Ace of Spades HQ

June 25, 2008

Democrats Now Threatening Oil Exploration in Other Countries, Too
— Ace

Canada is producing a lot of oil from its oil stands, and will produce more and more.

But they won't necessarily sell it to us.

Why? Because Barack Obama and the Democratic twats are pandering to liberal global warming hysterics and environmental jerkoffs by claiming that extracting oil from sand is a a threat to the world.

Here's what Rick George, chief executive of Suncor Energy Inc., Canada's largest single oil sands producer, said this week, reflecting rising frustration with the wave of American anti-oil sands policies:
"We are down to very limited amounts of spare capacity," he said. "Mexico is in very steep decline. The North Sea is in decline. Venezuela is likely to slip from here. There are problems in Nigeria, Russia. The world will absorb this oil one way or the other. If the U. S. doesn't take it, then we will develop other markets."
Borrowing heavily from the rhetoric of the environmental movement, right down to using the pejorative "tar sands" to describe Canada's reserves, mayors from the United States' largest cities adopted a resolution at a meeting in Miami on Monday singling out Western Canada's oil-sands sector as part of a crackdown on fuels that cause global warming.
Yesterday, Mr. Obama vowed to break America's addiction to "dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive" oil if elected U. S. president -- and he said one of his first targets may well be imports from Canada's oil sands. A senior advisor to Obama's campaign said it's an "open question" whether Alberta's oil sands fit with Obama's vision for shifting the U. S. dramatically away from carbon-intensive fuels.

Certainly with all the zero additional barrels of oil we're producing domestically we can afford to be choosy about our foreign purchases.

One problem with divided government is that there is never truly stark accountability. If liberal policies fail, as they usually do, the liberals claim that they were never given a chance to work, because conservatives watered them down or withheld some particular part of the plan which is now deemed to have been indispensable all along.

It's only a dark fantasy, but I'd dearly love to see Republicans take a "Whatever you say, Hoss" attitude towards all this liberal bullshit. Let's do exactly what the liberals want, and four years from now, after a deep economic depression, we'll take stock and decide whether the liberals' energy plans (which, as far as I can tell, rely upon purchasing some Magic Beans) have worked.

Via Instapundit, who's beginning to wonder about The Chosen One's ability to improve our strained relationships with key allies.

Posted by: Ace at 07:21 PM | Comments (56)
Post contains 450 words, total size 3 kb.

1 You thought 4 dollar gasoline was bad? Try 8 or 12 bucks when tar sand oil is cut out completely. We have the fucking #1 reserves in the world only concentrated in the United States and Canada w/ shale oil and tar sand. We could be the #1 exporting country on oil with all the reserves we have here.

Green River Formation (Wyoming, Utah, Colorado): Up to 1.5 trillion barrels equivalent of oil. At US consumption rate of 21 million barrels per day of oil, the supply can alone last us up to 195 years, well past the time we might have technology on our hands.
Tar Sand Oil in Athabasca: Up to 1.75 trillion barrels equivalent of oil. The Canadians currently produces 1.2 million BPD alone designated for the United States and have plans to increase that production to 3.8 million BPD. Again the supply from the Athabasca region @ 3.8 M BPD would last us over 1,000 years. The Canadians have already invested 100 billion dollars in order to expand production from 1.2 to 3.8. But with Obama obviously leaning to cut out Tar Sand Oil, the Canadians won't have any issues selling those oil to the Chinese since we just told our best friend in the world to go fuck off.
Tar Sand Oil in Utah: Up to 32 billion barrels equivalent of oil. This amount is double that of ANWR which alot of people have been saying "DRILL DRILL DRILL" but the spineless idiots in Washington refuses to. Utah could supply the US market at 1 million BPD and last for 87 years.

Enough of this shit. We need to start the NAEC. The North American Exporting Countries and knock out OPEC.

Posted by: Kaitian at June 25, 2008 07:39 PM (ARutk)

2 Uhhh, beyond local transportation cost complications, oil is fungible, that's one of the very simple reasons it's considered a commodity.

It doesn't matter who sells to whom. Whether we buy it from ourselves, terrorists or snowbacks, it doesn't really matter as far as cost goes.

Think of it all as a complete global system and stop thinking about local little markets where you can somehow game the system.

Posted by: Rome is burning at June 25, 2008 07:48 PM (CHC7U)

3 Uhhh, if many sellers are selling a commodity at varying prices, and you consistently limit the number of vendors you buy from (either by banning purchase from them, or by pissing them off so much they won't sell to you), you are left with a smaller number of potential vendors and have less price selection. In other words, prices go UP.

