Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

In this Discussion

Here's a statement of the obvious: The opinions expressed here are those of the participants, not those of the Mutual Fund Observer. We cannot vouch for the accuracy or appropriateness of any of it, though we do encourage civility and good humor.

    Support MFO

  • Donate through PayPal

Canada Diversifies From US, Sells Oil to Asia

edited January 2012 in Off-Topic
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/keystone-aftermath-arrives-canada-pledges-sell-oil-asia-us-becomes-source-uncertainty

We apparently didn't allow the Canadians to build an oil pipeline to the US, but Asia is more than willing to step in.

"Canadian Natural Resource Minister Joe Oliver said relying less on the U.S. would help strengthen the country’s “financial security.”

Comments

  • Pretty scary when the political environment makes easier for a country to move oil across an ocean then across a border. Sad.
  • I'm thinking this deal isn't done yet. Not enough pockets greased yet!
    Derf
  • edited January 2012
    Having spent a fair amount of time in the Nebraska sandhill country, it is not difficult to understand their perspective. The Ogallala Aquifer is critical not only to their survival, but to the general economy of the United States. Some facts from Wickipedia:

    About 27 percent of the irrigated land in the United States overlies this aquifer system, which yields about 30 percent of the nation's ground water used for irrigation. In addition, the aquifer system provides drinking water to 82 percent of the people who live within the aquifer boundary.

    From personal experience I can assure you that the average person living in this area is anything but a "left-wing liberal". This controversy has nothing to do with politics and everything to do with survival.

    They don't trust the oil industry to act responsibly, plain and simple, and with damned good reason.
  • Yer makin' sense, OJ.
  • The pipeline will be built. The rejection was forced by Republicans requiring the president to make a decision in 60 days, and artificial deadline.

    He made a decision based as required but allowed the pipeline company to resubmit revised proposal taking into account the environmental impact. It will go through a different path.

    I am glad we have not rushed to OK a poor plan where an improved plan could be implemented.

  • When is the last time that Canada had a national disaster with all their natural resource exploitation?
  • Reply to @Anonymous: Last year. Just because it is not in the news here in the US often does not mean it is not occurring.

    Oil spill in Canada's Alberta 'biggest in 35 years'
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-13284849

    Some history of oil spills in Alberta
    http://www.seankheraj.com/?p=1050
  • And that's why, in the old joke, a talking frog is worth more than an Alberta oil man.
  • There are already numerous pipelines over the Ogallala aquifer. The President has had three years to study the issue. The truth is this is just plain politics to appease the Greens in the Democratic Party. There is no pipeline plan which would have been approved. Sorry, but some of you are not looking at this issue reasonably. It is okay to criticize your own guy once in a while.
Sign In or Register to comment.