• 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!

China invests in Canada oil sands

You don't have a clue, so you resort to racial slurs and personal attacks. Why don't you just call me the n-word, because I'm not a Cajun.
You know that's not even remotely the same thing, so stop acting like it is, and stop trying to lie to the mods by reporting it.
 
What you don't seem to get is that all oil in the ground cannot be produced for the same price. There is oil that is economically recoverable at 20 dollars a barrel and there is oil that is not economically recoverable until prices are over 100 dollars a barrel. By subsidizing extremely costly to produce oil shale and oil sands you are creating a market distortion.

I do understand that all oil pool can't be produced at the same price. The part that you don't seem to understand, is that the price of oil isn't regulated by the overhead expended to produce it. Subsidizing oil exploration doesn't make the price of oil go up, or down. Oil compaies have been subsidized for years, until PBO cut off the subsidies and tax breaks and we saw record high gas prices. Those high prices weren't caused by subsidies.
 
It seems this discussion has taken a turn of which I had not intended. I did not call for the government to subsidize oil, nor manipulate the market. I simply intended that the goverment purchase rights to drill in these areas, of which in time of energy crisis or energy inflation to levels seen last year, the government could sell these rights to private oil companies who could then pump the oil under economical viable conditions. This is neither manipulation or subsidization, it is simply buying rights to drill and selling those rights at a future market value when said necessity determines.
 
As a result of the development of Canadian oil sands reserves, 44% of Canadian oil production in 2007 was from oil sands, with an additional 18% being heavy oil, while light oil and condensate had declined to 38% of the total.[6] Because growth of oil sands production has exceeded declines in conventional crude oil production, Canada has become the largest supplier of oil and refined products to the United States, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

[ame=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_sands]Oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Sounds like the technology is already developed, more so than wind and solar... the real problem is the hold the Environmental movement has on this country.

Why is it that those that see a subsidy for oil as bad, don't complain one bit about subsidies for wind, solar, or Bio-fuels?
 
It seems this discussion has taken a turn of which I had not intended. I did not call for the government to subsidize oil, nor manipulate the market. I simply intended that the goverment purchase rights to drill in these areas, of which in time of energy crisis or energy inflation to levels seen last year, the government could sell these rights to private oil companies who could then pump the oil under economical viable conditions. This is neither manipulation or subsidization, it is simply buying rights to drill and selling those rights at a future market value when said necessity determines.

Exactly!

You are calling for tax dollars to be used to speculate in the Energy Industry.

You "speculate" that the price of oil will exceed $70 per barrel and that this operation will become a money maker at some point in the future.
 
It seems this discussion has taken a turn of which I had not intended. I did not call for the government to subsidize oil, nor manipulate the market. I simply intended that the goverment purchase rights to drill in these areas, of which in time of energy crisis or energy inflation to levels seen last year, the government could sell these rights to private oil companies who could then pump the oil under economical viable conditions. This is neither manipulation or subsidization, it is simply buying rights to drill and selling those rights at a future market value when said necessity determines.

Estimated U.S. oil shale reserves total an astonishing 1.5 trillion barrels of oil - or more than five times the
stated reserves of Saudi Arabia.

Why not mine (mine, not drill) our own?
 
Exactly!

You are calling for tax dollars to be used to speculate in the Energy Industry.

You "speculate" that the price of oil will exceed $70 per barrel and that this operation will become a money maker at some point in the future.

Are you saying that Canada is selling the US oil at a loss?

As a result of the development of Canadian oil sands reserves, 44% of Canadian oil production in 2007 was from oil sands, with an additional 18% being heavy oil, while light oil and condensate had declined to 38% of the total.[6] Because growth of oil sands production has exceeded declines in conventional crude oil production, Canada has become the largest supplier of oil and refined products to the United States, ahead of Saudi Arabia and Mexico.
 
Are you saying have the government mine the oil and sell it itself?

Hell NO!!!! Just allow US oil companies to mine our own HUGH oil sand deposits.

