• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project

Having a foreign company own a small resource play is not an issue when we have sold off majority stakes and entire companies to foreign companies in the mining business (Nickel specifically)

But it IS an issue! Just because we have done worse does not justify this! We shouldn't do either! Its never a good idea to give power to another government that doesnt have your best interests in mind. That can be said about a corporation as well.
 
Allowing another to control your most critical resources is never clever. Of course, a lot of people complaining about China's "unfair trade" practices are really just angry they can't apply a similar arithmetic to China's critical resources like has been done in places like Nigeria.

Thats the ironic part. If other countries were smarter, they would hold China over the fire for everything! China is so overpopulated, they need to import almost every basic resource from other countries. We could have China completly dependant on us if we didnt have a bunch of bleeding heart liberals in power over the last 50 years. Instead of helping China in a way that would let us maintain a sembelance of control, we let them take over to the point that they now have huge amounts of power of the very countries that thought they were "helping" them just a few short years ago. You cant tell me thats not ironic.
 
Then you have one hell of a weird notion of what the left is. Dwight Eisenhower warned us about the Military-Industrial complex before he left office. I guess that makes him a hippie commie too, right? LOL.

Does it?

Perhaps we should focus on the topic at hand rather than whether Dwight Eisenhower was a hippie commie or not.
 
Last edited:
Thats the ironic part. If other countries were smarter, they would hold China over the fire for everything! China is so overpopulated, they need to import almost every basic resource from other countries. We could have China completly dependant on us if we didnt have a bunch of bleeding heart liberals in power over the last 50 years. Instead of helping China in a way that would let us maintain a sembelance of control, we let them take over to the point that they now have huge amounts of power of the very countries that thought they were "helping" them just a few short years ago. You cant tell me thats not ironic.

Just the interest on the money owed China will soon be enough to pay for their military.

Perhaps it's time to "puncture the cocoon of denial".

Mark Steyn: Puncture the cocoon of denial | trillion, debt, government - Opinion - The Orange County Register
 
Maybe now the US will get serious about getting off oil and moving toward a renewable energy source we can make in-house.

The handwriting has been on the wall for decades - Jimmy Carter saw it back in the 1970s and tried to implement a plan to avert the US being hostage to countries that control oil. The oil industry was not having it and started contributing heavily to political campaigns creating a second mess we are still dealing with today.

So, instead of concentrating on getting our hands on actual energy sources, we've spent thousands of man hours and billions of dollars trying to make a phonograph needle out of a peanut.
 
Does it?

Perhaps we should focus on the topic at hand rather than whether Dwight Eisenhower was a hippie commie or not.

Perhaps we should, but it was YOU who brought this up, via the ad hom attack on a group of people. It's like the guy who farts at the dinner table, then tries to blame the dog.
 
Perhaps we should, but it was YOU who brought this up, via the ad hom attack on a group of people. It's like the guy who farts at the dinner table, then tries to blame the dog.

I brought up the subject of Dwight Eisenhower? And now farts? Dinner tables? Dogs?

Why not stick to the topic rather than rambling all over the map?
 
Yeah, those clever Chinese are lending us money at near zero percent interest. Bastards.

What does it matter what the interest rate is if we are never able to pay back the principle? The reason they are charging so little interest is so that we will keep coming back and asking for more! Which we are about to do! You sound like the kind of person that activates every credit card offer they receive that is under 18% interest because its just such a great deal!
 
An Op-Ed by a far left environmentalists.

Yep, convinced me...............:roll:
I didn't see your ad hominem regarding an Op-Ed by a far right wingnut (Mark Steyn: Puncture the cocoon of denial | trillion, debt, government - Opinion - The Orange County Register) :roll:

However, logical fallacies aside, pretty much everyone that knows what "clean coal" is knows that it is an oxymoron, at least from a CO2 perspective. If you want to hang your debating hat on arguing against common knowledge, well, lotsa luck [shrug].
 
I didn't see your ad hominem regarding an Op-Ed by a far right wingnut (Mark Steyn: Puncture the cocoon of denial | trillion, debt, government - Opinion - The Orange County Register) :roll:

However, logical fallacies aside, pretty much everyone that knows what "clean coal" is knows that it is an oxymoron, at least from a CO2 perspective. If you want to hang your debating hat on arguing against common knowledge, well, lotsa luck [shrug].

I didn't realize that I'm obligated to remark on every opinion or post in the thread.

Is CO2 poisonous ?? How many people have died from inhaling it ??
 
