Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Webster Groves who wrote (117111)	1/28/2009 3:53:10 PM
From: Cogito Ergo Sum	5 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

Webster, Maybe Mr. Obama is serious about dirty oil.. and so much of our new reserves wealth is dirty.. It's also about spreading the eggs about more... maybe reducing our 80% foreign trade dependency with the US. TBS

To: Webster Groves who wrote (117111)	1/28/2009 7:22:57 PM
From: axial	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206085

The source post indicates how much US attitudes have changed. In the late 70's they called Canadians communists for their policy of energy independence. PetroCan's offices in Calgary are still called Red Square. Quick history here: cbc.ca Canadian taxpayers lost tens of billions, maybe more, because the debt was assumed just at the time worldwide interest rates spiked to ~20%. We're still paying off that debt. Times have changed, and so have attitudes. Now the US has a policy of energy independence, itself. Also, the amount of natural gas required to produce bitumen from tar sands results in huge emissions. There are alternatives. A more efficient, less emissive technology is toe-to-heel air injection (THAI) currently being successfully marketed and used by Petrobank: PBG. Note that water (for steam) is not required. canada.theoildrum.com There are other methods, (cold flow, CSS/cyclic steam generation, vapex, etc) here: en.wikipedia.org --- There's another option: nuclear power, to heat steam. That would cut CO2 emissions, but still use water. New technology would use small reactors: Message 25179110 thestar.com --- As discussed in the lead post, we can't turn on a dime. It seems improbable that the US will just stop using our oil, and cancel billions in existing contracts for infrastructure and and crude - especially if the US economy starts to pick up. More likely is gradual reduction. In the interim Canada can start moving crude north-west instead of north-south. IMO, any step that takes Canada away from over-reliance on US markets is good. It doesn't matter what Canada does, the US isn't happy; first, they blame us for energy independence, now they blame us for the emissions required to produce the very same oil to which they they demanded access. So be it. There are others who will buy our crude, and there are ways we can improve production. Canadians feel just as strongly as others about emissions, and global warming - but the demand for oil won't cease, just like that. It's my personal belief that in the next 2 years, the world will face a sharp rebound in prices, resulting from changes in demand/supply. In the meantime, the US will finally undertake the goal of energy independence first announced by Nixon, in 1974. Finally. In the interim, will the US refuse to take Oil Sands production, and shut it off like a tap? Perhaps, but I don't think so. Jim