Take it to an extreme: Say the US passes a ban on all oil purchases from non-democratic countries, limiting our available vendors to Denmark, Canada, Mexico, Britain, Brazil and a few others.

What do you think happens to the price of oil in the US?

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2008 07:53 PM (aEOLm)

4 Uhhh, do liberals understand supply and demand?

Posted by: Warden at June 25, 2008 07:53 PM (KXbGD)

5 Okay, shorter version of my post above, only aggregate changes of supply and demand shift a commodity price.

If Canada gets pissed at us it sells to Germany which means Germany buys less from Mexico with means... exactly the same exact fucking thing as the spot price that day or whatever you've hedged in the futures market.

Posted by: Rome is burning at June 25, 2008 07:54 PM (CHC7U)

6 Demand has just increased for oil from those vendors. They raise prices, because they know US law is now gamed to only allow purchases from them.

The price of Saudi oil drops (less demand for it), which is great for the Chinese, but not so good for the US which is no longer permitted to buy it.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2008 07:54 PM (aEOLm)

7 ace, the oil futures market is dependent on world supplies that we as a world have access to. Not just the US alone. But the ban on non-democratic countries will never happen anyways. Cutting out tar sand oil out of the process since the US is probably the only consumer of would definitely affect the price unless the Canadians make agreements with China or India to take the oil but again that requires years of establishing the infrastructure to deliver it to the Chinese or Indians.

Posted by: Kaitian at June 25, 2008 07:56 PM (ARutk)

8 Rome, I invite you to form a reverse-price-hunter's internet club and garner hundreds of thousands of people who agree to only make purchases at, say, Target, and no other store that sells the same goods Target does.

Target now has a captive market which is not price-sensitive. They can afford to boost prices, since a good number of buyers can't purchase from anywhere but target.

Posted by: ace at June 25, 2008 07:57 PM (aEOLm)

9 Speaking of "dirty, dwindling and dangerously expensive" it's my intention to ban Olive Oil too. Have you ever seen that stuff? It's $20 a gallon, greenish and has a low smoking point.

Posted by: Rocks at June 25, 2008 08:04 PM (7rbe9)

10 Hey, Ace, I don't like this at all, but the only thing that will actually happen is that we'll pretty much raise everyone's oil prices equivalently.

We'll pay more to have oil shipped farther than Canada and Canada's new buyers will pay more to buy it from Canada. If they can find it cheaper, they will. If we can, we will. We'll find equilibrium within about 3 days.

Posted by: Rome is burning at June 25, 2008 08:04 PM (CHC7U)

11 This is dumb anyway. Canada will just ship the crap to Mexico and mix it in with their's after refining. Washington won't do crap about Mexico.

Posted by: Rocks at June 25, 2008 08:10 PM (7rbe9)

12 Yeah, it will take years to build infrastructure, but once Alberta builds it you'll not get another drop. We'll have spent money we did not need to and will have made deals with the Chinese and Indians that we won't break.

Do the Dems/Liberals/EcoTards not understand that Alberta has plenty of long term supply contracts with American buyers? That some of them are at low prices? That those buyers will for sure pay a current higher price and the extra cost of transporting oil from wherever instead of the cheap cost of pipelines from Alberta which is zero miles from the Montana border? That Americans are getting a reputation as weaseling contract-breakers quite as bad as Euro-weasels? What kind of price quote do you think weasels get? Oil ain't all that fungible, lots of the market is long term fixed price contracts hedged all to hell for cost and currency fluctuations.

Every international oil sell seller now says: " I Better quote those weasel yanks an extra few bucks a barrel because I need a weasel factor in my pricing, the fuckers will stiff me at some point if that asshole Obama gets elected."

Posted by: BlacquesJacquesShellacques at June 25, 2008 08:18 PM (VuPVV)

13 BlacquesJacquesShellacques, yeah, it's fucking retarded, don't vote liberal, no debate there.

But, at the end of the day, the futures market will sell to a blind crackhead with a pipe in his hand if he has cash in his hand. Canada will sell the US oil if we can pay for it rather than shit away the profit on shipping. Don't talk crazy just to make a point.

Posted by: Rome is burning at June 25, 2008 08:28 PM (CHC7U)

Liberals demand cars that run on pixie dust. I was just talking to a friend in San Francisco and he was pushing the hydrogen economy, though he admitted that the hydrogen would be produced from coal plants (and the CO2 vented) somewhere other than California.

Posted by: George Turner at June 25, 2008 08:31 PM (E+JNv)

15 Futures markets may sell to anyone, but that doesn't guarantee a physical good come settlement date. The fund manager of the JennisonDryden Global Natural Resources fund reports that all the LNG tankers that used to unload in the US are being diverted to China, because the Chinese are paying well above prevailing market price for them. Soon, prices will equalize, of courseuntil the next time.

