A European or African swallow? Either way, it's pretty expensive. But I tried to convert from litres to US gallons. Then from pounds to US dollars. So it should be US dollars per US gallon.
A Monty Python fan I see. China is actually a significant player in the oil sands and they’re going to be paying for a pipeline that’s coming your way too. China and Chinese businessmen have been investing in heavy oil and the oil sands and in the Canadian petrochemical industry for quite a while, actually. Husky Energy’s majority owner is Li Ka Shing, which is something most Canadians don’t know, and the Chinese government has been investing heavily in the oil sands in various ways and through various companies and now also in the afore mentioned pipeline to transport it to the coast, to Prince Rupert to be precise. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Husky_Energy http://www.energybulletin.net/5411.html The price to produce a barrel of oil from oil sands is currently at about $10/barrel but not all of it can be recovered that cheaply. I don’t have any good numbers on how much of it can be produced that cheaply, and the technology is improving all the time, so it’s hard to guess what it will be in the future. Here’s a link that discusses some background on this. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/12.07/oil.html?pg=1&topic=oil&topic_set=
That's cool Deckard. As for Lebowski Fest... I've done most every festival in Austin. but ...er... wtf is that one? Do you need to own a pair of suede bowling shoes to get in?
I didn't know about the China links. That is good news. But to put it in context, Canada currently exports 1.6 million bb/d to the US. The China connection should result in 200,000 bb/d to China (according to your link). And who's to say exports to the US won't go up during this time too. And US companies continue to dominate the Canadian oil industry. So unless there is a big change in the political climate, which (sadly IMO) seems unlikely, we should see continued globalisation of these players. Meaning even more US ownership. (spare us the Pwned comments, please ). The potential obstacle to the US getting Canadian oil likely comes from their own protectionist legislators. Land of the Free sure loves them tariffs. I don't really know if that's a factor for Oil, as it has been for other goods, but maintaining good access to the biggest and most economically accessible market is just as important for Canada as it is for the Americans. Got to go. Third period's about to start.
As a footnote you need to look no further than the softwood lumber issue and the BSE issue to see why it’s good for Canada not be completely reliant on trade with the US. The proximity is great but you never know when the boarder will be closed for purely political reasons. If we pipe the oil to the coast then we can either ship it to the US or to China. Even if the economics aren’t quite as good it’s good insurance as it gives us some leverage over the Americans on this and other issues.
I do, but I wasn't thinking 'hey, this is a great idea for a festival' while I was watching ... though I guess it would make for a better festival than Fargo.
Yeah I hear about that softwood lumber issue quite a bit. Working in the construction industry I get lobbied on that issue. As for me I'm all for cheap Canadian doug fir.
bnb likely has more details than I do since it’s affecting his part of the country in a big way, but it’s an issue that hurts the American consumer as well. But the lobbyists for this group of US lumber interests are apparently well connected. There have been some mixed findings at the NAFTA hearings but they’ve mostly gone in our favour, with the US appealing and dragging it out and saying they want a negotiated solution but dragging their heels even more. http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/ Note that Canada is 1/9 the population of the US so when they’re talking about $5.2 billion in duties the impact on our economy would be similar to $50 billion in duties being applied to a US export product. It’s big.
The pipeline would carry twice that, though, 400,000 bpd, half of which is PetroChina’s share. And I consider this a start. And I believe that Syncrude and Suncor are essentially Canadian owned, but I’m not 100% sure of that. I didn’t quickly find a good link but the Canadian government is also considering or has already restricted foreign ownership. This is obviously going to be a strategic resource for us and one that will be important for us to control. Partnerships with China would make sense in a lot of ways though. Too much reliance on trade with the US is just not a good thing. I think oil could open up a lot of trade opportunities with China.
Your points are all well taken Grizz, and, as usual, well thought out. From a Canadian standpoint. Developing the Chinese, and other markets is critical for Canada. My comments were more directed at those who suggested Canada might not be willing to sell the US oil. If they'll buy, we'll sell. Don't get me started on softwood lumber.....
