Off Topic

Crude oil drops to $46, time for Canada to lower interest rate

  • Last Updated:
  • Jan 9th, 2019 3:32 pm
Member
User avatar
Jun 6, 2009
462 posts
51 upvotes
Piro21 wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 8:00 pm
I think they want negative rates so people can pay them to spend other people's money.
Free money is best money. Smiling Face With Open Mouth
Deal Expert
User avatar
Oct 26, 2003
29357 posts
2212 upvotes
Winnipeg
KDSet wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 10:33 pm
Free money is best money. Smiling Face With Open Mouth
socialism!
Deal Fanatic
Feb 11, 2007
6840 posts
1777 upvotes
blexann wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 10:16 pm
Do you have a source for this? (legit question and not questioning your post)

EDIT here is a working link:
https://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/ ... 2fa25da943
Alberta and Saudi oil aren’t necessarily the same thing
On paper, Canada could become energy self-sufficient tomorrow. Every day we produce about 3.9 million barrels of oil per day, and use less than 2 million barrels. A study this year from the Canadian Energy Research Institute even calculated that energy self-sufficiency might reduce emissions. But think of oil like whiskey: There are many different types and qualities. A bourbon connoisseur probably isn’t going to be happy with a bottle of Old Crow and a Manhattan isn’t going to taste the same if it’s made out of Scotch
.
Deal Fanatic
Nov 17, 2004
6287 posts
795 upvotes
Toronto
poleman wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 10:08 pm
You don't get it, do you.
That don't want a bailout. All they want is a pipeline or two. That's all. Really, really simple.

And where do you come up with them ruining 25% of their land?
The approximate area is based on maps I have seen, it looks like 25% to me.

The US is not interested in the pipeline, BC is not interested in the pipeline. That's all. Really, really simple.
I workout to get big so I can pickup bricks and ****.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Mar 12, 2005
8263 posts
1048 upvotes
Victoria
I think it's tough. There's so much news going around. How much of it is true, how much is a spin. I was reading an article a few weeks back that discussed how there was a shift in where the oil goes from the existing pipeline. There's been a drastic reduction of exports to Asia and now it all goes to the US. Given the oil glut, and how many other sources are higher quality, require less refining, and are geographically closer to big markets like China. Is there really demand for Alberta oil even if they managed to get the twinned pipeline project through.

If oil demand was like it was 10 years ago it wouldn't matter. Demand was so high the quality didn't matter. Now there's oil everywhere. Loads of sources. Plus there's a shift to clean energy and vehicles. It might take 20 years to get there, but that's 20 years of decreasing fuel consumption.

Conclusion: I'm not sure of the long term viability of Alberta oil. Unless there's a big shock to the current oil supply system, the demand is going to make it difficult to sell.
Deal Expert
Feb 29, 2008
20472 posts
2261 upvotes
Montreal
blexann wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 10:16 pm
Do you have a source for this? (legit question and not questioning your post)
Its somewhat accurate, yet simplified. Tar sands oil are heavy and very heavy crudes. Aside from the cost of extraction, transport and processing, very few refineries can actually process these heavy crudes. Most are located in the Gulf of Mexico, since the US is decades ahead of Canada in refining technology. As such there is currently a single major buyer for Alberta and they set the price as they see fit.

China wants the heavy oil, but for bitumen in asphalt. If China's infrastructure building orgy dies out, that demand will dry away.

For your run of the mill refinery, processing Saudi or US oil is cheaper and easier.

https://www.oilsandsmagazine.com/technical/oilsands-101
Newbie
Dec 14, 2018
34 posts
20 upvotes
divx wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 10:22 pm
Alberta would love to separate from rest of the country to save you from all that hassle.
They should but then who will they blame for their stupidity and poor decisions?

They want the provinces to to bear the risk with none if the reward, want feds to help them and somehow disregard the courts but balk at nationalisation of oil

They want all the profits, none of the risk and want everyone else to chip in.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Feb 19, 2010
5400 posts
2192 upvotes
nocoupon wrote:
Dec 19th, 2018 6:20 pm
They should but then who will they blame for their stupidity and poor decisions?

They want the provinces to to bear the risk with none if the reward, want feds to help them and somehow disregard the courts but balk at nationalisation of oil

They want all the profits, none of the risk and want everyone else to chip in.
Wow, I love the irony of your first sentence. :facepalm:

You absolutely fail on most everything your post contains including the amount of money flowing into federal coffers from Canada's number one export, the positive impact on YOUR standard of living as a result, the Canadian Constitution, and the extremely misguided notion that anybody is looking for handouts.

It's no wonder that with so many uninformed citizens this country is in the mess it is. :facepalm:
Newbie
Dec 14, 2018
34 posts
20 upvotes
Conquistador wrote:
Dec 19th, 2018 6:48 pm


It's no wonder that with so many uninformed citizens this country is in the mess it is. :facepalm:
Agreed like this MP from Alberta

https://north99.org/2018/12/18/conserva ... l-warming/
Conservative MP Blaine Calkins, in front of a class of grade 7 and 8-year-olds, told students that science was still unclear on whether CO2 is a pollutant that contributes to global warming.

And whether or not you think carbon dioxide is pollution or not is, I still think, a question. I’m a biologist. I know that carbon dioxide is actually plant food, so there’s arguments for and against.”
This is a member of parliament and he doesn't even have grade school science knowledge
Member
User avatar
Jun 6, 2009
462 posts
51 upvotes
divx wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 10:37 pm
socialism!
No, comrade, socialized capitalism! Is best capitalism.
Sr. Member
Apr 4, 2009
760 posts
115 upvotes
divx wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 10:22 pm
Alberta would love to separate from rest of the country to save you from all that hassle.
What does this even accomplish??

The keystone pipeline is being held up in US courts, and the coastal pipeline is being held up in our courts. If Alberta wants to become the 51st state, corporate America would gladly take them in. AKA way more competition for contracts and the lowest bidder wins....
Deal Addict
User avatar
May 22, 2016
1604 posts
295 upvotes
Ontario
mr_raider wrote:
Dec 20th, 2018 7:36 am
People who think CO2 is harmless need to spend 15 minutes with a paper bag on their head.
What happens if you put a paper bag on your head for 15 minutes?
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1434 posts
763 upvotes
Yeah the Canadian economy is likely headed into, or is already in significant deflation. Between RE and O&G collapsing, and little else to take its place...

Poloz will probably have to act accordingly. Negative interest rates here we come.
Deal Addict
Oct 6, 2015
1434 posts
763 upvotes
toalan wrote:
Dec 18th, 2018 11:03 pm
The approximate area is based on maps I have seen, it looks like 25% to me.

The US is not interested in the pipeline, BC is not interested in the pipeline. That's all. Really, really simple.
BC needs the pipeline. Washington State refineries need the pipeline.

Top