Canadian discussion about the Tar Sands

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

Couldn't doing that kind of bullshit cause a war? Making a blatant attempt at hurting/crippling the economy of a good dozen countries?

Just off the top of my head... US, Canada, Iran, Venezuela, Russia...

Well the West has no problems with collective decisions to hurt the economies of individual countries (sanctions).

OPEC has been doing this kind of thing forever, although in the past it has usually been limiting supply to raise prices to increase their profits. It is irritating, but I'd hope no war's are going to be started over it. But if (probably when...) the next war breaks out in an OPEC country, it probably will have the effect of raising oil prices - just look at how much they skyrocketed after 2003.

[Architype]

A falling oil price is good for the US consumer and good for the US economy. Transport costs feed into the price of every physical product, so if oil gets cheaper, everything gets cheaper. If the oil price falls too far, however, the USA's recent fracking boom will come to an end. Forces are at play to end the USA's projected energy independence and return the country to dependence on the Middle East for its fuel supplies.
...
When a market is over supplied, prices continue falling until enough suppliers are forced into bankruptcy to reduce supply to the level of demand. At that point, prices can start to rise again. This is the classic explanation of the causes of recession and recovery. However, the oil market is different. Lead times and start up costs are high in the industry and so production cannot just be turned on and turned off at will
...
Suddenly, Saudi Arabia seems to have switched its policy. It increased its production in September 2014 and not only fails to support the current price but seems to be actively pricing its sales to drag the global price of oil down. The country is now selling at a price lower than the level it needs to maintain state spending. It is dipping into reserves to enable it to undercut its rivals.

http://oil-price.net/en/articles/oil...production.php

[eternallyme]

Can someone change the title of the thread? They are NOT tar sands, there is no tar in them - that is just a derogatory term used by environmentalists.

[Chadillaccc]

See the ridiculous pedantic bullshit on the previous for an answer to your request.

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Can someone change the title of the thread? They are NOT tar sands, there is no tar in them - that is just a derogatory term used by environmentalists.

I'll be happy to rename this thread Happy Fun Rainbow Sands if you would like.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by eternallyme

Can someone change the title of the thread? They are NOT tar sands, there is no tar in them - that is just a derogatory term used by environmentalists.

Originally Posted by Chadillaccc

See the ridiculous pedantic bullshit on the previous for an answer to your request.

It's not going to change - it's BS I know, and I wish, Chad, your thread had stayed as I imagine when you created it you might have hoped we could discuss the actual issues rather than pointless bickering over semantics.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

I'll be happy to rename this thread Happy Fun Rainbow Sands if you would like.

Can you not see that the thread title is causing the thread to be constantly derailed and negatively affecting the quality of the posts? I don't care what it's called, but every time it's mentioned we have a page of unnecessary and irrelevant arguments (and yes I know I'm now perpetuating that, so apologies to all discussing the topic).

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Can you not see that the thread title is causing the thread to be constantly derailed and negatively affecting the quality of the posts? I don't care what it's called, but every time it's mentioned we have a page of unnecessary and irrelevant arguments (and yes I know I'm now perpetuating that, so apologies to all discussing the topic).

No, what I'm seeing is tantrums by a specific segment of Calgarian posters. Not all Calgarian posters. And not one Edmonton poster. Why is that?

[Architype]

In a recent study, CERI put the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) break-even price for a steam-driven oil sands project at $84.99 per barrel, assuming a 12.5 per cent return. For a new mine, it’s $105.54. By comparison, oil can still be tapped for under $10 per barrel in some jurisdictions–a fraction of oil sands supply costs,
...
U.S. shale oil is estimated to break even at $60 to $80 a barrel, according to the International Energy Agency.
...
Some of the cost drivers in Alberta are familiar. The province’s population nudged past four million last year, but workers and materials are forever in short supply. Just keeping the lights on at existing facilities is sucking up more cash, too. Operating costs, a key measure of efficiency, have jumped as much as threefold for some companies since the beginning of the last decade. At least some of that is attributable to the sharp rise in the number of companies that now populate the region, ...

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle21334385/

[Architype]

I don't think the thread title matters, but seeing as this is a pro-Canadian forum (among other things), "Oil sands" would seem the better choice.

[Trans Canada]

Lol @ choosing the most controversial name for this thread. Petty indeed!

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by Trans Canada

Lol @ choosing the most controversial name for this thread. Petty indeed!

This thread was started in 2009.

[SHOFEAR]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

No, what I'm seeing is tantrums by a specific segment of Calgarian posters. Not all Calgarian posters. And not one Edmonton poster. Why is that?

Calling it Tar Sands is bullshit.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by Xelebes

No, what I'm seeing is tantrums by a specific segment of Calgarian posters. Not all Calgarian posters. And not one Edmonton poster. Why is that?

Does it matter? All it takes is a simple change to a sensible name and all the dross (such as this post) posted could be eliminated. If you feel that the discussion over semantics is valuable, then perhaps we could have two threads (which we did, until you merged Chad's into this one).

[Xelebes]

Originally Posted by SHOFEAR

Calling it Tar Sands is bullshit.

To quibble over merely the name implies that all that needs to be done with the mines around Fort McMurray is that we just need to sell it harder. Sell! Sell! Sell! No questions please!

[Allan83]

The solution is to just not play Xelebes political games. Don’t keep posting in this thread. (Also, be sure to take note of the way he’s conducting himself here. It’s very revealing.) If this discussion has branched off and become more about the state of the global oil industry, with Saudi Arabia now targeting the new US sources of oil as well, then that should be in a different thread, because it’s a much broader issue than just the oilsands.

[Architype]

Originally Posted by Allan83

The solution is to just not play Xelebes political games. Don’t keep posting in this thread. (Also, be sure to take note of the way he’s conducting himself here. It’s very revealing.) If this discussion has branched off and become more about the state of the global oil industry, with Saudi Arabia now targeting the new US sources of oil as well, then that should be in a different thread, because it’s a much broader issue than just the oilsands.

We're concerned with the industry as it affects the economy of Canada, in this thread. Since the global industry is inexorably tied to ours, it's still relevant for discussion. The success and fate of the industry in Canada may be determined by an entirely different set of factors than what were expected.