• 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!

Domestic Drilling

Additional domestic drilling will reduce oil prices


  • Total voters
    57
Of course, thats why people are having their farms destroyed by natural gas drilling

sounds like the natural gas company owes them some compensation and they should think about selling their farms.

but no, i don't really give a hoot if sand flea's are upset at our drilling - nor do I care if the tundra moss is damaged, or if the fishes in the deep blue sea have to swim around the rig rather than through it.

Markets rarely care about long run circumstances

futures markets don't care about the future....... i just want to make sure, that' is what you are arguing.

You misread. I said that it won't cause the price of gas to go lower, but it will keep gas cheaper compared to alternatives for the short run, which prolongs the problem.

not at all; if those alternatives are truly cheaper than gas, then they will be cheaper than gas. the solution of deliberately destroying the thing upon which our economy depends in the hopes that maybe an alternative will arise Just In Time is economic suicide. Why don't we just outlaw the internet so that we can all develop telepathy?
 
actually no i don't, because I am just fine with creative destruction. yes, if it's in the way of a better use of those resources, then the market will push them to sell their livelihoods. buggy makers in the 20's faced the same thing from the onslaught of the automobile.
 
actually no i don't, because I am just fine with creative destruction. yes, if it's in the way of a better use of those resources, then the market will push them to sell their livelihoods. buggy makers in the 20's faced the same thing from the onslaught of the automobile.

Yes because gas is more important than food. Watch gasland. You'll actually be informed how its "not the market" doing anything.
 
we have more than enough food. our people are obese. food is more expensive than it need be already thanks to our idiotic price control system and we are still awash in it. losing a few farms isn't a problem for us (and, btw, if it was a problem for us then the market would be pricing that food higher and the more productive use of the land would be farming, which would mean that agriculture would be pushing out the energy sector, not the other way around).

what we need more of is energy. as OC has pointed out, demand is only going to increase dramatically in the future, and unless we ramp up and free up production the cheap ride is over.
 
Last edited:
what we need more of is energy. as OC has pointed out, demand is only going to increase dramatically in the future, and unless we ramp up and free up production the cheap ride is over.

And fossile fule is the answer, even though its running out. Of course its not a good thing that sustainable energy is getting an edge due to limited supply of these fuels. Raping the earth is fun and profitable so it has to be done. Got ya
 
If we kept all the oil that came out of Alberta for ourselves, we'd all be paying $0.60/L. I don't doubt the same would happen for the US.
 
If we kept all the oil that came out of Alberta for ourselves, we'd all be paying $0.60/L. I don't doubt the same would happen for the US.

But thats market manipulation.
 
fossil fuel is in no danger of running out any time soon, and you know what? as it does, it will become naturally more expensive, and by then the tech will have developed further allowing an alternative to more quickly and easily replace it. Drilling in the meantime isn't "raping the earth" - the entire area that they want to drill in ANWR, if you were to put it all together, would cover roughly the same amount of Territory as the LAX. Of course we should be dropping the current state barriers that keep replacements from receiving their full due. Nuclear ought to be streamlined, for example, so that states and localities can weigh the pro's and cons' on their own. The Japanese had taken some amazing steps in miniaturization of that technology, and we would be fools to keep it from ourselves. But the Government has an amazingly poor history of picking winners and losers (ethanol, anyone?) in this game, and shouldn't be trying to tilt the field in favor of anyone.

In the meantime, our people are hurting - we are out of work, and watching growth (upon which so much depends) dwindle to a trickle. Drilling means desperately-needed well-paying jobs, increased revenue, and more rapid economic growth. Who hurts the most from higher energy prices? Not the rich, and not even the upper-middle class. The most vulnerable hurt the most - the poor, the unemployed, the student. I see no reason to continue to **** those people over in order to fulfill someone's Green Windmill Fantasies and tendency to go into the vapors around the Icky Stuff.
 
If we kept all the oil that came out of Alberta for ourselves, we'd all be paying $0.60/L. I don't doubt the same would happen for the US.

yes, and then of course you would have much less money to purchase foreign goods with, international trade with the US upon which your economy is dependent would slam to a halt, and you would see an entire economic collapse.

but yes, for a short time you would probably enjoy lower gasoline prices. :thumbs: well done.
 
