taxi Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Because Canada exports crude and purchases refined oil purchased at a premium. Probably would be a good idea to build some refineries in Canada, but the oil people don't want that to happen... Well...actually taxes and the exchange rate are the reason that gas hasn't gone down. Gas is sold in US dollars. In Vancouver, we pay 42 cents a litre plus GST and have the highest fuel tax rate in North America: http://www.myhusky.ca/products-and-services/fuel/bc-fuel-tax We don't build refineries, because it would cost 10 billion dollars to expand our current refining capacity, and it might not be worth it: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/23/canada-oil-refineries_n_1539701.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inane Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Margaret Atwood: Hair is in the election-season air, but is it crucial to the question of your vote? Hair is in the election-season air. I didn’t put it there – those attack ads on Mr. Trudeau introduced the subject, with “Nice hair, Justin” – but now that the hairball has been coughed up, so to speak, let’s consider it. Hair is a big deal. People spend a lot of time worrying about their hair and a lot of money altering it. Some sculpt it, some dye it, some shave it off. Some hide it under scarves and hats because God, in his or her many forms, has taken a serious interest in hair – telling people to grow it, conceal it, cut it, refrain from cutting it, wear a wig in place of it, not let Delilah hack it off, and so on. Some are born with hair, some achieve hair, and some have hair thrust upon them through laws and customs. Some hair goes missing, leaving either a Mr. Clean macho look or a bowling-ball one, as with Mr. Duffy. Some hair is curly, some is straight. Luck of the draw. Fashion can be a cruel taskmistress, hair-wise. Many are the photos of us with odd hair from former times that we presently seek to conceal. (Ducktails? Beatles bangs? Flowing hippy locks?) My own hair can be interpreted as “Pre-Raphaelite” or “frizzy” depending on the hostility level of the interviewer. I’ve lived through those 50s smoothening adventures with a product called Dippity Do as well as the nightmare straight-hair Twiggy years of the late 60s, which involved other failed processes. After that I gave up. Is hair the measure of a man, or woman? Is character destiny, and is hair a clue to character? But back to the hair-strewn attack ads of the Conservatives. What’s the point? Women will recognize “Nice hair” as a pickup line, so I suppose addressing it to a political opponent is a way of girlifying him: the Conservative ad-writers would see girlification as inherently demeaning, their view of girls and women being what it is. But “Nice hair” makes them sound a bit envious, too: no one has ever accused Mr. Harper of having “nice hair.” It also makes them sound trivial. Hair, an election issue? Really? But let’s suppose that hair is indeed crucial to the question of your vote. Is hair the measure of a man, or woman? Is character destiny, and is hair a clue to character? Let’s try this hair quiz: Of the three national male leaders, which one travels with a personal grooming assistant – lavishly paid for in whole or in part by you, gentle taxpayer – so that none of his hairs will ever be out of place, supposing they are indeed his and not a wig, as some have supposed? (Hint: Initials are S.H.) Which leader, on the other hand, doesn’t need such an assistant because his hair is “nice” enough already? (Hint: initials are J.T.) And which one wouldn’t know what a personal grooming assistant was if he fell over one? (Hint: Initials are T.M.) Yes! You got it right! Smart you! Next: Why should the taxpayer foot the bill for the micromanagement of Harper’s hair? Is his hair in the public interest? Is it crucial infrastructure? A matter of national security? Or is the pampering just a matter of narcissistic vanity? Maybe it wasn’t altogether wise for the Conservatives to bring up hair: it focused the hair spotlight. Start with one candidate’s hair and we can’t help thinking about the topside garnishments of the others – not only what they might signify, but also what they might be costing us. Will the Conservatives now lay off on the personal-appearance attack stuff? Doubtful: they’ve got a thing for it. Jean Crétien’s paralyzed face, laugh a minute! Trudeau’s hair, woo-woo! Who’s next? “Nice tits, Elizabeth?” Read & Debate Find Full Comment on Facebook Wait! I can see it coming! Mulcair’s beard! The Conservatives will have trouble with a straight-out character attack on Mulcair because they regarded the guy so highly they tried to hire him themselves, so they’ll have to fall back on the beard: “Thomas Mulcair. What’s he hiding behind that beard?” Don’t go there, Cons! Because then we’ll all start thinking about “hiding.” Why is Harper still coyly hiding the two-million-dollar donors to his party leadership race? Don’t we have a right to know who put him in there? Who’s he working for, them or us? Why is he hiding his campaign events from the public? Is he running for Prime Minister of the whole population – those whose taxes pay, in whole or in part, for him and his hair – and if so, why isn’t he talking to