(Not to mention drill our own Hugh reserves)
 
Hell NO!!!! Just allow US oil companies to mine our own HUGH oil sand deposits.

(Not to mention drill our own Hugh reserves)

No problem as long as they pay for the right to drill or mine on the land. Oil companies have a history of not paying their leases to the government. Bush Sr. and Clinton both allowed them to take the oil for free, very stupid as the companies reaped huge profits on taxpayer land.
 
No problem as long as they pay for the right to drill or mine on the land. Oil companies have a history of not paying their leases to the government. Bush Sr. and Clinton both allowed them to take the oil for free, very stupid as the companies reaped huge profits on taxpayer land.

It is a problem.... Gov. org won't allow any new drilling anywhere, won't allow the mining of the oil sands, won't allow construction of any new distilleries, and have made the building of nuclear power plants impossible through their Byzantine permit process... yet they professes to want us to be energy self sufficient.

I call BS.
 
Moderator's Warning:
That will be just about enough of the name calling and personal attacks. Using derogatory names, such as coonass, is not acceptable.
 
Moderator's Warning:
That will be just about enough of the name calling and personal attacks. Using derogatory names, such as coonass, is not acceptable.
Understood.
 
I do understand that all oil pool can't be produced at the same price. The part that you don't seem to understand, is that the price of oil isn't regulated by the overhead expended to produce it. Subsidizing oil exploration doesn't make the price of oil go up, or down. Oil compaies have been subsidized for years, until PBO cut off the subsidies and tax breaks and we saw record high gas prices. Those high prices weren't caused by subsidies.


1. We had record high gas prices long before President Obama took office. It was largely due to speculation. It was a classic speculative bubble.

2. If you are subsidizing oil production, then the idea would be that you are doing so to introduce more oil onto the market than what would otherwise be on the market at a given price, and thus reduce the costs of fuel at the pump.

The problem with doing that is, that it:

- Creates a disincentive for private sector innovation.

- Most likely is counter productive as any money consumers save at the pump is offset by tax dollars spent subsidizing the production.

- If you are going to artificially interfere with the market, why would you subsidize Oil Sands production which is devastating the environment rather than just subsidizing consumers purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. If we are talking about a "Lesser of two evils", then subsidizing consumers buying these:

prius.jpg


Makes a hell of a lot more sense than subsidizing Oil Sand production that results in this:

nb-oilsands.png


And this:

Oil_sands_open_pit_mining.jpg


Or you could just let the market determine where best to invest in oil production.
 
1. We had record high gas prices long before President Obama took office. It was largely due to speculation. It was a classic speculative bubble.

2. If you are subsidizing oil production, then the idea would be that you are doing so to introduce more oil onto the market than what would otherwise be on the market at a given price, and thus reduce the costs of fuel at the pump.

The problem with doing that is, that it:

- Creates a disincentive for private sector innovation.

- Most likely is counter productive as any money consumers save at the pump is offset by tax dollars spent subsidizing the production.

- If you are going to artificially interfere with the market, why would you subsidize Oil Sands production which is devastating the environment rather than just subsidizing consumers purchasing more fuel efficient vehicles. If we are talking about a "Lesser of two evils", then subsidizing consumers buying these:

Ok, lets talk about the "lesser of two evils"...


prius.jpg
vs this
f-250.jpg


What is your life worth?

BTW... I drive the F-250 4x4 diesel, and feel very safe around 18 wheelers... how do you feel in your Pirus?
 
Ok, lets talk about the "lesser of two evils"...

vs this

What is your life worth?

BTW... I drive the one on the right, and feel very safe around 18 wheelers... how do you feel in your Pirus?

I don't drive a Prius. I drive a Chevy Colorado z71 4wd crew cab. I drive it because there is hardly a weekend that goes by that we are not out fishing, backpacking, mountain biking and so on. So unlike many modern truck owners, I use mine for something other than driving paved roads.

