European Militaries Don't Need US? Oh Really??

[dannubis]

It takes about 5 hours to fly over the freeking country so I guess they would have more then enough time to blow some important **** up.

[Asher]

It takes about 5 hours to fly over the freeking country so I guess they would have more then enough time to blow some important **** up.

Not to mention it's ridiculously easy to blow up the upgraders, refineries, etc. Hell, they frequently blow up all by themselves.

[dannubis]

Precisely. Saying that "just taking over Canada" will secure it's oil supply is simplistic at best. See the Iraq story for that.

[giblets]

Well good for you, Canada. Your country just got wrecked by an invasion, but at least you have the comfort of knowing that Americans will have to put up with oil rationing for a few years.

[kittenOFchaos]

Ah, you think the canadians are going to just give their oil and land away ?

Pretty much. Apart from some minor post-invasion sabotage, I don't think the Canadians would resist formally due to the hopelessness of their position.

Across a border so long, with the useful population and industry within 100km of the US border, a tiny military and a society completely unprepared/incapable of putting up any meaningful resistance...

Iraq was only troublesome as the US put in too few troops, couldn't easily reverse that decision due to distance and that Iraqis were used to horrible living standards due to war and sanctions and many were radicalised enough to give their lives.

Also, lets not joke around here. The Iraq War and the resistance cost the US less than 5000 death. Tragic yes, but hardly indicative that taking Iraq was that challenging in the context of other conflicts the US has participated in such as the Vietnam War, WW2 and the Korean War. Hell, the US lose about 40,000 people each year on the roads, 5000 in a decade...500 a year...Iraq...that is not a good example of a country that has been difficult to invade and occupy. If the Iraqis oil industry wasn't so under-developed and delapidated due to sanctions, their oil exports would be far more significant.

In Iraq you've dudes willing to blow themselves up for their god. In Canada you've Asher...if the US invaded, the power supply would be compromised, he'd not even be able to post, the war is won.

This is from someone who is going to be marrying a Canadian and will end up living and working in Ontario more likely than not. It isn't anti-Canadian, just a recognition of what I consider to be the blatantly obvious. Canada is there for the taking should the US ever need it badly enough. Lets hope that never happens.

[Asher]

Gosh, this sounds familiar.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/oil-sands-key-factor-in-global-pricing-head-of-total-says/article2029052/

Oil sands key factor in global pricing, head of Total says

NATHAN VANDERKLIPPE
CALGARY— From Friday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, May. 19, 2011 7:29PM EDT
Last updated Thursday, May. 19, 2011 7:31PM EDT

Canada’s oil sands are playing an increasingly important role in setting the global price of crude, the head of French energy giant Total S.A. (TOT-N55.63-0.07-0.13%) says.

Triple-digit crude prices, and the soaring gasoline costs they have helped spur, have become a subject of global contention, with much of the blame being placed on unrest in the Middle East and North Africa. But Christophe de Margerie, chief executive officer of Total, said the high expense of producing crude from Canada’s oil sands is also helping to support lofty oil prices.

The cost of crude “all depends on what is the marginal cost of reinvestment. That’s why there is a strong link with Canada and Alberta, because today the more expensive source of oil is Canada,” Mr. de Margerie said in an interview Thursday.

The issue is complex. Canada’s oil sands may be among the priciest of the global crudes, given the enormous amounts of energy and capital required to extract them. Yet Alberta’s huge reserves are also increasingly important to a world where oil is getting more and more difficult to find and extract.

“Because of the cost of the Athabasca crude, we are in a way helping the price at least stay high,” Mr. de Margerie said. “But if you don’t produce it, it’s even worse.”

Still, he argued that the current volatility in oil prices is not a result of production shortages, but of uncertainty over medium and long-term supply and demand. “There is oil today on the market,” he said, appearing to contradict the International Energy Agency, which on Thursday said there is a “clear, urgent need for additional supplies.”

But, Mr. de Margerie said, “if you deliver more oil and there is no customers, what does it bring? What is important is OPEC delivers the message that they will do everything ... to make sure that whatever happens, there will be sufficient oil to cover the demand.”

