Author Topic: Diesel Future Sputtering ? (Read 27251 times)

BlackTieTD · « **Reply #45 on:** May 08, 2007, 11:35:03 am »

rather, i think it would be a much more obvious solution to provide a ~20 cent tax break to those who choose to run environmentally friendly fuels. problem with this is the opposite of one of jetta fan's points...... government gets LESS tax dollars. everyone needs to take a hit, not just the little guy. the government (and corporations) would suffer most... so why would they impose this on themselves??? the little guy is expected to, so why don't they?

Jetta Fan · « **Reply #46 on:** May 09, 2007, 04:58:23 am »

BlackTie, that's a good idea but let's face it....the Governments aren't about to give up money. I do like the tax break incentive you mentioned. And I'm sure that with some pretty hard lobbying or arm twisting or something, a government might just do that. However, I'm sure the money they would lose through the tax break would be made up by taxing something else (perhaps breathing :twisted: ). I agree with you....everyone has to take a hit. I just wish governments and big corporations realized that and would take their share of the hit.

jtanguay · « **Reply #47 on:** May 09, 2007, 06:36:28 am »

quite honestly our government is pretty damn corrupt... hydro is a huge scam... guy's there making 3 million a year??? wtf!!! politicians are the worst for spending our money too!!!

thats the only way Canada makes me sick... bunch of pigs... steven harper seems like an alright guy when he said "5% renewable energy sources" but if thats 5% ethanol... then wtf? they'll just put 5% ethanol in gas and call it a day... :lol:

aaarrrghhhh!

burn_your_money · « **Reply #48 on:** May 09, 2007, 07:53:18 am »

Maybe a $0.10 hit on dino diesel and a $0.10 break on bio... Someting short term until the bio diesel industry takes off and is able to make bio for cheaper. It's probably the smart thing to do since it's only a matter of time before we get cut off from foreign oil.

Mind you I'm sure that "short term" would end up like the GST tax.. or WW2 recovery tax I think it was previously called?

And cheaper bio will probably just mean a bigger profit margin for the companies rather then savings for the consumer

Jetta Fan · « **Reply #49 on:** May 09, 2007, 08:06:20 am »

Not a bad idea Tyler with the hit on dino and a break on bio, but I'm like you....I'm sure the oil companies would find a way to make mega bucks off the whole scheme.

burn_your_money · « **Reply #50 on:** May 09, 2007, 08:36:02 am »

I guess backyard bio and co-ops are our only hope
Hey Scully, how much a liter

Jetta Fan · « **Reply #51 on:** May 09, 2007, 09:22:36 am »

:lol:

I was thinking the same thing.

Maybe Scully could be the next Irving or Esso or Shell etc. :lol:

Wonder how much it would be to convert to SVO?

Ozca · « **Reply #52 on:** May 10, 2007, 03:49:38 am »

Quote

It's probably the smart thing to do since it's only a matter of time before we get cut off from foreign oil.

As a matter of interest, I just did a Google search on Canadian oil imports and am amazed to discover that,
Quoted from The Council of Canadians,

Canada exports 65 per cent of our oil to the U.S. and yet we have to IMPORT 55 per cent of the oil that Canada needs from Algeria, Venezuela and Norway. The proportionality clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) ties us to these export levels so that even in the event of energy shortages, we would have to continue piping oil and gas south at the same rate as we do now.

This is bull.... sucked in again :roll: .... our "friends" know a good thing when they see it :!: .
We must scrap NAFTA and start building our own oil reserve ! The US has plans to increase their reserve up to 1.5 billion barrels and you know where the bulk of that oil will come from. jeese....
:evil:

burn_your_money · « **Reply #53 on:** May 10, 2007, 06:33:29 am »

Yeah NAFTA is a crock. They tried to pull that stunt with our water about a year or two ago.

Quote from: "Ozca"

Canada exports 65 per cent of our oil to the U.S. and yet we have to IMPORT 55 per cent of the oil that Canada needs

This does not necessarily mean that if we stopped inporting and exporting we would have a surplus of 10%. It means 65% of everything we produce is exported while 55% of what we need is imported.

Still a crock though

Jetta Fan · « **Reply #54 on:** May 10, 2007, 07:30:26 am »

You're right about the %'s there Tyler. I read somewhere about a year ago that if we produced all our own oil and sold any excess we produced, we would be so well of it wouldn't be funny.

If I can dig up that article I'll post it or a link to it.

MaxHedrm · « **Reply #55 on:** May 10, 2007, 03:32:05 pm »

Quote from: "burn_your_money"

Yeah NAFTA is a crock. They tried to pull that stunt with our water about a year or two ago.

Quote from: "Ozca"

Canada exports 65 per cent of our oil to the U.S. and yet we have to IMPORT 55 per cent of the oil that Canada needs

This does not necessarily mean that if we stopped inporting and exporting we would have a surplus of 10%. It means 65% of everything we produce is exported while 55% of what we need is imported.

Still a crock though

Well, on the surface, it would mean that 45% of what you need is provided by 35% of your production. So you would have a 28% surplus (if I did the math right).

jtanguay · « **Reply #56 on:** May 10, 2007, 04:08:20 pm »

where does 28% come from? you can't really mathematically do that up without first knowing how much oil we need, and how much oil we export.

MaxHedrm · « **Reply #57 on:** May 12, 2007, 11:36:06 am »

Quote from: "jtanguay"

where does 28% come from? you can't really mathematically do that up without first knowing how much oil we need, and how much oil we export.

Actually, you're partially right, I noticed that I am missing what is exported to other countries. If you assume that you only export to the US, that is 65% of your oil production. That means that 35% of your oil would stay internal for your use. You import 55% of the oil you use. So 45% of the oil you use has to come from your own production. So, 35% of your production makes up 45% of your consumption. That gives you a 28% surplus if you kept all your own oil. Since they are percentages you can apply arbitrary numbers to calculate the surplus percentage. So I figured that you use 100 units (really big barrels if you like), 45 of which come from your own production. 35% goes into 100% ~2.85 times. Multiply that by 45 to get your total "units" ... ~128. Which is 28% more than 100.

Clear as mud?

jtanguay · « **Reply #58 on:** May 12, 2007, 09:19:01 pm »

lets look at it as in barrels...

what if we produce 100'000'000 barrels, but require 400'000'000 barrels???

how do your % numbers factor in now??? doesn't work...

MaxHedrm · « **Reply #59 on:** May 12, 2007, 11:30:28 pm »

Quote from: "jtanguay"

lets look at it as in barrels...

what if we produce 100'000'000 barrels, but require 400'000'000 barrels???

how do your % numbers factor in now??? doesn't work...

Only because your numbers were pulled from your butt & don't fit the provided percentages or reality.

From the CIA factbook entry for Canada, as of 2004:
Oil - production: 3.135 million bbl/day (2004)
Oil - consumption: 2.294 million bbl/day (2004)
Oil - exports: 1.6 million bbl/day (2004)
Oil - imports: 963,000 bbl/day (2004)
https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/print/ca.html

So, actually a 36% surplus. So, apparently you export to more than the US.

The percentage calculation I made is quite valid.