Total Posts:26|Showing Posts:1-26
Jump to topic:

What's better.....Canadian or Iranian Oil?

Ijuststartedthinking
Posts: 17
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 9:58:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Late last week President Obama denied issuing a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Several weeks ago his administration struck a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market. Why would he so blatantly hurt Canadians (U.S.'s closest ally and partner in free trade) with this bogus decision, and then strike a deal with Iran that gets their oil onto the global market (a country that firmly believes in a "Death to America" approach)? It is very perplexing.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:11:33 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
From a semi-libertarian stance, it is unethical for one government to tell another government that they cannot sell to the world. Ergo, he has no moral authority to deny that to Iran. However, the deal with Canada is an agreement, which either side can opt out of. To say one side cannot opt out would be oppression.

It is no secret that he wants to the world to move away from using fossil fuels and to alternative energies, so him acting in a way that goes towards that goal, without overstepping his limits (telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do) does make sense.

Personally, I disagree with it, but ce la viv.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
ben2974
Posts: 767
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:38:14 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 10:11:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
From a semi-libertarian stance, it is unethical for one government to tell another government that they cannot sell to the world. Ergo, he has no moral authority to deny that to Iran. However, the deal with Canada is an agreement, which either side can opt out of. To say one side cannot opt out would be oppression.

It is no secret that he wants to the world to move away from using fossil fuels and to alternative energies, so him acting in a way that goes towards that goal, without overstepping his limits (telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do) does make sense.

Personally, I disagree with it, but ce la viv.

"C'est la vie"
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 10:40:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 10:38:14 PM, ben2974 wrote:
At 11/10/2015 10:11:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
From a semi-libertarian stance, it is unethical for one government to tell another government that they cannot sell to the world. Ergo, he has no moral authority to deny that to Iran. However, the deal with Canada is an agreement, which either side can opt out of. To say one side cannot opt out would be oppression.

It is no secret that he wants to the world to move away from using fossil fuels and to alternative energies, so him acting in a way that goes towards that goal, without overstepping his limits (telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do) does make sense.

Personally, I disagree with it, but ce la viv.

"C'est la vie"

The very nature of the phrase means it should not care how it is spelled.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 11:29:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 10:11:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
From a semi-libertarian stance, it is unethical for one government to tell another government that they cannot sell to the world. Ergo, he has no moral authority to deny that to Iran. However, the deal with Canada is an agreement, which either side can opt out of. To say one side cannot opt out would be oppression.

It is no secret that he wants to the world to move away from using fossil fuels and to alternative energies, so him acting in a way that goes towards that goal, without overstepping his limits (telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do) does make sense.

Personally, I disagree with it, but ce la viv.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the hypocrite, Obama has in his term, approved enough domestic American new pipelines to encircle the globe. In this time he has overseen the U.S. become the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. Despite the terrible Gulf of Mexico oil tragedy, he has approved oil drilling in the arctic waters. This man wants the world to reduce the use of fossil fuels? No chance. Americans are so taken in by this man.. The Canadians will now turn to selling the oil to the Chinese.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/10/2015 11:51:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 11:29:20 PM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 11/10/2015 10:11:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
From a semi-libertarian stance, it is unethical for one government to tell another government that they cannot sell to the world. Ergo, he has no moral authority to deny that to Iran. However, the deal with Canada is an agreement, which either side can opt out of. To say one side cannot opt out would be oppression.

It is no secret that he wants to the world to move away from using fossil fuels and to alternative energies, so him acting in a way that goes towards that goal, without overstepping his limits (telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do) does make sense.

Personally, I disagree with it, but ce la viv.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the hypocrite, Obama has in his term, approved enough domestic American new pipelines to encircle the globe. In this time he has overseen the U.S. become the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. Despite the terrible Gulf of Mexico oil tragedy, he has approved oil drilling in the arctic waters. This man wants the world to reduce the use of fossil fuels? No chance. Americans are so taken in by this man.. The Canadians will now turn to selling the oil to the Chinese.

I was wondering if anyone would catch that.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 2:08:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Iranian oil is cheaper tham Canadian oil. The Canadiens collect oil sand and extract oil fom it. This requires work. In Iran the product is already there in the ground they just have to pump it out and ship it.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 11:43:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 11:51:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/10/2015 11:29:20 PM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 11/10/2015 10:11:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
From a semi-libertarian stance, it is unethical for one government to tell another government that they cannot sell to the world. Ergo, he has no moral authority to deny that to Iran. However, the deal with Canada is an agreement, which either side can opt out of. To say one side cannot opt out would be oppression.

