Ensuring Canada Has A Reasonably Priced Supply Of Gasoline Should Come First
Monday, February 27, 2012 @ 3:45 AM
The question that governments must consider as we enter a new round of spiralling fuel prices is, just how important is the matter of fossil fuels to Canadians?
We cannot be compared to most European countries, China or for that matter even the USA because of our small population and long distances to reach that population. That means large amounts of fossil fuels are required in order to fill the demands of Canadians which should after all be the first priority of any government, the people who they serve. That hasn’t been the case for decades when it comes to ensuring that Canadians have a good, reasonably priced and secure supply of the fuel, the engine that drives the Canadian economy.
We import more than 30% of the fuel that we consume and are bent on creating new markets at the expense of the very people of Canada who supposedly own the resource.
The Tar sands have become an international draw not from Canada as much as countries such as Japan, China and the USA who see the value of a secure market. That has cost the average Canadian dearly.
Crude oil is being imported in Eastern Canada by companies at the whim of unstable foreign governments. Those major oil players have been able secure their supply at far below world prices at the expense of the general driving public. That has been the call by the major companies, buy low and sell high and to hell with the Canadian consumer. They suggest that we should all be going green while all the while filling the market with as much expensive oil as the market will bear. Major oil companies have only their shareholders at heart; the Canadian public comes in a way down the ladder.
We do not have a domestic policy first for gasoline as do many South American countries. Had we had such a policy in place we would not be facing a crushing economy in Canada based on the fact that inflation will go through the roof at the expense of all Canadians.
The Enbridge pipe line is trying to expand the market to China. The argument being that the trade is valuable to Canadians in general.
Please tell, me, how is it akin to selling all our wheat and leaving the needs of the Canadian public to find that product on the world market.
Until we have ensured that the supply of petroleum products is sufficient for Canadian needs, we should not be trying to sell that product off shore. We wouldn’t need those export dollars if we were paying Canadians for that very same product.
Exporting crude to China as is being proposed will not ensure one single barrel more oil or contribute one single penny to the cost of the product in Canada. In fact to the contrary it drives the prices up.
Governments of all stripes should recognize that problem and act on it, because if they don’t and the world price sends this country into an economy down turn, the voters will see the governments suffer their own "downturn".
I’m Meisner and that’s one man’s’ opinion.
Comments
I could not agree more Ben!
When our government fails to ensure access to any canadian product produced,mined,pumped,or built in Canada…that government has failed to do it’s job.
Canadians are far too tolerent when it comes to allowing our resources to be exploited by other countries.
We have a right to first call,and at fair and reasonable prices!
Ben, I agree with your premise but as I understand it we do not have the refinery capacity to use enough tar sands to make mining the tar sands an economical venture. The tar sands project would not exist if there were no export market.
Now as for increasing refinery capacity —- too expensive and our market is not big enough — add in that environmental lobby would never let a builder do that anyway.
What we could do is tax the exports in such a manner that we do not export our oil to the US at the $20 discount per barrel, to the world price, as we apparently have to now.
It is goofy that they burn up gasoline in the US at a lower price to the consumer than we do . “Our” resource is wasted , in a sense, down there because it is not priced correctly.
I think the problem with the price increases is mostly due to refinery trouble, fires etc.The difference in price between Canada and USA could be just the difference in the taxes charged by the goverment.If we want to lower fuel prices ,we need a little over production in the refineries,but they are not going to shoot them selves in the foot
Saying no to enbridges proposed pipeline might be a step in the right direction to force our govt to take Canadians position first above all. If they go against the wishes of the majority such to satify the greed of a few cohorts and friends of harpers then this country is in need of a full blown revolution and BC should seriously look at leaving Canada. There is no reason we can’t be as successful as a country like switzerland.
Exactly right Mr. Meisner..
We import 780,000 barrels per day from Saudi Arabia, until that need is met no Enbridge..
In China they pay 30 cents per litre, Saudi Arabia they pay 40 cents..
In the lower mainland..$1.43 per litre..
Exactly, if Enbridge goes through, $2 dollars per litre..
Harper has tar sand disease!
Prices will rise, every other aspect of Canada`s economy will suffer for the sake of filthy rich oil companies..
No more from Stephen Treason Harper
http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/02/02/Northern-Gateway-Inflationary-Threat/
Seizing oil fields or profits are things that are done in third world countries. Do you really support this behaviour?
The author is a member of the “spend and consume generation.” Unsustainable consumption based on low cost reasources that externalize costs.
Here in the real world things are getting tougher and tougher. Its not the Governments fault or the oil companies fault or China’s fault. The reality is that regardless of what kindergarden teachers have been teaching for the last 20 years its a competitve world. We are competing for valuable resources.
We can pump out excuses about where we live and how cold it is and this and that but at the end of the day we will adjust (evolve) or we will be dinosaurs. Oil is a valuable resource that we cannot afford to waste. Conserve fuel. Buy diesels. Buy a smaller home.
The “bigger, better, more energy dependent” philoshophy of past generations is a thing of the past, some of us just dont know it yet.
That article in The Tyee is hilarious.
Oil has gone from $20 per barrel to $106 per barrel in 12 years but this person thinks that a $2 or $3 increase will cripple us?