all of us? In his earlier quoted comment, “I don’t care what they say,” who are they? Aren’t you agog to know if you’re on Harper’s hidden “enemies list”? Why is he hiding what he knew about the Duffy cover-up, and when he knew it? He’s given four mutually exclusive answers so far. Is there a hidden real answer? And if he’s hiding all this, what else is he hiding? Article was pulled from the National Post for some reason... http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache%3ANNY9M7J2kGIJ%3Anews.nationalpost.com%2Ffull-comment%2Fmargaret-atwood-stephen-harpers-bad-hair-days+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Because Canada exports crude and purchases refined oil purchased at a premium. Probably would be a good idea to build some refineries in Canada, but the oil people don't want that to happen... Because if ti does happen they lose complete control of the downstream product. Oil companies have spent decades and more setting up subsidiary companies via top down integration owning total control of the upstream and downstream product. Shady buggers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 Well...actually taxes and the exchange rate are the reason that gas hasn't gone down. Gas is sold in US dollars. In Vancouver, we pay 42 cents a litre plus GST and have the highest fuel tax rate in North America: http://www.myhusky.ca/products-and-services/fuel/bc-fuel-tax We don't build refineries, because it would cost 10 billion dollars to expand our current refining capacity, and it might not be worth it: http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/05/23/canada-oil-refineries_n_1539701.html We don't build refineries because the oil and gas companies and "energy experts" say it is a terrible idea. people who stand to loset he most makig a claim it is a bad idea. refineries would take years to become profitable which is true. but then would start helping canadians via lower fuel prices, value added jobs and the lowering price of everything via transportation costs. There is a very large group of people who will say it is a bad idea just for this reason. When you work for an industry that owns total control over the supply, they'll do everything to keep that supply intact Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 21, 2015 Share Posted August 21, 2015 We don't build refineries because the oil and gas companies and "energy experts" say it is a terrible idea. people who stand to loset he most makig a claim it is a bad idea. refineries would take years to become profitable which is true. but then would start helping canadians via lower fuel prices, value added jobs and the lowering price of everything via transportation costs. There is a very large group of people who will say it is a bad idea just for this reason. When you work for an industry that owns total control over the supply, they'll do everything to keep that supply intact Oil refineries also require things like pipelines and produce huge amounts of pollution. Look at the uproar over the latest pipeline projects. The fact of the matter is that its political suicide for a politician to push refinery expansion. It would involve going into debt now plus an environmentally unfriendly project for future economic reward....good luck selling that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Because Canada exports crude and purchases refined oil purchased at a premium. Probably would be a good idea to build some refineries in Canada, but the oil people don't want that to happen... No, that would actually benefit Canadians. Why would they or our current government want that...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realtor Rod Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Oil refineries also require things like pipelines and produce huge amounts of pollution. Look at the uproar over the latest pipeline projects. The fact of the matter is that its political suicide for a politician to push refinery expansion. It would involve going into debt now plus an environmentally unfriendly project for future economic reward....good luck selling that one. Isn't the environment shared with every one on the planet? So if we refine it ourselves and can possibly control the pollution, it probably helps. We send the oil somewhere else to be refined only to buy it back for more? That is like the joke about two lumber trucks passing each other in opposite direction on the highway. The gas prices sure seem fixed. Last time oil was this cheap per barrel, wasn't gas like 80 cents a litre? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Canada has almost 20 refineries and it's funny that some of you on here are pushing for more refineries in Canada, they're very environmentally unfriendly andcost billions. You guys are arguing more environmentally friendly solutions but yet want more refineries. Lmao. For the record I personally would support more refineries. But some of you are badly contradicting yourselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dral Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Now when the centre-left are split 3-ways (Liberals, NDP and Greens), suddenly the Conservatives are authoritarian and people's democratic rights are being trampled. People aren't claiming the Cons are authoritarian and peoples rights are being trampled because the left is split... people are complaining because the Cons ARE authoritarian and peoples rights ARE being trampled... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Canada has almost 20 refineries and it's funny that some of you on here are pushing for more refineries in Canada, they're very environmentally unfriendly andcost billions. You guys are arguing more environmentally friendly solutions but yet want more refineries. Lmao. For the record I personally would support more refineries. But some of you are badly contradicting yourselves.As the poster above you noted, 'the environment' is the whole world. If it's being refined, we may as well do it here for the benefit of Canadians under world class environmental and safety regulations. All those extra (well paying and long term) jobs would pay taxes that could help us promote and transition to cleaner alternatives and technology. You can be pro environment or 'green' and still see the wisdom in Canadian refining , it's called critical thinking and not being short sighted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 Isn't the environment shared with every one on the planet? So if we refine it ourselves and can possibly control the pollution, it probably helps. We send the oil somewhere else to be refined only to buy it back for more? That is like the joke about two lumber trucks passing each other in opposite direction on the highway. The gas prices sure seem fixed. Last time oil was this cheap per barrel, wasn't gas like 80 cents a litre? It's an issue of not in by backyard. Everyone loves to drive their car. No one wants to be near a pipeline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 As the poster above you noted, 'the environment' is the whole world. If it's being refined, we may as well do it here for the benefit of Canadians under world class environmental and safety regulations. All those extra (well paying and long term) jobs would pay taxes that could help us promote and transition to cleaner alternatives and technology. You can be pro environment or 'green' and still see the wisdom in Canadian refining , it's called critical thinking and not being short sighted.As if B.C would want a refinery with pipe lines.... Furthermore who foots the bill for the refineries? The tax payer? Then guess what, a province like B.C adds further additional provincial taxes on the fuel thus most likely wiping out the savings on the fuel and the tax payers are still on the hook for billions. And newsflash Jr up until this past December refineries in Edmonton, Lloyd and Regina were always hiring. If you want a "well paying long term job" move to the Prairies. Again Canada has nearly 20 refineries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aGENT Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 As if B.C would want a refinery with pipe lines.... Furthermore who foots the bill for the refineries? The tax payer? Then guess what, a province like B.C adds further additional provincial taxes on the fuel thus most likely wiping out the savings on the fuel and the tax payers are still on the hook for billions. And newsflash Jr up until this past December refineries in Edmonton, Lloyd and Regina were always hiring. If you want a "well paying long term job" move to the Prairies. Again Canada has nearly 20 refineries. One, who said it had to be refined in BC? Two, we already have numerous pipelines. No, I'd prefer to stop/minimize subsidizing the oil industry. Companies want our oil? They build refineries. Sadly that ship has likely sailed with today's prices. Another example of how the Cons failed us. Maybe when LaBamba's nightmare $200+bbl thing happens, we can revisit it. I already have a well paying, long term job and I don't have to live in an armpit. Nobody said we had no refineries. What percentage of our oil do we refine here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 One, who said it had to be refined in BC? Two, we already have numerous pipelines. No, I'd prefer to stop/minimize subsidizing the oil industry. Companies want our oil? They build refineries. Sadly that ship has likely sailed with today's prices. Another example of how the Cons failed us. Maybe when LaBamba's nightmare $200+bbl thing happens, we can revisit it. I already have a well paying, long term job and I don't have to live in an armpit. Nobody said we had no refineries. What percentage of our oil do we refine here? Again I'm for more refineries I just find the hypocrisy annoying. With respect to refineries there is so much more to it than just building the refinery and making money. Hell B.C won't even allow a pipeline to the ocean so how do you propose that refined oil gets to market?? And the cost and environmental impact of adding refineries would have politicians shy away from that conversation especially the NDP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryan Strome Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 @J.R Btw you say if companies want our oil they build refineries? Are you crazy? Shows you don't know nearly as much as you think you do when discussing the oil sector. Oil companies would simply say no and leave if they were given an ultimatum like that. Kinda like they did in the 80's. So what are you left with? All this oil just laying underground not being drilled? Great idea. Oh wait as a ndper you would probably support nationalizing the oil... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaBamba Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 @J.R Btw you say if companies want our oil they build refineries? Are you crazy? Shows you don't know nearly as much as you think you do when discussing the oil sector. Oil companies would simply say no and leave if they were given an ultimatum like that. Kinda like they did in the 80's. So what are you left with? All this oil just laying underground not being drilled? Great idea. Oh wait as a ndper you would probably support nationalizing the oil... You are wasting your breath, these are the guys that idle socialist countries like Sweden and Noway but support an increase in corporate tax. This is the opposite of what those countries do to pay for their social programs, the people pay for their social programs not the corps. Every time I explain this they just tell me I'm stupid and afraid of change. They also don't understand that the government subsidizing oil companies is more of an investment than a handout. Oil's overall impact on GDP is + Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxi Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 You are wasting your breath, these are the guys that idle socialist countries like Sweden and Noway but support an increase in corporate tax. This is the opposite of what those countries do to pay for their social programs, the people pay for their social programs not the corps. Every time I explain this they just tell me I'm stupid and afraid of change. They also don't understand that the government subsidizing oil companies is more of an investment than a handout. Oil's overall impact on GDP is + The also don't understand that the Nordic countries have even worse problems than us. Look at a list of countries by household debt sometime. We're bad, but see who's at the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimayo Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 @J.R Btw you say if companies want our oil they build refineries? Are you crazy? Shows you don't know nearly as much as you think you do when discussing the oil sector. Oil companies would simply say no and leave if they were given an ultimatum like that. Kinda like they did in the 80's. So what are you left with? All this oil just laying underground not being drilled? Great idea. Oh wait as a ndper you would probably support nationalizing the oil... I certainly do. It's better than sucking the dicks of some rich pricks for whatever scraps they are willing to throw our way. The oil is here, if they want it they can play by our rules or they can leave it and we can get the return our tax dollars paid for, rather than these rich pricks getting richer off of infrastructure the canadian taxpayer built, while demanding we take in the rear for the privilege of them taking our oil and making billions off of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghostsof1915 Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 you sir are a better person then I and I'm not even being sarcastic, I want the max in my pocket. Move to Hong Kong then. Just don't complain about lack of schools, social programs, health care..... But you'll be taxed very little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LaBamba Posted August 22, 2015 Share Posted August 22, 2015 I certainly do. It's better than sucking the dicks of some rich pricks for whatever scraps they are willing to throw our way. The oil is here, if they want it they can play by our rules or they can leave it and we can get the return our tax dollars paid for, rather than these rich pricks getting richer off of infrastructure the canadian taxpayer built, while demanding we take in the rear for the privilege of them taking our oil and making billions off of it. Oil is everywhere. This is the problem with this theory, people have no clue about how the industry works. The big Oil companies don't care where they get oil from, the only thing they care about is how much money they are making. The more costs you pile into their extracting costs the less profit comes from extraction. If anything you are making your oil revenue more volatile, because what was profitable at $80/bbl now needs to be at $90/bbl. oil companies will only operate at highs in commodity price and scale back during the lows. You don't get royalties when nothing is being extracted, you don't get corporate tax if a corp is losing money either. If suncor, for example, is losing money on a consistent basis in Canada and making money on a consistent basis in Peru. They will eventually divert their capital to a growth environment and the negative assets will dry up. Do you realize that Canadian select is at a $18 discount right now? It's around $22/bbl. That refinery in Indiana that went down is a major refiner of Canada Crude. Now the oil is backed up in our storage facilities and soon we will run out of room and Canadian select will be worthless. You can't use the "we have oil they come and get it" mentality anymore. The world is awash with crude. They will get it from the cheapest place possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.