fault? We're the enablers? You need a new handle - "The Puppetmaster" :)

    EJ Ravensbud from Canada: You're absolutely right. Lots of posters here delight in bashing our US cousins at every opportunity. When they're buying our stuff - they're "taking us over". When they STOP buying our stuff, they're using "unfair trade practices" - which translates to "PLEASE start buying our stuff again".

    I wonder how many of these same people cross-border shop? Or head for Florida or Hawaii to escape part of the winter. And Vegas, don't forget Vegas. The same sort of people complain about Chinese imports, and yet fill Wal-Mart parking lots night and day.
  75. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: I'm not sure that we can divert oil into reserves with NAFTA. We used to have a policy under the Trudeau Liberals that required companies to ensure we had 20 years, I think, worth of Canadian consumption in reserve. Again, NAFTA put an end to that and, though I consider myself a Canadian Nationalist, the reserve idea was pointless. I mean, in what realistic way is Canada going to benefit from the USA having an oil shortage when we do not. Our economies re too intertwined and they are too big.
  76. Ian Gunn from Minneapolis, United States writes: Time to tax bitumen as it leaves the province? $X a barrel? Extra $$ if they ship it out of the country for processing?

    I have to agree, the refining should be done in Canada.
  77. The Bubble from Canada writes: We bash the American government because they use their resources for foolish and hateful wars.
  78. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: "Dawn, maybe you should just keep your American nose in your own country instead of infecting the debate up here. There are Americans who come on here and foment hatred between east and west, it's patently obvious and is done so Albertans can keep hating the east so the Americans have an easier time pilfering all the oil.
    There is nothing so low that and American hasn't or wouldn't do.
    This is not paranoia, this is America."

    Ya, Dawn - Bubs & the boys are already working this side of the street. Get your own gig, OK?

    Seriously though, I for one, am interested in the American point of view that hasn't been filtered by CNN or CBS. I may or may not agree with it, but I'd still like to hear/read it. Do continue.
  79. Darrin Duell from Landmark, Canada writes: Canada sold out to the U.S. industrialists long ago.. We create an atmosphere that penalizes entrepreneurial spirit up here and then cry when we don't have enough industry to develop our own resources. When are you big government, big spending types going to realize that high taxes and entitlements are undermining our ability to compete globally.
  80. Howard Beale from Canada writes: Ian Gunn, there is a name for your suggestion, it was called the NEP. Good luck with that.
  81. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: "... some posters are American who come on here to deliberately create animosity between eastern and western Canada."

    Do you resent the competition in your niche role?
  82. bill thecat from Canada writes: Darrin Duell says "Canada sold out to the U.S. industrialists long ago.. We create an atmosphere that penalizes entrepreneurial spirit up here and then cry when we don't have enough industry to develop our own resources." Why pick on the Yanks. Western Canada was the hand maiden of the east until Folks like Peter Lougheed stopped the flow of cash out of Alberta into the Federal coffers. They east tried it again with the NEP and devistated our economy (all of Canada's actually). So why would we not look to our 'enemies' to the south when our 'Freinds' to the east have done us so many favours.
  83. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Bubble: "The Rednecks have gained power. Canada has more oil than any other country in the world but gurarantees a supply for Americans before guaranteeing a supply for it's own citizens."

    You are switching horses in mid stream bub. Forget the first statement. The second statement has to do with one Brian Mulrooney, the perp of the NAFTA. Mulrooney is not a red neck. He is a sleasy beggar with his hand out!
  84. Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: To The Bubble and Tony Conner: My concern about the oil industry in Alberta is that the same companies that have raped the environment, poisoned ground water, and caused plenty of human misery down here are involved with the extraction of oil in Alberta. As I mentioned in my comment to the part I article of this series, I spent most of my life cleaning up lakes, rivers, and streams in a five state area. As a result of my exposure to industrial chemicals in the water, I have multiple chemical sensitivity and will suffer from this disability for the rest of my life. I worry that the people of Alberta will be exposed to health problems similar to those that the big boys from the oil fields in Texas created in the United States. I urge the people of Alberta to take periodic water and soil samples and get independent labs to provide test results. If necessary, send the samples to another country. You do not want to have immune system disorders that relate to being poisoned with toxic chemicals. Trust me. You don't! If my comments are "infecting" the debate up there, so be it. I truly wish all Canadians well. I like Canada. I have many Canadian friends and am very interested in what is going on up there. I learn a lot from the G&M articles and from the thoughtful comments that are posed in this forum. If I am incorrect with an observation that I make, please feel free to correct me. The main reason I visit this forum is to learn from all of you.
  85. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Thomas Tansley: "The real issue here is how weak Canada is, and how money rules over the environment, and regular societies needs and wants."

    How true. But politicians don't want to talk about that, do they? If they did, they would sign their own DW.
  86. The Bubble from Canada writes: So the Americans and obvious apologists on this line are now accusing me of dividing Canada. It's a great strategy and works well with the general view out west that Eastern Canada is full of communists who would take Alberta's riches.
    It is the biggest propoganda effort on these boards.
    Who are you supporting GlibmHor, it certainly isn't Canada.
    Mulroney is a sleaze. American rednecks have taken over Canada.
  87. The Bubble from Canada writes: The bottom line is the Americans are the only ones who are winning the debate, they have all the oil, they have all the money. They get to pollute Canada unhindered and they will leave when the oil is gone. This is the reality which can't be disputed.
  88. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: The Americans own us, soon they will own our oil and our space industry .

    http://www.thespacereview.com/article/1046/1