I think what Ben is calling for is a plan called a “National Energy Plan”.
Which Canada is now lacking.But we all know how hard it is to get 10 Provinces & 3 Territories, to agree on anything.
The fuel of choice for the near future will be diesel.The demand for gasoline in North America has peaked.
The diesel can de produced at upgrader plants.
You need to understand the oil industry before you can protest/comment on it. People in PG know lots about trees and jack about oil. That’s a shame. If they knew anything, they’d understand that the reason oil is imported is because there isn’t enough heavy oil refineries to process all our oilsands crude. There are none, in fact outside of Ft. Mac. The imports are light crude that eastern refineries can handle. Could eastern refineries be upgraded to process oilsands crude? sure. But just try getting that past the eco-terrorists. Yet another example of how modern, rabid, uninformed environmentalism harms Canadians and forces oil to be exported before our needs are met.
A pipeline would be needed to carry crude to eastern refineries. Think that’s going to happen with the current Enbridge fiasco? Not a chance! And it makes more economic sense to import cheap crude than it does to haul refined products from western Canada. If Meisner’s plan were implemented, gas prices would fly away!
Bitumen is a garbage product that is very dirty to refine and we have no domestic use for the coke byproduct. The smart thing to do is sell it at a premium due to the coke value (coal & coke are near all-tme highs) and import light crude for domestic use. Its a whole lot cheaper, cleaner and doesn’t leave us with a useless coke byproduct. The current interest in bitumen in the developing world is driven by the fact that when they buy raw bitumen, they aren’t just buying petroleum, they are buying coke for steelmakers too. China doesn’t want refined products or even light crude, they WANT raw bitumen. If they are willing to pay for that garbage, they can fill their boots. We don’t need it. At all.
My understanding is that conversion of tar sands bitumen to natural gas would be comparable in cost and complexity to conversion to synthetic crude, but would have the advantage of producing something not requiring further refinement and that is environmentally a good deal easier to handle. What about that option?
The coke byproduct can be gasified using again an expensive, environmentally destructive process with large waste streams. When you compare doing that to gas at $2.50, its a non-starter. Gas would have to to be much more expensive for coke gasification to pencil out.
Canada was a big player in the petroleum business years ago when they owned Petro Canada.
Mulroony privatized PetroCan. and later Ralph Goodal the Liberal Finance Minister sold Canadas 19% interest in Petrocan (some 25 Million shares )for $3.2 billion dollars.
That was the end of that.
We have a pipe line across Canada to Ontario called the Trans Canada Pipeline, and this line could be twinned without a lot of squawking from the enviromentalist, however thats not likely to happen.
Reducing consumption of oil and gas in Canada. The so called (saving the enviroment option) is a misconception. For every gallon of gas or diesel that we save, the oil companies will sell to some other Country. At the end of the day, the oil will be consumed.
Much the same as reducing your use of electricity, and then have BC Hydro sell it to the USA for a higher price. Reducing consumption is a **con job** unless the amount being saved is kept in Canada for future use.
What we need is a price for gas and diesel at the pumps tied to Government revenue. In other words, we put an arbritary ceiling on the price of gas and diesel in Canada based on production, shipping costs, plus a reasonalble profit to the oil companies.
We then set up a system that monitors the price of oil and diesel. Once the price starts to rise over the arbritary price, the Governments no longer get the additional revenue that is generated by a gas price increase. In fact we should have a system that reduces the Governments revenue by a percentage related to the amount of the increase over the arbritrary price.
This system would stop the Government from benefiting from gas and oil increases through taxes, and in fact at a certain point cause them to lose revenue. At the very least the Government would take a much bigger interest in the price of gas and oil, and would be less inclined to use the excuse that their hands are tied.
Having the Government increase their revenue because of an increase in the price of a commodity is stupid. That is the problem with electricity, oil, gas, and of course the HST. The higher the price, the more money the Government generates.
or a “sliding” gas tax – the tax rate drops as prices increase and vice versa. This keeps both prices and gov’t revenues steady. Its the best solution but nobody talks about it.
Born in BC left his brain on the BC Rail train that left town, never to be seen again.
Typical troll who inputs shit on a stick, time to rethink education in BC if he`s an example.
Troll Breath.
They tried to set a national oil price back in the 70’s. It was called the national energy program. It was dreamt up by Trudeau socialists to give Canada cheaper fuel than world markets. The result was a disaster for Alberta and its producers. Oil companies want market rates for their production, just as lumber companies want market rates. Do I get cheap 2×4’s because I live in Prince George? No!! Why some people think that Oil is different should move to Venezuala. Criminal, your backwards world thinking would go right along with Hugo.
The idea that Gateway is inflationary is also also flawed. Using that logic, any commodity price that gets world prices is inflationary. If you think we can keep oil prices down by bottlenecking exports, you have learned the square root of dick in the last 40 years.
I can see the attraction to such a simplistic solution to a complex issue, but thankfully, simpletons like criminal don’t run this country.
Oil tankers plying the east coast of Canada? Not enough leftys there to raise a stink about their beautiful coastline at risk?
Comments for this article are closed.