Very happy we can see who voted they were unaware of both the facts that we passed peak oil in this country 40 years ago and that we are approaching world peak oil now.

1. Alfons
2. Barbbtx
3. Bigfoot 88
4. Cephus
5. cpwill
6. DashingAmerican
7. deltabtry
8. Juiposa
9. lpast
10. tessaesque
 
yes, and then of course you would have much less money to purchase foreign goods with, international trade with the US upon which your economy is dependent would slam to a halt, and you would see an entire economic collapse.

but yes, for a short time you would probably enjoy lower gasoline prices. :thumbs: well done.

With lower energy costs, our manufacturing base would be given an advantage over other countries with similar labour costs. Possibly allowing for increased exports to other countries.
 
With lower energy costs, our manufacturing base would be given an advantage over other countries with similar labour costs. Possibly allowing for increased exports to other countries.

i think you misunderstand. you get lower energy costs for a couple of weeks. after that your economy ceases to function and you become North Korea - dependent only on what you can produce internally.
 
Very happy we can see who voted they were unaware of both the facts that we passed peak oil in this country 40 years ago and that we are approaching world peak oil now.

that's a good point. we actually completely ran out of oil back in the 1890's. we also ran out of food in the 70's. let's see, what other malthusian projects have inevitably turned out to be ludicrous.....

our known reserves increase on a yearly basis, and still people scream we are entering a time of great shortage..... any..... day....... now....... and have been for years.

when oil actually gets' rare, we'll start seeing alternatives that are viable enter the market. until then, there is no reason to choose to be less economically competitive.
 
i think you misunderstand. you get lower energy costs for a couple of weeks. after that your economy ceases to function and you become North Korea - dependent only on what you can produce internally.

Only if we shut out all exports and imports. Placing restrictions on a singular export would hurt those in that specific industry and those that benifited from it. Canada would not stop exports of cars, steel products and so one. Just the export of oil or at least a signficant portion of it. Alberta would most definately suffer and be quite upset, Ontario and Quebec would gain, so would BC
 
Only if we shut out all exports and imports.

yeah, you just did. specifically you shut off a major export, violated NAFTA, and created a trade war the like of which hasn't been seen since the early 1930's. In the battle between the US and Canada, your economy is much more dependent upon ours than we are upon yours - and we know that. Having the nation to your south blame you for the fact that our gas prices are spiking even further isn't the best way to convince us not to retaliate, and that's a battle that you lose Very Quickly.
 
Last edited:
yeah, you just did. specifically you shut off a major export, violated NAFTA, and created a trade war the like of which hasn't been seen since the early 1930's. In the battle between the US and Canada, your economy is much more dependent upon ours than we are upon yours - and we know that. Having the nation to your south blame you for the fact that our gas prices are spiking even further isn't the best way to convince us not to retaliate, and that's a battle that you lose Very Quickly.
Nafta sucks anyway

Given Canadas renewed economy focus on raw materials of which China and India are significant buyers, much of Canadas trade can be reoreintated to areas excluding the US. It would be time consuming and somewhat costly, but the US would not come out any better. The US is quite dependant on Canadian energy and raw materials, the same ones that China and India need in ever growing amounts. The boost to the port of Vancover would be huge. While New York would shut down due to a lack of electricity (New York State that is).

This would of course not be a trade war started by Canada, we would not be preventing any exports from the US entering Canada or putting tariffs on any US products., just controlling the export of crude oil. Something the US does already

http://www.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_exp_dc_NUS-Z00_mbblpd_m.htm

Notes: Crude oil exports are restricted to: (1) crude oil derived from fields under the State waters of Alaska's Cook Inlet; (2) Alaskan North Slope crude oil; (3) certain domestically produced crude oil destined for Canada; (4) shipments to U.S. territories; and (5) California crude oil to Pacific Rim countries. Totals may not equal sum of components due to independent rounding

So if it is ok for the US to restrict its oil exports it should be fine and dandy for Canada to do the same
 
Last edited:
Nafta sucks anyway

ah yes :) that's an excellent policy assumption on which to build a trade war with the one foreign nation your economy is utterly dependent on.

NAFTA sucks? Canada Sucks. Screw you and your hockey :D

seriously, if you people stop selling us your oil and initiate a trade war, you are screwed. we are in big time trouble too, but less than you. This is one of those things where we win by losing less. both sides are much better off by choosing to win in mutually beneficial trade than we are in choosing to see who hits bottom first in a trade war.