Posted by: Mastiff at June 25, 2008 09:40 PM (V7/Bg)

I keep saying that Obama's energy plan seems to be "oppose anything that has a chance of success".

BTW did you guys see the George "Everyone Loves Jar Jar Binks" Lucas has proclaimed that Obama would definately be a Jedi.

Posted by: chad at June 25, 2008 11:37 PM (WNcvq)

I sent this to Ace awhile ago but I still think the numbers are pretty impressive. I always used the low estimates in this list:

ANWR Exploration
House Republicans: 91% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Barrels - 4.3 billion

Coal-to-Liquid
House Republicans: 97% Supported
House Democrats: 78% Opposed

Barrels - 4,768 billion

Oil Shale Exploration
House Republicans: 90% Supported
House Democrats: 86% Opposed

Barrels - 3,300 billion

Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) Exploration
House Republicans: 81% Supported
House Democrats: 83% Opposed

Barrels - 8.5 billion

Bakken Field

Barrels - 4 billion

Current US reserves (not including Bakken Field)

Barrels - 21 billion

Total Potential US Reserves

Barrels - 8105.8 billion

Current US consumption

Barrels - 21 million / day

Reserves in years (US Consumption only)

1057

Saudi Reserves (claimed)

Barrels - 260 billion

Reserves in years (US Consumption only)

39.2

Combined Reserves World Reserves not including the US (Claimed)

Barrels - 1115.7 billion

Reserves in years (US Consumption only)

168.6

Posted by: chad at June 25, 2008 11:51 PM (WNcvq)

"The fund manager of the JennisonDryden Global Natural Resources fund reports that all the LNG tankers that used to unload in the US are being diverted to China, because the Chinese are paying well above prevailing market price for them. "

Something missed by most. Energy security matters. Drill, mine and rfine our own resources.

Posted by: davod at June 26, 2008 12:39 AM (llh3A)

19 My brother has been working for years on the planning of a Pipeline from the Alberta tar sands to the BC coast. The Chi-coms are in it for some percentage and if Obambi doesn't want our oil I'll bet we find buyers somewhere else.

Sell Tar Sands Oil? >>> YES WE CAN!

Posted by: Slim at June 26, 2008 12:45 AM (jxXOI)

20 Leaving aside the question of whether or not it would impact prices, any environmental impact would almost certainly not change. The oil is being produced, production will increase in the years to come, and it will be sold to someone.

If Athabasca oil is an environmental nightmare, then Obama is doing nothing to change that fact. The only things he can realistically do to mitigate the supposed disaster are to ensure the US does not add to world production, and impose some sort of restrictions on energy use by American businesses and consumers. The first is taking place, the second will if Obama has anything to say about it (probably goes for McStupid, too).

Posted by: bunny boy at June 26, 2008 02:48 AM (OpYJp)

21 What the left is doing is preposterous. It's like they're deliberately torpedoing the US economy as a power grab.

But consider this outrageous scenario (I have and it disgusts me): Suppose the Lefticles lift the ban on drilling in the US and allow for all sorts of development to get any oil out of the ground. Fine. But they nationalize this effort, AND instead of sending the crude to US refineries for use by Americans, they instead pass a law making it illegal for American interests to use the stuff. So they sell the crude overseas.

Can anyone out there with a much better grasp on our oil situation reassure me that this is an extremely unlikely scenario? I mean, the left just wants to ruin the US economy for their own enjoyment and amusement and hand our soveignty to everyone else (but maintaining their own power bases in the process), and this seems one way to accomplish that.

Posted by: The Other Shoe at June 26, 2008 03:44 AM (Pus2I)

22 ""Whatever you say, Hoss" attitude towards all this liberal bullshit. Let's do exactly what the liberals want, and four years from now, after a deep economic depression, we'll take stock and decide whether the liberals' energy plans (which, as far as I can tell, rely upon purchasing some Magic Beans) have worked."

They'll just ask for another 4 years. That how it was in the Soviet Union, the bright communist future was just ahead.

This is liberals we're dealing with here. Sociopaths. There's always some jive why things aren't splendiferous.

Posted by: JB at June 26, 2008 03:44 AM (lzPb+)

I prefer the "STFU, Hoss" attitude towards the jerkoff liberals..

