Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 No they don't. Try again Incorrect. China owns 60%. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Incorrect. China owns 60%. Incorrect Try again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Incorrect Try again Read some more on the topic. You'll find out you're wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dante Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 What kind of energy do lefties like? Oil: Nope Fracking: Nope Nuke: Nope Coal: Nope Solar: Yup Wind: Yup Some freakish weirdo algae growing monstrosity: Yup Imaginary cold fusion: Yup Corn: Yup Burning garbage: Yup Star Trek Warp drives: Yup Basically if it works, they hate it, if it doesn't they love it. In order to save the world from global warming all humans must die? I have nothing against animals but let's face it mammal farts are causing a big chunk of the gasses that are blamed for fake global warming. I don't want anything to die but before we change out energy sources and kill ourselves how about we kill off all mammals so that humans may live? Somebody is going to burn that Canadian oil. It night as well be us. Now come on. It would only take 10 % of the total US land mass filled with windmills to give us enough power. Whats wrong with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Read some more on the topic. You'll find out you're wrong. Now since I'm about to severely smack you down with facts, will you then say "Sorry, I was wrong and you were right"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Now since I'm about to severely smack you down with facts, will you then say "Sorry, I was wrong and you were right"? When have I ever not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 (edited) And he layeth the smacketh down. Edited July 30, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Read some more on the topic. You'll find out you're wrong. Again, you're conflating ownership of production vs who's likely to be the main buyer. Western firms will control the production and Asians will likely be the main buyers. So what's the difference you may ask? Big. If Canadians don't produce, Chinese will simply buy oil at higher prices from the rogue regimes. So you'll accomplish a double whammy. Western firms lose out on production and revenues, while rogue regimes get propped up by the higher price of oil and a steady buyer. Forward! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 And he layeth the smacketh down. Sorry, I was wrong and you were right. Though, because the pipeline hasn't been approved, China's investment (which, as your article admits in its sources, would have boomed had the pipeline been approved) in the oil sands has backfired, topped off by a leaky pipeline. Ominous foreshadowing perhaps? http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-china-slipped-on-canadas-oil-sands-1437616832 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Sorry, I was wrong and you were right. Though, because the pipeline hasn't been approved, China's investment (which, as your article admits in its sources, would have boomed had the pipeline been approved) in the oil sands has backfired, topped off by a leaky pipeline. Ominous foreshadowing perhaps? http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-china-slipped-on-canadas-oil-sands-1437616832 That's probably why the Canadians added new legislation helping ensure something like that wouldn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deranged Rhino Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 That's probably why the Canadians added new legislation helping ensure something like that wouldn't happen. In the future. The legislation didn't retroactively alter the takeover of Nexen. China invested billions in Nexen because it gave them an overwhelming foothold in Alberta, despite the WP's claims to the contrary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Large Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Didn't he veto Keystone XL tail end of last year? The great irony is that using fossil fuels until they are no longer fiscally advantageous to recover will ultimately lead to alternative energies explosion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reddogblitz Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Maybe if Obama does put a cork in it for good, Hillary can tell us what she thinks about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Maybe if Obama does put a cork in it for good, Hillary can tell us what she thinks about it? She already did. "If it's still undecided when I become president, I will answer your question." She's really on her game these days. I can see why the braindead flock to her so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 rumors are swilling that Obama will end the potential oil pipeline (known as XL) from Canada when congress takes vacation in August. As a Canadian what appears to have happened is he has chosen the oil from Iran (and the terrorists and enemy of Israel) over his friends from Canada. Well, Canada will then have to build the pipeline to the west coast and sell it to China. I certainly hope Obama gets his second Nobel Peace prize, (he did nothing for the first) and is remembered fondly when the middle east blackmails the US again, as it most certainly will. (sarc). You spelled butt wrong in the title to this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
unbillievable Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 This thread reminds me of all those idiots 7 years ago saying that drilling new oil fields won't help because we won't see any benefits for 5 yrs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 (edited) Didn't he veto Keystone XL tail end of last year? The great irony is that using fossil fuels until they are no longer fiscally advantageous to recover will ultimately lead to alternative energies explosion. It's simple. It's all a matter of economic viability. If it's viable - it will flourish - if not it won't. That's why most of the money being spent on alternative energy sources should not be on the subsidization of projects that aren't viable but much more so on the R & D. You'll get a much better bang for your buck. Edited July 31, 2015 by Magox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 Hey I think you're on to something. Burn all the mammals to create energy. That would mean burning dolphins, so the idea would never sell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
4merper4mer Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 That would mean burning dolphins, so the idea would never sell. First of all dolphins won't burn because they are wet. Secondly they are fish. Squish the fish. Duh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keukasmallies Posted July 31, 2015 Share Posted July 31, 2015 If POTUS can't quite get the cork in the pipeline, I've got a suggestion of where he can store it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts