Panic time: As oil goes, so does Canada’s economy
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
CT money adds up.
I get around 7¢ L back from CO-OP. I can spend the dividend money anywhere. Better deal.
Falling oil prices could delay tax cuts, economists say
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/falling-oil-prices-could-delay-tax-cuts-economists-say-1.2800431
http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/falling-oil-prices-could-delay-tax-cuts-economists-say-1.2800431
What a laugh... You learned what a subsidy actually is yet?
Commodities is a long game... Only the suckers try and play short get slaughtered more often than not
Winter heating prices, May 1 used to be the increase date, that might come earlier if they are hungry.
. . . and why are we in danger if danger is supposed to come only if we have sanctions applied to us like Russia has on them. (who is now talking to Kiev about their winter gas needs)
Who is planning on tax cuts? Don't see the Ontario Lieberals freeing up my tax money. Harper already did his cuts. Justine will raise taxes when he gets in. Who was planning cuts?
Cheers.
In sober second thought regarding plunging oil, as low as 60$.00 I should have also mentioned the four major pipeline projects; Keystone XL, the TransMountain expansion, Northern Gateway and Energy East .
If these all get approved and including the increase in rail capacity/infrastructure which will double each year for the next two years, Canada will have the ability to literally flood the world with oil and become a significant political player. However, given the fragility of the fracking boom where billions has been invested in an industry where the payoff is very short lived due to the short life of the fields I think the Obama administration is probably not approving Keystone more out of trying to avoid another mortgage type burst bubble in the fracking industry than playing to their environmental lobbies as is the typical excuse.
I believe this because fracking in the US sucks up about 150 billion gals of water each year which is the equivalent to the annual water usage of Edmonton, Calgary, Winnipeg, Regina, Saskatoon, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat and Ft. McMurray combined. Couple this with the slurry of toxic chemicals being mixed with this water being pumped into the ground and the fact that major amounts of methane are being released into the atmosphere while aquifers are bled and water wells poisoned....well, I just don't see the environmental lobby ignoring it for long.
You don't even know you don't know.
Can you tell me the volume of the US oil that was agreed upon to flow down XL and how much more Obama wants that is the root of the delays or they will just keep shipping by truck and rail to appease the enviro lobby?
10% of the potatoes? 30% of the potatoes or more potatoes?
PS what was OPEC babbling about back in 05 about needing to keep oil pegged at $100bbl to pay for the worlds largest energy project known to mankind?
Potato?
10% of the potatoes? 30% of the potatoes or more potatoes?
PS what was OPEC babbling about back in 05 about needing to keep oil pegged at $100bbl to pay for the worlds largest energy project known to mankind?
Potato?
We've already clearly established the sky in your world is a different colour but do you not have access to internet search engines too?
Anywho, some basics here:
"1. Specifications of the Keystone XL pipeline
The Keystone Pipeline would span 1,179 miles and transport two types of crude oil from Alberta, Canada, and from North Dakota and Montana, to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast, passing through the country’s pipeline hub in Cushing, Okla., along the way. The $7 billion pipeline project would be able to move about 800,000 barrels of crude oil per day.
2. What are the pros of Keystone?
Proponents say that the benefits of building the pipeline outweigh the environmental risks by reducing dependence on foreign oil from countries that do not have U.S. interests in mind. The project will also create 20,000 jobs, according to TransCanada, which expects to spend $7 billion in the U.S. to build it. There is a lack of pipeline infrastructure in North Dakota and Alberta. The pipeline will help bring the glut of oil stuck in those areas to refineries in the U.S. Gulf Coast, where it can be put onto the market.
3. What are the cons of Keystone?
Opponents of the pipeline worry about the environmental impact associated with the extraction of oil from Alberta known as oil sands. Oil sands, also referred to as tar sands, are permeated with bitumen, a form of petroleum in solid or semi-solid form that is blended in clay, sand and water. Environmental groups say the extraction method is more carbon-intensive than the method for conventional crude. If the pipeline is approved, it could add 1.2 billion metric tons of carbon pollution to the atmosphere during its 50-year lifespan.
4. Where does Obama stand on the Keystone?
President Barack Obama has the ultimate power to approve the pipeline. Obama has delegated to the State Department to determine whether or not the pipeline is in “U.S. national interest,” but he has expressed doubts about the project. In June he laid out his Climate Change Action Plan and said his decision on the pipeline will be based on whether it would contribute to producing more carbon emissions. “The net effects of the pipeline’s impact on our climate will be absolutely critical to determining whether this project is allowed to go forward. It’s relevant,” said Obama, whose administration has been evaluating the project for more than 1,800 days."
Keystone XL Pipeline: Five Little-Known Facts About A Pipeline Designed To Move Crude Oil From Alberta, Canada, To The Texas Gulf Coast
Who knows what you're talking about specifically but recently CTI (Carbon Tracker Initiative) rated the top 20 mega oil projects in the world worth about 100 billion and a lot of them in Alberta and claimed that anything under 150-95 per barrel depending on the project would not be viable.
I know one of the sites on the list was the joint project at foster and Christina Lake which is supposed to collapse at 100 but Cenovus has already stated publicly the project is viable in the 65-50 range.
Maybe you're talking about the geopolitcal reality that prit'near every primary petroleum producing country needs oil to be around 100 bucks to break even.
You need to be more clear.
Oh come on now, as much as everyone will support petros when it comes to going against cannucklehead........ don't ask for the impossible.