digg

Join DiggAbout

Digg Townhall Tonight!
Tune into the live Digg townhall tonight at 5:00pm PST/8:00pm EST.

See the original image at media3.washingtonpost.com —

Guess Which Country Supplies the Most Oil to the U.S? [PIC]

media3.washingtonpost.com — The answer was a little surprising. None of the Middle Eastern countries were at the top of the list.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Shadow57, on 07/27/2008, -81/+54I guess we went to war with Canada for oil too huh?
    • tonicboy, on 07/28/2008, -59/+36There's no need to go to war to control Canada. They've been our bitches for decades.
      • evileddy60, on 07/28/2008, -3/+23Have another baconater.....
      • benmiller313, on 07/28/2008, -30/+4yah, thats true actually. Canada and the US have NEVER gone to war!
      • Yookji, on 07/28/2008, -4/+19@benmiller313
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Great_Lak ...
      • TsuruchiBrian, on 07/28/2008, -14/+8@Yookji

        Canada was not an independent nation in 1812. We (the USA) fought the British in Canada (still a British colony).

      • 42Vindictive, on 07/28/2008, -11/+6@TsuruchiBrian

        Unless all of those British people up and left, they became Canadian in Confederation. You were fighting future Canadians, they were many of our ancestors.
      • Pandyne, on 07/28/2008, -5/+8Canada was still an English colony at the time so it doesn't count.
        http://en.allexperts.com/q/Canadian-History-2762/c ...
      • Rikkochet, on 07/28/2008, -0/+14Just to round this off, Canada confederated on July 1, 1867. There was no war between the USA and the nation of Canada, though most of the troops on the Canadian side of the war did consider themselves Canadians (as citizens of Upper Canada and Lower Canada - present day Ontario and Quebec), but still British subjects.
        And, er, the USA fought the British in Canada and the USA. If you read up the history on it it was an absolute gong show. US troops democratically elected their officers and mostly deserted or ***** around than maintained any sort of discipline. The Canada side was barely motivated and it was mostly the terror that the natives struck in the Americans that kept the conflict hot as long as it did.
      • NuclearIsShit, on 07/28/2008, -23/+3Ill make you my bitch, just like I made your mom, and your whore ass grandma!
      • Charlotte_Web, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1From Wikipedia:

        "OPEC nations still account for two-thirds of the world's oil reserves, and, as of March 2008, 35.6% of the world's oil production, affording them considerable control over the global market."

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPEC
      • gilfoy, on 07/28/2008, -5/+10@tonicboy:

        Canada is bigger, faster, and we're on top...that makes you our bitch.
      • Trublmakr, on 07/28/2008, -5/+8Whatever,.. Insults hurt less when they come from overweight retarded inbred Nascar fans.
      • PorchSong, on 07/28/2008, -8/+3With an entire Militay--including personell staff--less than the size of the New York Police force, Canada will never stand a chance against anyone. The are good allies, none-the-less, and as a reward, they know America would never allow ANYONE to invade them. Thus, America is really their military. Not to quible, just simply stating facts. I have no beefs with Canada, personally. In fact, I think we could not have asked for a better neighboring country.
      • adidar832, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5Nothing like a little digg to bring out some nationalistic pride
      • Peroxyde, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4PorchSong,

        New York Police members: 37,838
        Canadian Forces members: 75,000 (Plus 35,000 reserve members)

        Learn your *****.
      • Xondar, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Country =/= nation.

        Nationalism in Canada saw it's first stirrings in the War of 1812. The vast majority of the forces that repelled the American invasion were Canadian militia. Men who were born and raised in Canada. Likewise, the majority of the forces that invaded the U.S. and made it to New Orleans were British.

        Three nations fought in the War of 1812. America invaded, Canada repelled the invasion, Britain invaded, America repelled their invasion.
    • 0Xonox0, on 07/28/2008, -13/+24The war of 1812 was actually about oil.
      • windandstorm, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4I know exactly what you are talking about... but i want to point out, because i can, that Canada was only (copied from Wiki) "the Constitution Act, 1867 brought about Confederation creating "one Dominion under the name of Canada" on July 1, 1867, with four provinces: Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick.[18] Canada..."

        so yeah we did but we didn't have our same flag we all know and love... just to let you all know
      • walshgopher, on 07/28/2008, -1/+11"In 1812 we were just sitting around, minding our own business putting crops into the ground. We heard the Yankees coming and we didn't like that sound so we took a boat to Washington and burned it to the ground." --Arrogant Worms
      • danisth, on 07/29/2008, -1/+1that song is actually by three dead trolls in a baggy, for some reason arrogant worms always get credit for it though.
    • warlax27, on 07/28/2008, -15/+5LOL!!! DUGG!
    • apena89, on 07/28/2008, -14/+4rofl.
      http://www.bustedtees.com/canadaamericashat
      • Elephant789, on 07/28/2008, -6/+15America, Canada's underwear.
      • djholybolt, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Actually.. Mexico would be the underwear.. America would be the T shirt that says 'No Fat Chicks'.
      • apena89, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2na, America's the wife beaters.
    • ryusen, on 07/28/2008, -2/+23No it was to capture and execute Terrence and Philip
    • digglet08, on 07/28/2008, -7/+15We aren't. At war. For. OIL!

      jeeeeeeeeeeeeesus


      you think the U.S. has anything financial to gain directly from Iraq? Tell that to the trillion or so spent!
      • discodover, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3The U.S. as a country does not have anything to gain, but American corporations certainly do.
      • bgrah449, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4Of course we're at war for oil. Who would give two ***** about the Middle East if it wasn't sitting atop the world's largest oil reserves? Even if the war isn't directly about, "We're going to go into Iraq, depose their leader, pump out their oil, and leave," the goal of having stability in the Middle East is only worthwhile because so much of the world economy rests on having a reliable source of oil.
      • frankingeneral, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/06/19/africa/19ir ...

        Can you say "no-bid oil contracts"?

        The average American gets screwed once again, while the rich get richer.
      • stormkrow, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Yes. We. Are. saaaaaaatan
        Cheney's Energy Policy Meeting was about:
        "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts.” The documents are dated March 2001
        and have been finally released under the FOIA.
        The FACTS are here:
        http://www.judicialwatch.org/iraqi-oil-maps.shtml
        Opinions are at FIX news and the Reich Wing
      • rpgmaker, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Yes you are. Guess which companies are again in Iraq? Exactly. Next is Iran, the second oil producer in the world. If this were a "good war" (not that there has been one to begin with, but let's say that the WWs were) you would be in Myanmar too, helping those people.
    • Trublmakr, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5STFU,. don't go giving Bush any ideas.
    • WiretapStudios, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5They owe us for Bryan Adams.
      • frankingeneral, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3The Canadian government apologized for Bryan Adams years ago!
      • WiretapStudios, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1annnnnd Alanis Morisette...
    • beerock, on 07/28/2008, -7/+4Yeah, in 1812, and then we burned your ***** Whitehouse down.
      We taught you a lesson that sent you halfway around the world looking for it...
      Plus, your Eastern seaboard buys all their power from the province of Quebec.
      • p106peppy, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2and quebec steals their power from NFLD
  • chockZ, on 07/27/2008, -41/+229Does this somehow make it more acceptable to import foreign oil?

    Americans can reduce their dependence on foreign oil. Foreign means foreign. Canada is no more foreign than any other country, and it is time to stop denying our ability to sustain ourselves on alternate forms of energy here in America.

    Let's stop the 10 trillion dollar exchange of wealth that this country is going through. We have a multitude of alternate energy sources here in the United States (Wind, Natural Gas), and we can stop this downward spiral of increasing gas prices and harm to our environment.
    • mfc5200, on 07/28/2008, -13/+46wow, and I bet you think we shouldn't be trading with other countries unless its absolutely necessary for resources we don't have here at home? Go read read Adam Smith's "Wealth of Nations." You don't have to agree with it, please just go and read it.
      • userperson, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3We need to reduce our dependance on foreign shoes! /s
    • jjb123, on 07/28/2008, -6/+68It's not foreign if they're not brown.

