Oil
- Thread starter moreluck
- Start date
moreluck
golden ticket member
YES !!! Temporarily, while we get all the other stuff going....minus the algae thing!
So build the refineries in North Dakota instead of a pipeline. Damn. Do I have to do all the thinking?!
DS
Fenderbender
moreluck
golden ticket member
Workers require residences and I hear that N. Dak. has very little to offer right now!
A rise in demand will necessitate a rise in production. In other words, North Dakota could see a housing boom with an instantaneous middle class able to afford the houses.
menotyou
bella amicizia
I hear they are buying you a house to move out there. If this surgery thing doesn't work, ND here I come!! LOL!!
Signing bonuses, high wages like UPS. Why not? Plenty of (nevermind).
menotyou
bella amicizia
No, they still need to be able to have access to the ports so they can export it. Dont think No Dakota has a port.
menotyou
bella amicizia
It has trains. That won't work? Buffett thinks it will.
One of the Most Destructive Projects on Earth:
Located beneath 4.3 million hectares of boreal forest, an area the size of Florida, the tar sands are the dirtiest source of oil in the world. Few Canadians know what is happening in northern Alberta. While many may know about Alberta’s immense oil reserves in the tar sands (2nd only to Saudi Arabia) few know the environmental and social devastation that is taking place.The tar sands could destroy over 149,000 square kilometres or Boreal forest an area the size of Florida. By 2020 they are expected to emit more than 141 million tonnes of greenhouse gases – more than double that currently produced by all the cars and trucks in Canada and Alberta is now home to the world’s largest dam and it is built to hold the toxic waste from just one Tar Sands operation.The tar sands of Alberta are now the world’s largest industrial operation. Because of their sheer scale, all Canadians have become hostage to their development. Instead of reducing greenhouse gas emissions, Canada is quickly increasing them and fully half of that emissions growth is projected to come from the Tar Sands.This is just beginning. The Alberta government has already given approvals that will double the size of existing operations, and has been talking with the US government to grow the Tar Sands five-fold in a “short time span” looking to move from 1 million barrels of oil per day to over 5 million The Tar Sands are now the biggest capital project anywhere on Earth and the biggest energy undertaking anywhere.With the Tar Sands, Canada has become the world’s dirty energy superpower. A few quick facts:
• The Tar Sands can single handedly prevent Canada from meeting it’s international obligations under the Kyoto protocol. By 2020 the tar sands are expected to release over 141 megatonnes of GHG – twice that produced by all the cars and trucks in Canada.
• An area the size of the state of Florida (149,000 km2) can be leased to oil sands development in the future.
• It takes 3-5 barrels of fresh water to get a single barrel of oil from the tar sands. 350 million cubic metres is the volume of water currently allocated to the tar sands, the equivalent to the water required by a city of two million people.
• Cumulatively, the environmental impact of the tar sands has made Alberta the industrial air pollution capital of Canada, with one billion kilograms of emissions in 2003.
• 600 million cubic feet of Natural gas is used every day – that’s enough to heat more than three million Canadian homes.
• First Nation communities downstream of tar sands operation have been experiencing unprecedented rates of bile and colon cancer, lupus and other diseased that they believe are attributable to tar sands.
• 70% of the crude oil being extracted from the tar sands is exported directly to the United States mostly for use in transportation.
I understand this, but maybe it's time to have a different approach to the global market of oil. Maybe regional markets not so influenced by world politics and pressures.
wkmac
Well-Known Member
I like the thinking there albeit we'd face some hurdles getting to that point. The main one IMO would be the standing of the US dollar as the global reserve currency and the global requirement that all oil transactions take place in dollars. This places a burden on US foreign policy to maintain dollar supremacy with a global footprint paid for by US tax dollars.
But to your point in regards to our own region, whether western hemisphere or even North America, this would IMO be more than doable but at the same time it would still require a change in national policy in regards to both taxation and subsidy where said policy is pegged to oil as the backbone of our industrial/commercial economy.
A few years ago, just off the coast of Haiti it was discovered a huge oil field some speculate even bigger than Venezuela and for the most part it sits doing nothing. Now Moreluck of course would scream Obama on this but this find is in Haitian waters and here is a country in ruin where such oil would do wonders and at the same time obviously do much for our own. Seems to me like the perfect opportunity where both countries could obviously benefit. So what are we waiting on, right? Good question and yet the answers are by far not easy to come by at all.
But on the price of oil itself, in the last week I've seen the pump price shoot up 15 cents a gallon so the question I have did the actual cost of production for that oil per gallon go up 15 cent over the last week as well? No it did not and I'm betting if we looked at actual production costs to just produce a gallon of fuel from drilling to refinement has only gone up in relation to inflation. But in truth the actual true costs of gas over the years because of better efficiency may have instead gone down but that our monopolistic monetary policy and choices is hiding that fact.
The real truth among others is that the monetary unit we use is starting to accelerate it's lost of what little value it has left and thus all prices will begin to accelerate upward. On a different note put still relating to this is that as prices accelerate upward, wages will follow but not at the same rate of course and then the tax revs to gov't will also rise lessening the deficit and lessening the impact of the debt/GDP ratio. Inflation is the best friend of the gov't spendthrift.
Now oil is also effected by the Las Vegas style commodity markets as well as political actions like the clamouring of nationstates that could effect oil distribution but in those cases, these tend to be initially booms for oil profiteers and one wonders if for example the claptrapping between Iran and the rest of us "good people" is nothing more than claptrapping which in the meantime scares the markets and forces prices up? Not long ago, prices of oil was dropping to under $3 and seeming to go down further while at the same time even the US itself had an oversupply of gasoline and was a net exporter of it. Now months later, Iran has been blackballed from the global oil market, supplies are down and as a result the price has gone up. Even more so with the fear that the Strait of Hormuz might be closed. Yet, did the actual cost itself of pulling that gallon of oil up and the actual refinement process go up? Returning to Haiti, if that nation were allowed to extract it's oil and place it on the global market, what effect would it have on price? Is Haiti being kept down, people suffering, even dying so other people well connected to gov't and who can sway global economic policy can richly benefit? Does the reason Haiti have such a chaotic gov't situation, is that to effect an easier solution to keep it's people down in the first place?
When a hurricane or tornado comes through an area and the supply of building materials is obviously effected, why is it we don't bat an eye when gov't steps in and intervenes in the price of plywood, roofing or even bottled water but when it come to oil not a word is ever said. I'm not suggesting intervention here but I am asking who runs what and who owns who here?
As I said, your idea is no doubt thought provoking but in light of so many questions, how do we get there? And I'm asking the question with you, not against you.