It is no secret that he wants to the world to move away from using fossil fuels and to alternative energies, so him acting in a way that goes towards that goal, without overstepping his limits (telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do) does make sense.

Personally, I disagree with it, but ce la viv.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the hypocrite, Obama has in his term, approved enough domestic American new pipelines to encircle the globe. In this time he has overseen the U.S. become the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. Despite the terrible Gulf of Mexico oil tragedy, he has approved oil drilling in the arctic waters. This man wants the world to reduce the use of fossil fuels? No chance. Americans are so taken in by this man.. The Canadians will now turn to selling the oil to the Chinese.

I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

Canadians also have Trudeau now, so they may not remain the energy giants they once were.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:21:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 2:08:32 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
Iranian oil is cheaper tham Canadian oil. The Canadiens collect oil sand and extract oil fom it. This requires work. In Iran the product is already there in the ground they just have to pump it out and ship it.

The purchase price of oil is determined by the market, not the cost of producing it. There's just something weird going on with Obama and the Iranians and not just with oil. Obama is no friend to Canada.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 1:23:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 11:43:10 AM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/10/2015 11:51:15 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 11/10/2015 11:29:20 PM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 11/10/2015 10:11:33 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
From a semi-libertarian stance, it is unethical for one government to tell another government that they cannot sell to the world. Ergo, he has no moral authority to deny that to Iran. However, the deal with Canada is an agreement, which either side can opt out of. To say one side cannot opt out would be oppression.

It is no secret that he wants to the world to move away from using fossil fuels and to alternative energies, so him acting in a way that goes towards that goal, without overstepping his limits (telling the rest of the world what they can and cannot do) does make sense.

Personally, I disagree with it, but ce la viv.

Sorry to burst your bubble, but the hypocrite, Obama has in his term, approved enough domestic American new pipelines to encircle the globe. In this time he has overseen the U.S. become the largest producer of oil and natural gas in the world. Despite the terrible Gulf of Mexico oil tragedy, he has approved oil drilling in the arctic waters. This man wants the world to reduce the use of fossil fuels? No chance. Americans are so taken in by this man.. The Canadians will now turn to selling the oil to the Chinese.

I was wondering if anyone would catch that.

Canadians also have Trudeau now, so they may not remain the energy giants they once were.

Trudeau is fixated on green energy. He will damage Canada's economy just as Premier Wynne has done in Ontario.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 2:46:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 9:58:45 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Late last week President Obama denied issuing a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Several weeks ago his administration struck a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market. Why would he so blatantly hurt Canadians (U.S.'s closest ally and partner in free trade) with this bogus decision, and then strike a deal with Iran that gets their oil onto the global market (a country that firmly believes in a "Death to America" approach)? It is very perplexing.

Iranian crude is among the highest quality that can be had. It's much better, and easier to refine than what the Saudis produce.

Canadian shale is of very low quality, and the environmental impact of extracting it is exceptionally high. It is not only more labor intensive, it is also of a lower quality than Saudi crude.

I could go on about the differences between different kinds of oil, but I'm guessing that no one cares...
Tsar of DDO
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 3:00:18 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 2:46:32 PM, YYW wrote:

I could go on about the differences between different kinds of oil, but I'm guessing that no one cares...

You need a hug.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 3:01:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 3:00:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/11/2015 2:46:32 PM, YYW wrote:

I could go on about the differences between different kinds of oil, but I'm guessing that no one cares...

You need a hug.

Not really. It's just one of those esoteric subjects that I know a lot about (because I took a class in energy security in college), but most people have no idea about and few if any care.
Tsar of DDO
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 3:35:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"The purchase price of oil is determined by the market, not the cost of producing it."
This means that OPEC decides what the price of oil is
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 6:04:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 3:01:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/11/2015 3:00:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/11/2015 2:46:32 PM, YYW wrote:

I could go on about the differences between different kinds of oil, but I'm guessing that no one cares...

You need a hug.

Not really. It's just one of those esoteric subjects that I know a lot about (because I took a class in energy security in college), but most people have no idea about and few if any care.

I took History of oil.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,300
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 6:05:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 3:01:41 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/11/2015 3:00:18 PM, Greyparrot wrote:
At 11/11/2015 2:46:32 PM, YYW wrote:

I could go on about the differences between different kinds of oil, but I'm guessing that no one cares...

You need a hug.

Not really. It's just one of those esoteric subjects that I know a lot about (because I took a class in energy security in college), but most people have no idea about and few if any care.

You used to call me on my cell phone.
Late night when you need my love.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 6:46:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 3:35:47 PM, xus00HAY wrote:
"The purchase price of oil is determined by the market, not the cost of producing it."
This means that OPEC decides what the price of oil is

Indirectly. OPEC only controls the supply, not the demand. So they only control half of the equation.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
izzyball
Posts: 3
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 6:50:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 9:58:45 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Late last week President Obama denied issuing a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Several weeks ago his administration struck a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market. Why would he so blatantly hurt Canadians (U.S.'s closest ally and partner in free trade) with this bogus decision, and then strike a deal with Iran that gets their oil onto the global market (a country that firmly believes in a "Death to America" approach)? It is very perplexing.

Canadian here.

Our oil is certainly better and we are right beside you. It would be much more expensive to import oil from all the way in Iran. I'm not so much angry about him shooting down the pipeline. I expected that. My annoyance derives mostly from his not committing to a yes or no answer for all these years. Had he said yes or no immediately I would respect him much more. Instead he kept everyone in limbo for seven years and change and ultimately said no as his term is about to end.

I will submit however that this is but one more manifestation of this man's incompetence and lack of fitness to be president of the United States. He does this on a number of issues. Take immigration reform for example. He talked about reform throughout his presidency but ultimately nothing was done one way or the other.

He has made alienating allies into an art form. Stephen Harper was rumored to have lukewarm relations with Obama and we all know of Obama's dealings with Netanyahu. Barack Obama's lack of resolve in committing to an idea would frustrate anyone. It's like working with someone on a school project who can never decide on your proposed plan of action and a few days before the due date rejects your proposal and just mashes together whatever was on his mind in the first place.

As for Iran, Obama has let the mullahs off the hook. They wanted this deal because they were feeling the squeeze although they would never admit this publicly. Now they have received a shot in the arm to keep funding terror and a carte blanche to destabilize the region still further. Moreover it will, or perhaps already has, set off an arms race among the Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia.

Obama thinks that everyone is a rational actor and that this "death to America" rhetoric is just a manifestation of opposition to American foreign policy. He believes that hatred of America and the American way of life is based purely on politics and has no connection to dogma. He is always among the first to deflect the blame from Islam whenever ISIS commits an atrocity because of concerns bout being perceived as islamophobic and because he can't seem to stop apologizing for everything the west does.

Obama is the archetype of the regressive left. He is an otherwise intelligent man consumed by a crippling political correctness. The Keystone XL pipeline fiasco is just another manifestation of this. This incident is simply a symptom of a larger problem with this president. What a shame. Great question by the way.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 7:44:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 2:46:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/10/2015 9:58:45 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Late last week President Obama denied issuing a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Several weeks ago his administration struck a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market. Why would he so blatantly hurt Canadians (U.S.'s closest ally and partner in free trade) with this bogus decision, and then strike a deal with Iran that gets their oil onto the global market (a country that firmly believes in a "Death to America" approach)? It is very perplexing.

Iranian crude is among the highest quality that can be had. It's much better, and easier to refine than what the Saudis produce.

Canadian shale is of very low quality, and the environmental impact of extracting it is exceptionally high. It is not only more labor intensive, it is also of a lower quality than Saudi crude.

I could go on about the differences between different kinds of oil, but I'm guessing that no one cares...

The dirtiest oil in the world is said to be from Nigeria and the dirtiest in North america from California. You would think that with all the rhetoric about the oil sands, Canada was the worst polluter in the world. The oil sands are responsible for 1/1000th, yes 1/1000th of the carbon emissions in the world. The problem is, Canada is always an easy target. Hell, Harper didn't play ball with the UN so they sent an envoy to check up on our human rights record. Seriously?
Death23
Posts: 781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2015 8:12:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 9:58:45 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Late last week President Obama denied issuing a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Several weeks ago his administration struck a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market. Why would he so blatantly hurt Canadians (U.S.'s closest ally and partner in free trade) with this bogus decision, and then strike a deal with Iran that gets their oil onto the global market (a country that firmly believes in a "Death to America" approach)? It is very perplexing.

I don't support the Iran deal, but you're comparing apples to oranges. The Iran deal was about nuclear issues. Oil and climate change issues were incidental. I suspect that you know this already, and that what you've written is just an example of the propaganda that pollutes so much of the internet.
YYW
Posts: 36,322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 12:39:25 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/11/2015 7:44:32 PM, lotsoffun wrote:
At 11/11/2015 2:46:32 PM, YYW wrote:
At 11/10/2015 9:58:45 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Late last week President Obama denied issuing a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Several weeks ago his administration struck a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market. Why would he so blatantly hurt Canadians (U.S.'s closest ally and partner in free trade) with this bogus decision, and then strike a deal with Iran that gets their oil onto the global market (a country that firmly believes in a "Death to America" approach)? It is very perplexing.