Posted by: scrood at June 26, 2008 03:47 AM (1dOyI)

24 ubless you guys want to talk about nationalization of US oil than we pay the world market price. Oil companies are free to sell to the highest bidder

Posted by: John Ryan at June 26, 2008 03:48 AM (TcoRJ)

25 The liberal excuse for not drillng her in the states, "Even if we start drilling now, it won't be available for another 10 years." Versus what they want to do, "Let's develop something new and better for the environment." So, I'm to understand it's quicker to develop and implement new technology, as opposed to building with existing technololgy? Uh huh.

Posted by: Darth Randall at June 26, 2008 04:04 AM (oLULt)

Canada is not an ally.

They've had their beady little eyes set on North Dakota for the last decade and one way or another they intend to take it.

Posted by: Entropy at June 26, 2008 04:20 AM (m6c4H)

27 "Let's do exactly what the liberals want, and four years from now, after a deep economic depression, we'll take stock and decide whether the liberals' energy plans."

Come on, there's always a bad patch to go through in the beginning. They need more time for it to work, a Mugabe amount of time at least and maybe a Lenin-Stalin-Krushchev-Brezhnev-Andropov-Chernenko-Gorbachev amount of time.

Posted by: Dusty at June 26, 2008 04:34 AM (GJLeQ)

28 I would agree that the Oil Sands are energy intensive, and it is kind of silly to burn all that lovely natural gas to extract the oil. That being the case, let's build a nuke plant or two to power the extraction and refining process, and then export the gas for even more profit.

Posted by: Holdfast at June 26, 2008 04:42 AM (Gzb30)

Canada is not an ally.

They've had their beady little eyes set on North Dakota for the last decade and one way or another they intend to take it.

And if they would drill the MF'er and sell to us, most Americans would give it to them!

Posted by: captkidney at June 26, 2008 04:44 AM (Bq8Sp)

And if they would drill the MF'er and sell to us, most Americans would give it to them!

'K.

Let's stick all the illegal immigrants in there though before we sign it over.

And then fence it in.

Posted by: Entropy at June 26, 2008 05:13 AM (m6c4H)

31 4 Uhhh, do liberals understand supply and demand?

Hahahahaha. Good one.

Posted by: cranky at June 26, 2008 05:40 AM (ETNoC)

It's scorched earth, and it worked for Mother Russia during the Great Patriotic War (WWII). It is a tough love concept, but founded on solid principle. Give them just what they want and they will destroy themselves with it.

Considering Big Mac's 'flexibility', and the general penchant for all presidents since Regan to bank left after January, I don't hold it off the table.

Posted by: Gus Bailey at June 26, 2008 06:58 AM (LZarw)

33 The assholes won't be happy until we are all digging in the dirt with a stick for a living.

Posted by: Javems at June 26, 2008 07:49 AM (hq71Y)

34 Idiot Leftists weigh the relative CO₂ emissions from producing oil, but how does it compare to the CO₂ produced when the oil is actually combusted?

Posted by: Molon Labe at June 26, 2008 09:36 AM (kYpqT)

35 25" I would agree that the Oil Sands are energy intensive, and it is kind of silly to burn all that lovely natural gas to extract the oil. That being the case, let's build a nuke plant or two to power the extraction and refining process, and then export the gas for even more profit." Holdfast at June 26, 2008 09:42 AM We are studying the feasibilty of building a nuke plant just for that purpose. The study will be released in the fall. I doubt we will be asking the U.S. for any expertise in building the nuke plant and, of course, Canada has plenty of it's own uranium and heavy water.

Posted by: Speller at June 26, 2008 10:58 AM (Pi/61)

36 We've been talking about building the nuke plants for a few years now, no? It seems the same stupidity that has prevented any new ones being built in the states for decades has set in here too. "What if it goes Chernobyl on us"? Ridiculous. Put it in some of that empty space we've got so damn much of up here. It is time Alberta started to take it's resource wealth seriously for once. Like Alaska. If Canadian and American companies are too enviro-shy to invest in the oilsands, then China or India will, and we will take it. It's that simple. There is profit to be made, and it is one hell of a pissoff and shame that we as north americans have let asian enterprises snap up so much of it already. So Carpe Diem on those nuke plants folks.

Posted by: Albertan at June 26, 2008 09:03 PM (x+Ubv)

Yes, Albertan, but Steady Eddie isn't Ralph.

As I said earlier, the feasability of a nuke plant is actually being studied right now and the conclusion comes out in this fall.

It isn't just talk.

Posted by: Speller at June 27, 2008 04:29 AM (Pi/61)

Certainly with all the zero additional barrels of oil we're producing domestically we can afford to be choosy about our foreign purchases.