The oil sands have become an increasingly important part of Total’s global portfolio, and Mr. de Margerie is planning to spend much of this week in Calgary and the Fort McMurray area. Members of the company’s international advisory board are also travelling to Alberta “so they can not only listen but also can see and feel” the company’s investments in the oil sands, including its joint partnership with Suncor Energy Inc.

He acknowledged that Total has sustained a reputational impact from its investments in Alberta, especially as environmental groups in Europe seek to persuade companies and investors to stay away from a crude source they call “dirty.”

“In terms of image, it’s not good,” he said in a speech to the Calgary Chamber of Commerce. It’s also expensive. The company plans to spend $20-billion in the oil sands by 2020, in hopes of boosting its production to 200,000 barrels, a small number compared to its expected global output of more than 2.6-million barrels a day.

Some might say “$20-billion for 200[-thousand barrels], something is wrong with this,” Mr. de Margerie acknowledged. But, he said, the oil sands are important as a source of crude that can endure for decades to come. “It’s for the very, very long-term,” he said. “How can we be absent?”

But he called on industry to lend an ear to its critics. He argued that companies can learn from those with suggestions on how to improve the environmental performance of operations – although he said companies should not speak to opponents intent on halting oil development.

Industry is confronted “with a lot of people who think that what we are doing on unconventional development is not good for the planet, is not good for Alberta, is not good for anybody,” he said. “We cannot say they can go to hell.”

At the same time, he expressed his support for one of the most contentious projects being pursued by Canada’s oil industry, the $5.5-billion Enbridge Inc. Northern Gateway pipeline that would bring oil sands crude to the West Coast for export to Asia.

“For any country, it’s better to have more than one source of exit,” said Mr. de Margerie. And, he said, “frankly we are looking at it. And if due to our relationships with our Chinese partners it makes sense, yes we might do something with them [Gateway].”

[giblets]

You're still wrong about Alberta being able to cut production yet make just as much money.

[Asher]

Depends if you're near-sighted or not.

[giblets]

What, are saying that in fifty years Canada will be bigger than OPEC or something?

[Asher]

Yes.

And it's not out there.

Look at:
1) The remaining oil reserves of OPEC
2) The production rate of OPEC countries
3) The remaining oil reserves in Canada
4) The production rate of Canada and its rate of increase
5) The % of the bitumen where oil extraction is technologically and economically feasible, from 1967 until today. Then extrapolate 50 years.

OPEC is already in decline. Canada is on a steep incline.

Also keep in mind that even the head of Saudi Arabia's biggest oil company has admitted the stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are overstated by as much as 40%.

[Kuciwalker]

Depends if you're near-sighted or not.

No, it depends on whether you have a basic understanding of economics. We've long known that you don't.

[Asher]

I think it's adorable you think the oil industry -- dominated by cartels, lies, speculators, gambling, and politics -- fits in perfectly with your textbook theoretical economics.

You're just green. I don't hold it against you, no one expects an actuary from Virginia to understand global politics and the oil industry.

[giblets]

Yes.

And it's not out there.

Look at:
1) The remaining oil reserves of OPEC
2) The production rate of OPEC countries
3) The remaining oil reserves in Canada
4) The production rate of Canada and its rate of increase
5) The % of the bitumen where oil extraction is technologically and economically feasible, from 1967 until today. Then extrapolate 50 years.

OPEC is already in decline. Canada is on a steep incline.

Also keep in mind that even the head of Saudi Arabia's biggest oil company has admitted the stated oil reserves of Saudi Arabia are overstated by as much as 40%.

Erm.... OPEC apparently has more oil reserves than Canada. Easily several times as much, even if you assume Saudi Arabia's reserves are vastly overstated.

[Kuciwalker]

In Asher's world, mumbing "cartels and speculators" justifies replacing evidence and facts with jingoistic nationalism

[Asher]

Erm.... OPEC apparently has more oil reserves than Canada. Easily several times as much, even if you assume Saudi Arabia's reserves are vastly overstated.

You do not understand the numbers you are looking at.

The 175M number for Canada is a 10 year old figure based on what was technically possible and economically feasible for extraction at that point. That number goes way up every year.

There are 1.75 trillion barrels of bitumen in proven reserves. The 175B came from the estimate that 10% was recoverable at then-oil prices with then-techologies ten years ago.

Those estimates were with $62 oil, BTW.