Posted on 04/27/2008 4:56:11 PM PDT by Tolerance Sucks Rocks
PING!
Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba are probably the conservative provinces....especially Alberta where the tar sands are.....and Sask NEEDS the money, and probably Manitoba, too.....
Watch what happens to the spot price of oil in tomorrow’s trading...should be interesting!
I’m surprised that our Congress hasn’t stop it ... since it’s not part of their National Energy Program.
Apparently they did, but common sense prevailed.
The NEB approved Keystone's first leg over heated protests by labour unions and Alberta opposition parties during the winter provincial election.
If congress has it’s way they won’t be shipping one barrel of tar sands oil to the US much less 1 million.
So am I seeing that it’s a lot faster to build an oil pipeline than a border fence?
stock price of this company spiked 50 cents for a few minutes at the mkt open friday as the earnings call progressed, then settled back to what it had been......investors ain’t impressed......this is as iffy as the BAKKEN shale imo
chart:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=TRP&t=5d&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
article:
http://biz.yahoo.com/iw/080425/0390525.html
“I’m surprised that our Congress hasn’t stop it”
Both Clinton and Obama as well as most Democrats in Congress and the Senate have said they are against NAFTA and would cancel the agreement. This could cause Canadian oil to go to another market.
Great Idea, ship it from Canada to Texas and then back up to the nortern states as gas and diesel. Makes sense to me, who wants a stinky old refinery up in the northern states when we can keep them pipelines piping. Maybe I’m missing something here? :( :(
Besides moonbats there are the Lubicon (read aboriginals), U.N. Human Rights Commission (”all aboriginals are oppressed”), Kairos (a religious group, who knows, they’re against it).
All oil is bad and the infernal contraptions that carry it, it seems. Moonbattery.
NAFTA needs to be stopped. It is killing America. sarc
If you mean “conservative provinces” in the sense that they over tax and over spend, then yes, they are conservative provinces. Alberta can hide their deficit spending behind the oil boom. Not sure about the other two.
Saskatchewan is booming like never before. Potash revenue.
It will still be interesting to see what happens to the spot price of oil, not stocks, tomorrow.
Southern U.S. refineries import heavy oil akin to Alberta bitumen. Their price discounts are only about half the penalties - as much as 50 per cent off the world benchmark grades of light oil, Brent and West Texas Intermediate - charged against low quality crude in the Chicago region, TransCanada has estimated.
Refineries in Texas and Louisiana are set up to refine heavy oil like the Orinoco crude from Venezuela. Refineries around Chicago are not; perhaps it is too difficult for them to get through the state and federal regulatory processes. The building of this pipeline will enable Alberta (and Saskatchewan, where oil production is increasing) to sell in Texas and Louisiana, where they can get a significantly higher price for their product than they can in Chicago.
Some readers here may be wondering why Canada and the U.S. aren't already connected by a web of pipelines -- after all, they're not enemies, there's a lot of oil and gas produced on both sides of a long border, and it's all free of OPEC boycotts, Hugo Chavez, and Middle Eastern political issues. The reason that such pipelines don't exist already is that the U.S. Congress blocked them in order to maximize profits for oil and gas producers in the northern states. Many politicians participated; one who was particularly notable is Montana Senator Max Baucus. This was one of the reasons that Canada's Conservative Party federal government of the 1980s became interested in negotiating a free trade agreement with the U.S. The so-called "Super 301" legislation was used to impose sudden blockouts of Canadian energy and agricultural products. This benefited oil, gas and agricultural interests in places like Montana and North Dakota at the expense of American consumers in general.
The first so that the petrol that I burn in my car would be produced from Alberta crude instead of overseas crude.
The second as a hedge so that we can divert our exports to the Pacific Rim in the event that the Democrats win in November and carry out their plan to uniaterally "renegotiate" NAFTA/
A unilateral "renegotiation" is just a euphamism for abrogating it. This would discharge Canada from performance of it and free us to sell our oil and gas to the highest bidder without regard to the constraints contained in NAFTA.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.