There is currently a 225,000 bpd pipeline that goes to Vancouver, and some facilites just south of the line in Washington state, from Edmonton. That company, Terasen, is apparently also considering increasing the capacity of this line and building another one. The planned pipeline discussed above would go to Prince Rupert, which is up the coast quite a ways.
Exxon Mobil profit rises on soaring prices NEW YORK (Reuters) - Exxon Mobil Corp., the world's largest publicly traded oil company, on Thursday reported quarterly profit surged, driven by rising oil prices. Net income in the first quarter was $8.4 billion (that's $93,000,000 per day), or $1.37 a share, up from $7.86 billion, or $1.22 a share, a year earlier. Revenue jumped to $88.98 billion from $82.05 billion. http://today.reuters.com/news/artic...91_RTRUKOC_0_US-ENERGY-EXXON-EARNS.xml&rpc=23
That's just offensive. I really don't know how those guys can sleep at night. Texxx, care to defend this?
Why would Exxon owe you a break? You're the Junkie, they are just your dealer. If the people wanted they could nationalize all America's natural resources; a nationalist socialist nirvana. But we have chosen capitalism and this is what it looks like. You have to recognize what the future is going to be like and secure your own safety and security. Er, get a job in the oil industry.
Lets spend more money we don't have... http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/04/27/gas.rebate/index.html Senators to push for $100 gas rebate checks Under proposal, every U.S. taxpayer would get one From Dana Bash CNN Thursday, April 27, 2006; Posted: 5:44 a.m. EDT (09:44 GMT) WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Every American taxpayer would get a $100 rebate check to offset the pain of higher pump prices for gasoline, under an amendment Senate Republicans hope to bring to a vote Thursday. However, the GOP energy package may face tough sledding because it also includes a controversial proposal to open part of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska to oil exploration, which most Democrats and some moderate Republicans oppose. Democrats are also expected to offer their own competing proposal, as members of both parties jockey for political position on the gas price issue. The energy package, sponsored by Sens. Charles Grassley of Iowa, Ted Stevens of Alaska, Pete Domenici of New Mexico and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, will be offered as an amendment to an emergency spending measure now before the Senate funding the Iraq war and hurricane relief, according to a senior GOP leadership aide. Under Senate rules, either the GOP amendment or the Democratic alternative would probably need 60 votes to pass, which is considered unlikely. However, the amendments would give senators a change to cast votes on measures designed to help constituents being hit by high gas prices. As outlined by the senior GOP leadership aide, the energy package would give taxpayers a $100 rebate, repeal tax incentives for oil companies and allow the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute retailers unlawfully inflating the price of gasoline. The measure would also give the Transportation Department authority to issue fuel efficiency standards for passenger vehicles, expand tax incentives for the use of hybrid vehicles and push for more research into alternative fuels and expansion of existing oil refineries. The GOP senators are also calling on the Bush administration to suspend deposits into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve for six months to increase the nation's oil supply. President Bush announced Tuesday that he would halt new deposits into the reserve until after the summer driving season. On the other side of the aisle, Democrats on Wednesday called for a new energy bill and federal legislation to punish price gougers. "There's no reason why we can't put forth a real energy policy that addresses the needs of this nation," said Rep. Bart Stupak, a member of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, "from gouging to market manipulation to biofuels. We can do it." And leaders of the Senate Finance Committee on Wednesday asked the Internal Revenue Service to let them examine the tax returns of the nation's 15 largest oil and gas companies, as part of a "comprehensive review" of oil industry profits. "I want to make sure the oil companies aren't taking a speed pass by the tax man," said Grassley, the committee's chairman, in a written statement.
Has there been any environmentalist outcry over running tankers out of the Straits there and has this affected expanding oil shipping operations? I would imagine after the Exxon Valdez there would've been a lot of concern considering how seriously people in Vancouver take there environment.