Last edited:
PetroChina buys entire Alberta oilsands project - Business - CBC News


Canada is the #1 supplier of oil to the United States, and now Canadian oil projects are owned and operated by the Chinese. Gotta love the irony.

I think it's a serious error in judgment for the Canadian government to abandon its "51% Canadian" policy, seeing as how no North American nation owns any stake in the tar sands. I really feel that both the U.S. and Canada are being devoured by foreign interests.
1. Canadian oil projects have been owned by the Chinese for some time. The very project mentioned above has been 60% owned by the Chinese since 2009[sup][1][/sup].

2. Given that 60% ownership since 2009, your "51% Canadian" claim seems to be rather erroneous.

3. The headline above gives the impression that PetroChina has bought the entire kit and kaboodle. That is not the case -- the "project" that they bought is a small portion (6,400 km[SUP]2[/SUP] [sup][1][/sup]) of a much larger oil sands field (141,000 km[SUP]2[/SUP] [sup][2][/sup]).


_________________________________________
1. Athabasca Oil Sands Corp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. Athabasca oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
I didn't see your ad hominem regarding an Op-Ed by a far right wingnut (Mark Steyn: Puncture the cocoon of denial | trillion, debt, government - Opinion - The Orange County Register) :roll:

However, logical fallacies aside, pretty much everyone that knows what "clean coal" is knows that it is an oxymoron, at least from a CO2 perspective. If you want to hang your debating hat on arguing against common knowledge, well, lotsa luck [shrug].

Quite honestly, i don’t care how clean or dirty it is. I think we need to do whatever we have to do to ensure the future of our way of life for our children. Both environmentally and fiscally. Would i love to live in a world with zero pollution? Of course! Do i think we should be working toward that goal? Absolutely! But we need to be at the top of our game to reach it and the only way for us to do that is to have a stable, thriving economy where we are not in debt to anyone else. An economy where we are advancing, not declining. We are making slow progress right now, granted, but its not so fast that we are going to be living in a pollution free utopia any time soon. Until that day comes we need to use any and every source of energy we can get. Even electric cars need energy and that needs to come from somewhere.
 
[...] Personally I'd rather see that [1],[2] oil heading south to American refineries though the Keystone Pipeline and providing a secure source of oil, as well as [3] 20,000 American jobs. [...]
1. There is no evidence or statement of fact that the Keystone XL oil would be processed by American refineries (there is speculation that it could be simply shipped overseas at said refinery, which is claimed to be in a free trade zone (Port Arthur, TX)). That oil from sands projects such as that in Canada is very dirty and very low quality is common knowledge in the industry -- it would be difficult to refine, more costly to refine, and result in greater pollution to refine, all compared to typical 'American' oil (light sweet Texas crude). Bottom line, the nastiest type of oil there is (more or less).

2. Were the oil to be processed by American refineries, there is no evidence or statement of fact that the refined product would be used or sold in America (again, there is speculation that it could be shipped overseas, possibly due to quality issues mentioned above). In that scenario, America gets the pollution, the oil companies get the profits, and some other country gets the oil.

3. The number of American jobs seems to be rather 'manipulated'. Other non-oil-industry estimates are around 5,000 construction jobs, which would of course end when pipeline construction is completed. There is evidence and statement of fact that the job estimates by those who stand to profit from construction of the pipeline that their job numbers are "job-years"; for example, if 1,000 jobs are created for 3 years, then they count that as 3,000 jobs. FYI.

It should be noted that roughly half of the Keystone pipline project has been completed and is in use -- from Canada to Cushing, Oklahoma. One "XL" portion of the pipeline (phase 3) would simply run from Cushing OK down into Texas, and would be used to transport American oil as well. Phase 4 would be an additional pipeline from Canada to Steele City, Nebraska.
 
Quite honestly, i don’t care how clean or dirty it is. I think we need to do whatever we have to do to ensure the future of our way of life for our children. [...]
Your stated attitude is clearly contrary to that. The future of our country is rooted in progressive adaptation, not rooting around in carcinogenic tar pits like the dinosaurs we are likely to mimic if we do not use our brains instead of our brawn.
 
[...] Even electric cars need energy and that needs to come from somewhere.
The average electric commuter vehicle (Chevy Volt, for one example) could be completely powered by a home solar station. There is no need for anyone who drives less than 20 miles per day to ever use another drop of gasoline on the highway ever again. Right now. Today. Tell our children. . . .
 
1. There is no evidence or statement of fact that the Keystone XL oil would be processed by American refineries (there is speculation that it could be simply shipped overseas at said refinery, which is claimed to be in a free trade zone (Port Arthur, TX)). That oil from sands projects such as that in Canada is very dirty and very low quality is common knowledge in the industry -- it would be difficult to refine, more costly to refine, and result in greater pollution to refine, all compared to typical 'American' oil (light sweet Texas crude). Bottom line, the nastiest type of oil there is (more or less).

2. Were the oil to be processed by American refineries, there is no evidence or statement of fact that the refined product would be used or sold in America (again, there is speculation that it could be shipped overseas, possibly due to quality issues mentioned above). In that scenario, America gets the pollution, the oil companies get the profits, and some other country gets the oil.

3. The number of American jobs seems to be rather 'manipulated'. Other non-oil-industry estimates are around 5,000 construction jobs, which would of course end when pipeline construction is completed. There is evidence and statement of fact that the job estimates by those who stand to profit from construction of the pipeline that their job numbers are "job-years"; for example, if 1,000 jobs are created for 3 years, then they count that as 3,000 jobs. FYI.

Your post has far more "speculation" that facts.

It should be noted that roughly half of the Keystone pipline project has been completed and is in use -- from Canada to Cushing, Oklahoma. One "XL" portion of the pipeline (phase 3) would simply run from Cushing OK down into Texas, and would be used to transport American oil as well. Phase 4 would be an additional pipeline from Canada to Steele City, Nebraska.

You are totally confused. Why would Obama refuse to issue a permit in November 2011 if most of it has already been built. Keystone XL has NOT been built because Obama wants to delay any controversy until after the November election. He has no balls.
 
Your post has far more "speculation" that facts.
My post has more facts than any other post on this issue. Not to mention more intelligence :cool:

You are totally confused. Why would Obama refuse to issue a permit in November 2011 if most of it has already been built. Keystone XL has NOT been built because Obama wants to delay any controversy until after the November election. He has no balls.
Did I mention more intelligence? :2wave:

Here's a tip for those that like to spew without reading supporting links: The Keystone Pipeline is the segment that is already in operation, as I noted in my post (terminating in Cushing, OK). The Keystone "XL" Pipeline is (a) the extension they want to add down to Texas, and (b) the secondary (I suppose) pipeline they also want to run into Nebraska.

Details... they're not for everyone . . . . .
 
Last edited:

Speaking of ad hominem attacks, where is the evidence that Mark Steyn is "a far right wing nut"? In oder to support that claim you'd need some evidence, some fallacies contained therein, and you've offered none.

Or perhaps you don't understand what "ad hominem" means.

"Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)".

However, logical fallacies aside, pretty much everyone that knows what "clean coal" is knows that it is an oxymoron, at least from a CO2 perspective. If you want to hang your debating hat on arguing against common knowledge, well, lotsa luck [shrug].

"Pretty much everyone" shouldn't mean a great deal in the scientific community. As well we have to realize that some pollution is going to occur in any society. We have to minimalize it, certainly, and always look to cleaner and more efficient alternatives but ignoring accessible energy while chasing pie in the sky alternatives is a very foolish idea. There is no reason why this search for energy cannot be handled on two or more fronts.
 
My post has more facts than any other post on this issue. Not to mention more intelligence :cool:


Did I mention more intelligence? :2wave:

Mentioning does not equal existing.
 
The average electric commuter vehicle (Chevy Volt, for one example) could be completely powered by a home solar station. There is no need for anyone who drives less than 20 miles per day to ever use another drop of gasoline on the highway ever again. Right now. Today. Tell our children. . . .

If you are traveling 20 miles a day it's better to get a bicycle rather than spending $40,000 on a vehicle, and the expense of a home solar station, that will be useless in the trade-in market.
 
Speaking of ad hominem attacks, where is the evidence that Mark Steyn is "a far right wing nut"? In oder to support that claim you'd need some evidence, some fallacies contained therein, and you've offered none.
I mimicked your tactic as an exercise in sarcasm... so you have, in effect, just criticized yourself. Well done :mrgreen:

Or perhaps you don't understand what "ad hominem" means.

"Translated from Latin to English, "Ad Hominem" means "against the man" or "against the person."
An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim, her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting)".
Do you not understand that is exactly what your prior post did? :doh
 
If you are traveling 20 miles a day it's better to get a bicycle rather than spending $40,000 on a vehicle, and the expense of a home solar station, that will be useless in the trade-in market.

A bicycle is not much good if your commute requires you to travel on highways. Or, if you need to travel during the work day. Or if, for example, it rains or snows where you live. Or is really hot. Or really cold.

And there's no reason that an EV would be useless in the trade-in market, as they can be recharged from the grid if desired.
 
Back
Top Bottom