[mikemike]

Pretty outspoken first post (which just reeks of troll but what the hell)

Speaking as a Canadian i think we should stop shipping crude and ship only finished product. if you want it great, if you don't well then we'll sell it elsewhere or use it ourselves. in the meantime we will provide our populace with the higher paying jobs and higher return refinery business. The current situation here where we export crude and import finished product is to me unacceptable.

Eddie, I don't think you understand the economics of the oil industry. A major point of vertical integration in the oil industry is to better balance out the peaks and valleys of the commodities markets because when oil prices are high (like they are now), profits on refining are low the opposite is generally true too because as the price of oil falls, the refineries effectively keep the lights on because they are able to get a greater profit from refining as the price is lower and consumers are less sensitive to it.

Does having a huge export-oriented refinery in Alberta make a lot of sense? Maybe not, it would probably let them continue production and barely squeak by if the price of oil fell 50%, but if oil stayed expensive like this it doesn't do a whole lot and they are probably looking at a 15-20 years to come out ahead. A bet on producing tar sands oil is a bet that oil prices will stay high to very high so building refinery infrastructure there just seems like a sucker move to me.

The gulf coast is a great place for refineries because we have production here to take advantage of the refinery infrastructure and we also have ports to bring oil in when the price of oil gets desperately low that it forces shut-ins of domestic facilities, a situation that was happening only about 15 years ago and could easily be the case 15 years from now. Alberta's resources are only going to be economically viable sporadically and there is no port to keep the refineries running if the sands stop producing.

[wildweasel]

Ah, North-America! USA! The melting pot! A young nation, founded by illegal immigrants, whose history mostly consists of acts of war against themselves and just about every other nation on the planet which has a noteworthy supply of some sort of resource needed to maintain a rather ridiculous way of living, which i am sad to say we have adopted in Europe and also in little Norway. We throw away 30% of our food here. I don't know how many tons of plastic we dump into the sea every week, but it's a lot. And don't get me started on the fish farms...but back to USA! Hoooray for the USA, the country which around twenty years ago broke a record the Roman Empire once had: The country with the most military interventions, ever. And we started counting -after- WW2, for the US.

Don't get me wrong, i think a lot of good stuff has come out of the USA, and i am impressed with the good patriotism and the good ideals. I like the general enthusiasm almost any american bring, and the happiness and optimistic look on things. I like hamburgers and jeans, and i like cowboys as long as they are nice to indians; i absolutely can't stand country music, but a lot of good rocknroll has come from USA, although mostly it was british bands doing it. You made it happen, though!

It's just that sometimes i don't understand where people like you get the idea that you are in any position to make the sort of demands you just did. You don't even have your own language. You're speaking english, a language that had been in existence, in the modern form, for 300 years when Columbus discovered South America. You don't have your own ways. Your ways is a result of an almost 300 year old multicultural and multinational marriage, where every nation on earth was invited to the party. Most of them never left. Your founding fathers didn't become a citizen the legal way. The plundered and slaughtered and raped and killed and stole the land from the indigenous people already living there. I think you should be happy the mexicans aren't going about their business of trying to become americans the same way your founding fathers did.

Come to think of it - YOU are in MY country. Yea, thats right. Leiv Eriksson 'discovered' north america. He was a Norwegian Viking, and so am i. Well ,the norwegian part, anyway. So, why don't YOU get the hell out?

Ha ha ha, you tell him. Though I did get the impression his post was at least a little bit tongue in cheek. One thing that amuses us Plymouthians (the REAL one that all the others are named after) is that the famous Pilgrims steps on the Barbican, where the first settlers set off from after their journey's break from Holland, are in fact fake. The sea front was moved forward a couple of hundred years ago, and the original top step is where women's feet rest when they're using the loo in a pub called the Admiral Macbride. Also, the Black Friars monastery they stayed in has been a gin distillery for a few hundred years now, so, yeah, USA, founded from a distillery and a toilet . We do love pointing that out to visiting tourists when they're having their photos taken by the steps...