Posted by: Jankoi at April 16, 2010 12:30 PM (OAOh7)

39 They'll just ask for another 4 years. That how it was in the Soviet Union, the bright communist future was just ahead. Harga Jual Blackberry iPhone Laptop Murah Meriahkan pesta ulang tahun bersama GarudaFood

Posted by: Harga Jual Blackberry iPhone Laptop Murah at April 04, 2011 02:15 AM (xJe3c)

40 Do you have troubles about how to choose HID Kit? there are so many brands, and you can not distinguish which is the best HID Kit you need, here, i would like to recommend this VVME HID Kit, which is cheap, reliable, and almost identical to the factory HID on the tractors and they are not blue like other kits. for more info, please visit http://www.vvme.com.You may also interested in:Bi-Xenon HID Kit/HID Conversion Kit/Hi/Low HID Kit

Posted by: HID Kit at May 06, 2011 12:45 AM (dFMZK)

41 I just want to emphasize the good work on this , has excellent views and a clear vision of what you are looking for

Posted by: mw2 modbox at August 06, 2011 01:55 PM (XSjh7)

42 Thank you for all of your hard work on this web site. Debby really likes setting aside time for research and it is simple to grasp why. We notice all relating to the dynamic manner you deliver helpful ideas on this blog and therefore cause participation from some others about this area while our own princess is now discovering a whole lot. Have fun with the remaining portion of the new year. You are carrying out a brilliant job.vist by blog สิงคโปร์ ของฝาก

Posted by: เที่ยวสิงคโปร์ at August 08, 2011 03:32 AM (d2y+f)

43 The Nike mercurial vapor have earned an honourable reputation for delivering optimum comfort. Packed with all the original Maestri II technologies, Nike proudly boasts that their boot lets you switch from the last line of defence to the first point of attack in a matter of seconds. For other speedy boots, like Nike vapor soccer shoes sell, you can view our store.

Posted by: Nike mercurial vapor fg at August 30, 2011 09:56 AM (f63vY)

44 The Nike Mercurial Superfly the boot world like nothing before, sending ripples through the boot community on its path to becoming the most talked about and the best-seller soccer shoe ever. Last year, Nike vapor soccer shoes introduced to a soccer shoe that set a new standard in signature boot design.

Posted by: Nike Football Cleats at August 30, 2011 09:57 AM (f63vY)

45 We can do more to reduce the oil waste.

Posted by: driver updater at October 08, 2011 05:47 AM (HzTyx)

46 oil waste is not a good thing we should try our best to forbid it.

Posted by: drm remove at November 03, 2011 02:02 AM (OpyVB)

47 support obama.

Posted by: dwg to pdf at November 10, 2011 03:52 AM (00LsR)

Posted by: qq at November 10, 2011 09:32 PM (Qbr+h)

49 it maybe a hard thing to make some changes, but it is usually good for us to do so, because the world are always chaging then we have to change.

Posted by: convert pdf to dwg at November 16, 2011 05:02 AM (hMZFq)

50 if you think the price of oil are to high, you can take a bus to go to work.

Posted by: pdf to dxf converter at November 25, 2011 03:43 AM (jGY76)

51 asicsmexico66
onitsukatigerultimate81
onitsukatigermexico66

Posted by: asics mexico 66 at December 09, 2011 10:11 PM (jGT5r)

52 the price of oil has big effect on people's daily life.

Posted by: dvd converter for mac coupon codes at December 27, 2011 05:05 AM (vRnAk)

53 do you like watching movies and listening to music on your ipad or ipod? There is one thing that is too troublesome. That is, some of the movies and songs are on drm protection, you have to remove drm protection if you want to own them.

Posted by: drivers coupon codes at January 04, 2012 04:34 AM (mdNn8)

54 Do you know how to remove drm

remove drm using a drm media converter?

Posted by: drm remover at January 10, 2012 04:35 AM (O+hp+)

I loved as much as you’ll receive carried out right here. The sketch is attractive, your authored material stylish. nonetheless, you command get got an shakiness over that you wish be delivering the following. unwell unquestionably come further formerly again since exactly the same nearly a lot often inside case you shield this hike.

Posted by: drm removal at February 01, 2012 04:50 AM (slJ4F)

The 3d movie converter is an all-in-one 3D Video Converter for assisting you to convert any normal video like AVI, MP4, WMV, MKV, AVCHD MTS/M2TS etc. to 3D video in 3D MKV, 3D MP4, 3D AVI, 3D WMV and 3D YouTube. What is more, you can also convert 2d to 3d, with it, you can enjoy the 3D movies anywhere and any time.

Posted by: 2d to 3d converter at February 06, 2012 10:37 PM (JD+u7)

Hide Comments | Add Comment