Harper: "The politics of ruthlessness"

[Tupac Shakur]

You're getting in the way of trolling Asher with his own article (which I agree sounds like bull****).

[Asher]

You're not doing what you think you're doing.

All I'm seeing is an American desperate for oil and not wanting to admit it.

[Tupac Shakur]

I honestly don't care if the Keystone XL gets built or not. I like Canada (despite empty threats meant to steamroll legitimate environmental concerns) and it would be good for them, but it means **** all for America.

[Asher]

It means more to you than it does to Canada. It means stable, secure, consistent energy supply that's far less tied to the Arabs you guys openly hate.

And as I said, they're far from empty. The work has already started on a fat Pacific pipeline.

[Tupac Shakur]

It means more to you than it does to Canada.

No, it doesn't.

It means stable, secure, consistent energy supply that's far less tied to the Arabs you guys openly hate.

This argument is absolutely moronic. Oil is a globally traded commodity; buying more Canadian oil doesn't shield America from higher oil prices resulting from Middle East instability.

The work has already started on a fat Pacific pipeline.

Again, so what?

[KrazyHorse]

Without any really quantitative work, my guess would be that the benefits would be split fairly evenly. That's generally how these things work...

[Asher]

No, it doesn't.



This argument is absolutely moronic. Oil is a globally traded commodity; buying more Canadian oil doesn't shield America from higher oil prices resulting from Middle East instability.

Oil has regional prices.

Regional instability will affect the price in one part of the world more than the other. For instance, the instability in Libya raised the price of Brent crude more than WTI crude since the UK gets more oil from Libya than the US does.

Again, you clearly don't know the industry or how it works. It's far too simple to say it's a globally traded commodity. There's heavy infrastructure involved which limits how free the market is in the short term.

[Asher]

For such a "globally traded commodity", the price spread between the UK and the US is only growing:



At what point do you concede that you're clueless?

You're looking at a $25 per barrel difference right now, or thereabouts. That's massive.

[Tupac Shakur]

Your earlier article said that the building the Keystone XL would limit Canada's dependence on the US market, consequently raising prices for American consumers. When are you going to concede that your argument for the pipeline doesn't make any sense?

[Tupac Shakur]

On a side note, I wasn't previously aware of how ****ty the quality of Canadian oil is. Sounds like your threat to sell to Asia is even emptier than I thought, given that many Asian refineries don't want to touch the stuff if they don't have to.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/25/us-crude-asia-idUSTRE7AO04620111125

[Asher]

It's not ****ty, it's just heavier. The oil you pump from regular wells is nothing like the oil from oilsands. In the end, it's oil. You just need better technology to refine it.

The US had to upgrade its refineries as well.

[Asher]

Your earlier article said that the building the Keystone XL would limit Canada's dependence on the US market, consequently raising prices for American consumers. When are you going to concede that your argument for the pipeline doesn't make any sense?

My argument is Canada sells its oil either way and doesn't give a **** what the destination price is including transport cost. The royalties we get don't change.

The US stands more to benefit from the arrangement. It's just more convenient for Canada is all.

[Tupac Shakur]

The US stands more to benefit from the arrangement.

How? We already have access to your oil. Why would letting more Canadian oil reach the global market (lowering the Brent-WTI spread) be good for the US?

edit:

The reversal of the Seaway Pipeline last week fed substantially higher WTI crude oil prices, as it will help ease the bottleneck at Cushing, Oklahoma. The price spread with Brent crude will remain, though, given pipeline under capacity (as Keystone XL remains delayed) and rising output from Canada’s oil sands, according to RBC Capital markets which sees the Brent-WTI spread averaging $9 per barrel in 2012 and $7 per barrel in 2013.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/afontevecchia/2011/11/21/oil-prices-brent-wti-spread-narrows-but-keystone-delay-keeps-it-alive/

**** yes. String the Keystone XL along and keep this spread in existence for as long as possible.

Obama

[Asher]

How? We already have access to your oil. Why would letting more Canadian oil reach the global market (lowering the Brent-WTI spread) be good for the US?

What the **** are you even talking about?

If Canada shifts its oil output to the pacific, you would have LESS oil. Your local price would INCREASE. This would lower the spread, definitely, but that is not in your favour.

You seem to think getting it to the gulf is the global market -- it's not. Getting it to the Gulf is to feed the US market only. The goal of Keystone XL is to get oil to the idle refineries in Texas for American consumption.

[Tupac Shakur]

If Canada shifts its oil output to the pacific, you would have LESS oil. Your local price would INCREASE. This would lower the spread, definitely, but that is not in your favour.

So Americans will have to pay the global price for oil again in a decade or so when Canada finally finishes another pipeline to the Pacific. Sounds like a great deal for us in the meantime.