AI-Jane Political, And Economic Forums

Full Version: Canadian Resources and China
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
If Obama is re-elected, even with a GOP legislative win, we're going to sit here and watch Canada make a strategic move to provide China with her vast resources and I support Canada in doing so. Canada doesn't owe us anything:




http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China_Busin...4Cb01.html
Most of all this Eco-Wacko religion gets its roots from government schools, where substandard intellectuals, called teachers, spoon feed it to the masses of empty brains just dying for a cause in life. That's one of the reasons why I love home schooling, and privatization of education.

And they are the ones who are causing all this economic madness. And since they have access to huge sums of cash, the Jackasses are more than willing to push their agenda, even though it hurts other special interests in that mob called a party.
The whole pipeline deal didn't do much for me but make me laugh at what a Banana Republic we are.

I am with Pat, I hope Canada sells to China, and makes bank doing so.
(02-03-2012, 10:56 PM)John L Wrote: [ -> ]Most of all this Eco-Wacko religion gets its roots from government schools, where substandard intellectuals, called teachers, spoon feed it to the masses of empty brains just dying for a cause in life. That's one of the reasons why I love home schooling, and privatization of education.

And they are the ones who are causing all this economic madness. And since they have access to huge sums of cash, the Jackasses are more than willing to push their agenda, even though it hurts other special interests in that mob called a party.

You don't get it, do you? Or are you lying on purpose? Nothing in nature is about abstinence and restraints, just watch the arrival of the next spring. Environmentalism points out that our economies have to copy nature, where what is discarded by one form of life becomes the nutrient of another one. We however use up resources that can't be renewed, and turn them into waste which is useless at best, and more often than not toxic to life.
So, when do you plan to start traveling on all fours, licking your genitals, and howling at the moon?
Quad's basic view is flawed in his analogy anyway. The fossil fuels we consume are renewable and the Russian geologists have believed this since Stalin's era.

It's a fallacy to believe there is a fixed asset of resources and in the last 30 years much of our consumption is recycled by the economy anyway.
How comes his ideologists have all been wrong, but the geologists right? Does it occur to you that Stalin tried to suppress all environmentalism in order to pursue his grand scheme of industrializing a whole empire of peasants? And no, fossil fuels are not renewable. Oil and coal are from distinct geological ages, not a million years of all over the world. You don't see the waste thanks to regulations of your government (although it is far from clean), but visit countries without these regulations, and they are in the majority. Your toxic waste is dumped somewhere in Africa and Latin America.
Business is business and if you believe that a pipeline from the shale fields of Canada to Houston will not be built, I want to know what you've been smoking lately. Placing aside the considerations of NAFTA, a political expedient taken during an election year where every pol is concerned about his "base", is hardly the "last word" on a subject. The integration of petro-chemicals within the North American axis--the U. S., Canada, and Mexico--should be taken as a given and the American Petroleum Institute is hardly wasting its advertising dollars if its target is subject to environmentalist agitprop. Besides, every rational environmentalist worried about "pollution" [processing emissions] would hardly be overjoyed in seeing Canadian petroleum wend its way to China given that such would be a perfect example of "cutting one's nose to spite the face".

Have fun here:

http://www.china-mike.com/facts-about-ch...nt-energy/
Quad,

Stalin's ideology was opinion, geology is a science. I think the Russian youngster has been more properly educated since the 1960s compared to the average American kid. We have societal problems Russia doesn't have.

His geologists were right and there is impirical evidence of it. We've already discovered that old, depleted reservoirs have new supplies after as recent a time as 25 years.

We're finding unbelievable quantities of natural gas now. It's everywhere, it just took cash and technology combined. Your view of a fixed asset is false. The fuels like trees and flowers are constantly being renewed.
I think all this dismissal of the theory of 'Abiotic' oil, is such because it has always been the new guy on the block, And goes against the Church of Environmentalism's canon of beliefs. There is something about this thing with 'Fossil Fuels' that makes no logic sense.