[eddie1960]

Eddie, I don't think you understand the economics of the oil industry. A major point of vertical integration in the oil industry is to better balance out the peaks and valleys of the commodities markets because when oil prices are high (like they are now), profits on refining are low the opposite is generally true too because as the price of oil falls, the refineries effectively keep the lights on because they are able to get a greater profit from refining as the price is lower and consumers are less sensitive to it.

Does having a huge export-oriented refinery in Alberta make a lot of sense? Maybe not, it would probably let them continue production and barely squeak by if the price of oil fell 50%, but if oil stayed expensive like this it doesn't do a whole lot and they are probably looking at a 15-20 years to come out ahead. A bet on producing tar sands oil is a bet that oil prices will stay high to very high so building refinery infrastructure there just seems like a sucker move to me.

The gulf coast is a great place for refineries because we have production here to take advantage of the refinery infrastructure and we also have ports to bring oil in when the price of oil gets desperately low that it forces shut-ins of domestic facilities, a situation that was happening only about 15 years ago and could easily be the case 15 years from now. Alberta's resources are only going to be economically viable sporadically and there is no port to keep the refineries running if the sands stop producing.

You don't understand my perspective. We export our crude and then buy it back refined, we need refinery capacity just for supplying our own needs. Even the Native community in northern Alberta are arguing for this, and environmentally they will feel the most impact (and they tend to be very vocal on environmental issues)
It's crazy to send jobs that produce for us south which is what happens.
I do realise that as crude goes up refineries get squeezed, though i think the model will start changing as the price of crude seems to have developed a higher normal plateau which will mean a need for a long term increase at the refining level. and higher Gas prices. I'm pretty certain the $1.31-$1.35 we have been seeing per liter ($4.96-$5.11 per us gallon) up here is here for the long haul barring the world sinking into a long term recession/depression again
At one point we had developed a national oil company to do such a thing. the cons have dismantled it for the most part. short sited in my opinion. As far as I am concerned energy should be a heavily government owned industry to ensure supply and cost for consumers (and in fact before the trend for dismantling began Hydro natural gas and oil were heavily owned by government)

[JohnInIndy]

Let's face it. Obama is just fulfilling his promise. He said he wanted gas higher in his campaign in 08. Of course before he took office it was below $1.79/gallon. With all of the ethanol added the actual price is higher since you're not getting the same mpg as straight gas.
Also remember he wants to make it so expensive to build any type of coal fired power plant that any company that tries will go bankrupt. His words, not mine.
And now he wants to wait until after the election to talk to Russia about missile. When he'll have more flexibility. What country is he president of again?

[eddie1960]

gas has gone up in a large part due to crude going up john.it's not all Obama.
and the 1.79 you were paying was stupidly low compared to the world market. the current price is still pretty much the lowest on the world market.
Reality is increased worldwide demand is far more responsible for your gas prices than anything your politicians can do.
Add in Mideast conflict, production disruptions in Africa, Sanctions on Iran, etc and even a 73% increase in US production over the last few years hasn't helped the price stay down.
the costs of the pollution caused by coal fired plants aren't worth the short term benefit of cheaper electricity IMO either. It is a strong stand for Obama but I think the correct one for future generations

[GeneV]

Interesting take. The Truth About Obama, Oil And The Gasoline Blame Game-Part Two - Forbes

[audiobomber]

Interesting take. The Truth About Obama, Oil And The Gasoline Blame Game-Part Two - Forbes

Unfortunately reasoned analysis is in very short supply in American politics these days. It's more about emotion, sound bites and organized ignorance.

[pxpaulx]

Let's face it. Obama is just fulfilling his promise. He said he wanted gas higher in his campaign in 08. Of course before he took office it was below $1.79/gallon. With all of the ethanol added the actual price is higher since you're not getting the same mpg as straight gas.
Also remember he wants to make it so expensive to build any type of coal fired power plant that any company that tries will go bankrupt. His words, not mine.
And now he wants to wait until after the election to talk to Russia about missile. When he'll have more flexibility. What country is he president of again?