So if it is ok for the US to restrict its oil exports it should be fine and dandy for Canada to do the same

:D wrong. life isn't fair and if you spike our energy prices you will be lucky if we don't just take you're pretty little sand fields. You're alot closer and more convenient than Iraq was ;) :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
ah yes :) that's an excellent policy assumption on which to build a trade war with the one foreign nation your economy is utterly dependent on.

NAFTA sucks? Canada Sucks. Screw you and your hockey :D

seriously, if you people stop selling us your oil and initiate a trade war, you are screwed. we are in big time trouble too, but less than you. This is one of those things where we win by losing less.



:D wrong. life isn't fair and if you spike our energy prices you will be lucky if we don't just take you're pretty little sand fields. You're alot closer and more convenient than Iraq was ;) :mrgreen:

Albertans like their guns, and their hunting.

Nafta does suck in the details of it. Reducing the soverign control of each country on what it exports, on its legal system, regulatory system among the more insane aspects ( see Mexican truckers as something many Americans see as a negative regarding Nafta)
 
Albertans like their guns, and their hunting.

that's cute. how good are they at shooting A-10's out of the sky with their hunting rifles?

Nafta does suck in the details of it. Reducing the soverign control of each country on what it exports, on its legal system, regulatory system among the more insane aspects ( see Mexican truckers as something many Americans see as a negative regarding Nafta)

free trade is a net benefit, and NAFTA has been a net benefit to all nations involved. trade between our countries has exploded in the past decade as each of us have found ways to become more economically productive by working with each other. security concerns (mexican truckers = mexican immigrants / mexican drug cartels) are a legitimate point of worry, but not enough to say "NAFTA sucks".
 
that's cute. how good are they at shooting A-10's out of the sky with their hunting rifles?



free trade is a net benefit, and NAFTA has been a net benefit to all nations involved. trade between our countries has exploded in the past decade as each of us have found ways to become more economically productive by working with each other. security concerns (mexican truckers = mexican immigrants / mexican drug cartels) are a legitimate point of worry, but not enough to say "NAFTA sucks".

The following is why Nafta sucks

There is much concern in Canada over the provision that if something is sold even once as a commodity, the government cannot stop its sale in the future.[23] This applies to the water from Canada's lakes and rivers, fueling fears over the possible destruction of Canadian ecosystems and water supply.

In 1999, Sun Belt Water Inc., a company out of Santa Barbara, California, filed an Arbitration Claim under Chapter 11 of the NAFTA claiming $105 million as a result of Canada's prohibition on the export of bulk water by marine tanker, a move that destroyed the Sun Belt business venture. The claim sent shock waves through Canadian governments that scrambled to update water legislation and remains unresolved.

Other fears come from the effects NAFTA has had on Canadian lawmaking. In 1996, the gasoline additive MMT was brought into Canada by an American company. At the time, the Canadian federal government banned the importation of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million,[24] and by Canadian provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade ("AIT"). The American company argued that their additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,[25] the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US$13 million.[26] Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now Health Canada) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagree with Health Canada, and cite studies that include possible nerve damage.[27]


Ponderosa Pine logs taken from Malheur National Forest, Grant County, Oregon.The United States and Canada had been arguing for years over the United States' decision to impose a 27 percent duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports, until new Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper compromised with the United States and reached a settlement on July 1, 2006.[28] The settlement has not yet been ratified by either country, in part due to domestic opposition in Canada.
North American Free Trade Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The requirement for continuation of exports to the US ( despite the possibility of a higher bidder or internal Canadian security issues) if the product was exported in the past, and the faluire of the US to live up to its side of the aggrement
 
I have no problem with free trade, but Nafta is not just about free trade
 
I have no problem with free trade, but Nafta is not just about free trade

Look, Mountie; know your place. :D



you seriously going to sit here and tell me that American companies are the only ones that take advantage of NAFTA rules?
 
Look, Mountie; know your place. :D



you seriously going to sit here and tell me that American companies are the only ones that take advantage of NAFTA rules?

Of course not, but they are the ones that do take advantage the most ( the US government being the 800 lb monkey in the room) The ability of the Can government to enforce Nafta rulings benifiting Can companies in the US is far less then then US governments ability
 
Back
Top Bottom