That said, I bear the costs of driving a vehicle that only gets 19 to 20 mpg on the highway. Its a choice I made and I don't want the government subsidizing an oil company just to make it easier for me. You see in a market economy there are trade offs like that. If you want to drive a truck, then the trade off is that you will spend much more on gas than someone that drives a prius. If you want to drive a prius, then the trade off is that you can't take it off road or haul as much of your crap around in it. There is not some enviro conspiracy that is leading to high gas prices. The oil industry spends nearly a hundred dollars lobbying congress for every dollar the Sierra Club spends. The oil industry pretty much gets it way. The problem is that we live in a world of peaking production and increasing demand and you can subsidize all the raping of the environment that you want its not going to change that.
 
I don't drive a Prius. I drive a Chevy Colorado z71 4wd crew cab. I drive it because there is hardly a weekend that goes by that we are not out fishing, backpacking, mountain biking and so on. So unlike many modern truck owners, I use mine for something other than driving paved roads.

That said, I bear the costs of driving a vehicle that only gets 19 to 20 mpg on the highway. Its a choice I made and I don't want the government subsidizing an oil company just to make it easier for me. You see in a market economy there are trade offs like that. If you want to drive a truck, then the trade off is that you will spend much more on gas than someone that drives a prius. If you want to drive a prius, then the trade off is that you can't take it off road or haul as much of your crap around in it. There is not some enviro conspiracy that is leading to high gas prices. The oil industry spends nearly a hundred dollars lobbying congress for every dollar the Sierra Club spends. The oil industry pretty much gets it way. The problem is that we live in a world of peaking production and increasing demand and you can subsidize all the raping of the environment that you want its not going to change that.

I guess you took my post personally... it wasn't meant that way. My point was how dangerous these mini-cars are... I've been in one and did not like looking up at the top of the tire on that 18 wheeler. I drove truck for 15 years, and know what they do to mid size cars when they run over them.

Now think Pirus, go stomp on a beer can, and get back to me.
 
I guess you took my post personally... it wasn't meant that way. My point was how dangerous these mini-cars are... I've been in one and did not like looking up at the top of the tire on that 18 wheeler. I drove truck for 15 years, and know what they do to mid size cars when they run over them.

Now think Pirus, go stomp on a beer can, and get back to me.

Of course the other side of that is that small car will stop in at least half the distance your truck will.
 
Of course the other side of that is that small car will stop in at least half the distance your truck will.

And the other side of that is they better look behind themselves before hitting the brakes.... especially if they are tail gating a truck. (you do know that a loaded 18 wheeler can stop faster that any car can? (on flat ground))

Which begs the question... if our Government is so dead set to have energy independence, why not drill, why not mine the oil sands, why not stream line the permit process for nuclear power plants? Could it be that the real agenda is Green?
 
Which begs the question... if our Government is so dead set to have energy independence, why not drill, why not mine the oil sands, why not stream line the permit process for nuclear power plants? Could it be that the real agenda is Green?

They are already mining oil shale in North Dakota and Montana, they have been doing so for years. The problem is that its only profitable when oil prices are high. By far the biggest impediment to more drilling is not the government, its that many of the potential domestic oil fields that are left require very high oil prices for them to be economically recoverable. Sure, we need to open up ANWR (given sufficient environmental safeguards), but at most you are looking at only another 700,000 barrels a day which is only around 1% of daily worldwide oil consumption. We should allow states on the east coast to decide whether they want drilling off of their coasts, but again, you only looking at a few hundred thousand barrels of additional production a day, at most it would offset declining domestic production, not increase it. Our peak oil production in the United States was over 30 years ago, we are not going to drill our way to independence.

As to refineries, oil companies shut them down themselves back in the 90s. It had nothing to do with the government. I am all for bringing more nuclear plants online, but you got to deal with the "not in my backyard" mentality there.
 
Oh ok, so you are cool with the government subsidizing profitable industries and telling them what to invest in.




Yes I am.
Holy ****! a democrat that is for the free market! Cmon, join the conservatives, you are welcome here ;)
 
Back
Top Bottom