Iranian crude is among the highest quality that can be had. It's much better, and easier to refine than what the Saudis produce.

Canadian shale is of very low quality, and the environmental impact of extracting it is exceptionally high. It is not only more labor intensive, it is also of a lower quality than Saudi crude.

I could go on about the differences between different kinds of oil, but I'm guessing that no one cares...

The dirtiest oil in the world is said to be from Nigeria and the dirtiest in North america from California. You would think that with all the rhetoric about the oil sands, Canada was the worst polluter in the world. The oil sands are responsible for 1/1000th, yes 1/1000th of the carbon emissions in the world. The problem is, Canada is always an easy target. Hell, Harper didn't play ball with the UN so they sent an envoy to check up on our human rights record. Seriously?

Most of the reason why oil extraction in Nigeria and Africa in general is so horrendous had to do with the pathetic state of African governmental/environmental regulatory oversight. That's one of the reasons it's also as popular to extract oil in Africa as well. But there is a distinction between low quality oil and oil that is environmentally deleterious to extract. Some oil is both low quality and really harmful (Canada's tar sands) while some is high quality and environmentally harmful (Africa) while others are less harmful and of a higher quality (Iran) while other is low quality medium environmental impact (Saudi Arabia) and others still yet is medium quality low environmental impact (Texas and the Gluf Coast other than the BP oil spill).
Tsar of DDO
xus00HAY
Posts: 1,393
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 1:56:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Indirectly. OPEC only controls the supply, not the demand. So they only control half of the equation."

If we Americans REALLY wanted to get even with the Arabs for 9/11, we would all drive those tiny little cars with manual transmissions. This would lower the demand so far it would kill their economy!
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 1:57:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 1:56:14 AM, xus00HAY wrote:
"Indirectly. OPEC only controls the supply, not the demand. So they only control half of the equation."

If we Americans REALLY wanted to get even with the Arabs for 9/11, we would all drive those tiny little cars with manual transmissions. This would lower the demand so far it would kill their economy!

Just stop buying oil from them. It won't happen though.
Geogeer
Posts: 4,276
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 8:44:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/10/2015 9:58:45 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Late last week President Obama denied issuing a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Several weeks ago his administration struck a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market. Why would he so blatantly hurt Canadians (U.S.'s closest ally and partner in free trade) with this bogus decision, and then strike a deal with Iran that gets their oil onto the global market (a country that firmly believes in a "Death to America" approach)? It is very perplexing.

It is very confusing because it is not as if this means the US isn't importing oil from Canada. It will still be shipped by rail which is less efficient with bigger risks.

What will eventually happen is that Canada will begin to sell refined fuels instead. In Alberta they are building a new refinery (first of its kind) which can convert bitumen from the oilsands into diesel without first being upgraded.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

This will maximize the profit from the oil as it currently sells at a deep discount to conventional oil. As such the US will start to face increased competition from north of the border as someone is selling finished product (instead of raw materials) into the market.

Just something to consider.
lotsoffun
Posts: 1,609
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2015 9:19:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 11/12/2015 8:44:28 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 11/10/2015 9:58:45 PM, Ijuststartedthinking wrote:
Late last week President Obama denied issuing a permit for construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. Several weeks ago his administration struck a deal to allow Iranian crude onto the global market. Why would he so blatantly hurt Canadians (U.S.'s closest ally and partner in free trade) with this bogus decision, and then strike a deal with Iran that gets their oil onto the global market (a country that firmly believes in a "Death to America" approach)? It is very perplexing.

It is very confusing because it is not as if this means the US isn't importing oil from Canada. It will still be shipped by rail which is less efficient with bigger risks.

What will eventually happen is that Canada will begin to sell refined fuels instead. In Alberta they are building a new refinery (first of its kind) which can convert bitumen from the oilsands into diesel without first being upgraded.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com...

This will maximize the profit from the oil as it currently sells at a deep discount to conventional oil. As such the US will start to face increased competition from north of the border as someone is selling finished product (instead of raw materials) into the market.

Just something to consider.

Canada has a number of oil refineries. We've lost a few over the decades but there are still plenty. What needs to be done is reverse the pipeline between Sarnia and Montreal. That will allow Alberta and Saskatchewan oil to flow to refineries in Quebec and the Maritimes. It's ridiculous that we buy oil overseas for the Eastern part of the country.