This chart says you're full of crap! First of all, when he took office it was $1.61 - lower than it had been for George Bush's entire 2nd term. It also hasn't been higher than post-Katrina - who gets the blame for that? Ultimately the president has little to nothing to do with the price of gas. As any level-headed poster in this thread realizes, the US price of gas has been massively subsidized for, well, ever.

[redrockcoulee]

The cost of gasoline here in Alberta where we have so much of it has increased since Obama took office. The federal Conservative Party and the provincial Progressive Conservative Party must be in partnership with the US Democrats. Or the price of our oil is at world prices and the only differences govts can make is to change the taxes on it. However one looks at it Americans are paying less per unit for Alberta gas and complaining more about it. On the flip side the higher the price of a barrel the more money the govt gets from royalities.

If I remember something from a MSNBC show that showed video clips Obama stated that as the US is dependent on world prices it made sense to be looking at alternatives and that gets translated to wanting higher gas prices?

[eddie1960]

If I remember something from a MSNBC show that showed video clips Obama stated that as the US is dependent on world prices it made sense to be looking at alternatives and that gets translated to wanting higher gas prices?

Of course it does, if you are a republican looking for a convenient scapegoat.and a simple answer

[jogiba]

Gasoline prices are largely determined by crude oil prices. Crude oil prices are largely determined by global markets. Global markets are determined by economic fundamentals including supply, demand, valuation of the dollar and more.



But Newt Gingrich could give US drivers $2.50 gas if you vote for him and pay him $50 if you want a photo with him.

The GOP clown show continues.

[audiobomber]

But Newt Gingrich could give US drivers $2.50 gas if you vote for him

He could do that. Of course it would mean the US govt would be subsidizing the cost of gas. I wonder what the Tea Party would think of that?

[jogiba]

Let's face it. Obama is just fulfilling his promise. He said he wanted gas higher in his campaign in 08. Of course before he took office it was below $1.79/gallon. With all of the ethanol added the actual price is higher since you're not getting the same mpg as straight gas.
Also remember he wants to make it so expensive to build any type of coal fired power plant that any company that tries will go bankrupt. His words, not mine.
And now he wants to wait until after the election to talk to Russia about missile. When he'll have more flexibility. What country is he president of again?

I see you are using Tea Party talking points for their brain dead base to use.
FactCheck.org : Obama Wanted Higher Gasoline Prices?

U.S. politics combined with diplomacy as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev took a swipe at Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney and President Obama pointed to an uncooperative Congress to explain why he was delaying negotiations with Russian leaders over missile defense.

Romney, in a CNN interview Monday, had referred to Russia as “our No. 1 geopolitical foe,” prompting Medvedev to tell reporters here that the former Massachusetts governor’s language seemed out of date and “smelled of Hollywood” stereotypes.

“Regarding ideological cliches, every time this or that side uses phrases like ‘enemy No. 1,’ this always alarms me,” Medvedev said Tuesday in remarks broadcast on Russian television.

“All U.S. presidential candidates [should] do two things,” he said. “Use their head and consult their reason” and “look at his watch: We are in 2012 and not the mid-1970s.”


The back-and-forth was prompted by an open-microphone incident Monday in which Obama could be heard telling Medvedev that he would have more “flexibility” after the presidential election in November to consider Russian concerns about U.S. missile defense plans.

“This is my last election,” Obama said. “After my election I have more flexibility.”

“I understand,” Medvedev responded. “I will transmit this information to Vladimir,” he added, referring to Vladimir Putin, who won Russia’s election on March 4 and will begin a six-year term as president in May.

BTW the all time high for crude oil and gas prices was in July 2008.

[eddie1960]

He could do that. Of course it would mean the US govt would be subsidizing the cost of gas. I wonder what the Tea Party would think of that?

And some governments do subsidize fuel. the Arab states all do. France taxes Diesel less than Gas to reduce consumption (Diesel being more efficient) and it works most cars on the road are Diesel in France. (actually I think this is pretty widespread in all European states)