Does anyone honestly believe that such huge numbers of dinosaurs and other live critters, actually managed to produce so much hydrocarbons? And if so, how in G-d's name did they manage to come up in such abundance from Way, Way, down there? I'm sure they didn't all have a special dinosaur graveyard that happened to be located just on fault lines, allowing for subduction.
That dinosaur to oil thing always sounded ludicrous to me. I think all organic rot ended up being NG, oil, coal and diamonds.

Every dead leaf, every dead worm, etc.
I still see light in the assumption that much of the hydrocarbon buried deep within the earth's crust is primordial--it was one of the materials from which the earth was formed. The outer gas giants and their moons have a lot of hydrocarbon in their atmospheres. I would echo the derision of the idea that there were ever enough plants and animals buried and turning into petroleum to account for all or even most of the hydrocarbons found in the earth. Besides, some of those petroleum reservoirs are far too deep ever to have been formed of surface-dwelling organisms.
OK folks stop confusing petroleum, a specific, with the generality that is hydrocarbons. As for the abiogenic thesis, what are you all a bunch of Stalinist era Russkys? As for dinosaurs, please. No petroleum geologist fancies such nonsense...better get with the "science" here and understand the relationship between shallow seas and plankton, with the last being the clue to why everybody is going into deep water drilling!
(02-04-2012, 04:33 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]That dinosaur to oil thing always sounded ludicrous to me. I think all organic rot ended up being NG, oil, coal and diamonds.

Every dead leaf, every dead worm, etc.

Rot means they are consumed and recycled by another life immediately, and oil and coal were produced under circumstances where they couldn't rot, and the carbon got stored, not consumed. Deposits of coal can't be made by the earth nowadays, they came from a period when wood wouldn't rot in absence of funghi. Oil maybe, but you'll have to wait 100 or so million years. Diamonds might be abiotic in origin, but the enormous heat and pressure they form in excludes the presence of oil and coal.
(02-05-2012, 11:49 AM)quadrat Wrote: [ -> ]
(02-04-2012, 04:33 PM)Palladin Wrote: [ -> ]That dinosaur to oil thing always sounded ludicrous to me. I think all organic rot ended up being NG, oil, coal and diamonds.

Every dead leaf, every dead worm, etc.

Rot means they are consumed and recycled by another life immediately, and oil and coal were produced under circumstances where they couldn't rot, and the carbon got stored, not consumed. Deposits of coal can't be made by the earth nowadays, they came from a period when wood wouldn't rot in absence of funghi. Oil maybe, but you'll have to wait 100 or so million years. Diamonds might be abiotic in origin, but the enormous heat and pressure they form in excludes the presence of oil and coal.

I certainly would be the last to contradict the expert on "rot" in this forum, Q, but the process of carbonization is not the exclusive quality of trees and the halting of biodegredation has little if anything to do with the absence of fungi, but perhaps as you attempted to muddy the waters you actually muddled your way into the relationship between mud and water and the formation of carbon under the effects of high pressure and temperature.

Care to explain the "coal gap" associated with the Lower Triassic? Heck there is even coal associated with the Pre-Cambrian, when there was no land vegetation whatsoever...
(02-05-2012, 11:03 AM)drgonzaga Wrote: [ -> ]OK folks stop confusing petroleum, a specific, with the generality that is hydrocarbons. As for the abiogenic thesis, what are you all a bunch of Stalinist era Russkys? As for dinosaurs, please. No petroleum geologist fancies such nonsense...better get with the "science" here and understand the relationship between shallow seas and plankton, with the last being the clue to why everybody is going into deep water drilling!

Not only is a stopped clock correct twice daily, but even some of the most unprincipled folk can get things right.

If Putin, in his earlier days, had remarked that this was the coldest Sunday on record, you might dispute the later claim. But would you also dispute his former one as to the day of the week?