      /sarcasm
      • shawn1122, on 07/28/2008, -2/+18I'm brown and I live in Canada, does that make it foreign enough?
      • crassus, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1us brown ones are not the ones making the money
      • kyyled, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4I couldn't agree with you more crassus...though your comment is somewhat ironic given that the historical Crassus was one of the 10 richest men to ever live.
      • userperson, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@crassus
        Tell that to the House of Saud.
    • Johnagain, on 07/28/2008, -1/+20Yes, it does make it a LITTLE more acceptable. We LIKE Canada, remember? I just hope that as our dependance on foreign oil slows down, we drop the farthest flung countries from our buy list first.
      And yes, Canada IS a foreign country. That's why their money looks funny.

      I totally agree that we need to go big on Wind, Tidal, Solar, etc, and ASAP. You are on the right track there.
      • Elephant789, on 07/28/2008, -3/+32Canada's money looks much better than America's.
      • kanuk20, on 07/28/2008, -2/+9I agree, our money does look better, and it makes sense (no way of stacking the big bills on top and filling with little ones, its too obvious with the colour difference). Just an addon, Zee is gay, Zed sounds so much better.
      • timoumd, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0Not really. Just because our money might not go directly to people we dont like doesnt mean it ok. We buy oil from Canada. Demand for oil goes up. Prices go up. Our "enemies" make more money because everyone else in the market still needs oil and goes to them. Its called economics.
      • djkool14, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Except the majority of Canada's oil comes from Tar Sands. Tar Sands Oil extraction is probably the most inefficient, costly, and polluting process imaginable. I'm sorry, but I don't hate any country enough to want them to ruin their lands because we want to drive 500 miles on vacation each year.
      • prium, on 07/29/2008, -2/+0DJ: Thats's ok, it's only Alberta
    • erhanaltay, on 07/28/2008, -20/+11Actually there is such a thing as degrees of foreignness. the USA, Canada, England, Australia are all very similar ethnically (at least the white portion), and culturally. Its like saying Iraq and Syria are foreign to each other because some drunk British drew a line on a map 80 or so years ago...

      And chockZ if you really want energy independence, its simple. Allow our efficient, top of the line oil companies drill as they please. Let industry use our VAST coal reserves. Let private enterprise construct nuclear power plants without you pinko lefty idiots screaming.
      • Spudster, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2That's all fine and dandy until you realize we have this thing called the "environment." Ever heard of it?
    • Uberinuka, on 07/28/2008, -8/+1Yes, but because our government runs on oil, there is no way its changing without some kind of serious civil war
      • Rahodeb, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Our country runs on oil. Our government runs on the peoples money.
    • fuzzmeister, on 07/28/2008, -0/+15I think Canada is a bit more likely to stay aligned with us than Saudi Arabia or Venezuela.
      • ammundsen, on 07/28/2008, -2/+19True, except for Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia plays ball with the US. That is why as a repressive monarchy they are given a pass whereas relatively more liberal countries like Iraq and Iran, who dont play ball, get invaded or threatened with war.
      • ramreezy, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3@ammundsen: EXACTLY. Couldnt have said it better.
      • Shadow503, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1@ammundsen
        I'm curious why countries which treat women as second class citizens and considered more liberal.
      • ammundsen, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3@Shadow503, in Iran and Iraq women have far more rights than in Saudi Arabia. It is a popular misconception that Iran and Iraq treat women particularly bad. Compared to our allies in the Middle East women in those countries have the best opportunities. It is hard to know that with all the lies spread by proponents of war.
      • fuzzmeister, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Ammundsen, I was saying that while Saudi Arabia plays ball with us, just as Canada does, it is far more likely to stop playing ball than Canada is.
    • vegr, on 07/28/2008, -2/+29Canada is a constitutional monarchy, Saudi Arabia is an absolute monarchy.
      There IS a difference..
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/28/2008, -0/+10Canada is a Parliamentary democracy and Constitutional monarchy.

        There is a difference. Technically the Queen has no authority. At all.
      • Gudeldar, on 07/28/2008, -3/+5Well, technically the Queen has lots of power but in reality she has almost none. The governor general is the Queen's representative in Canada and can exercise her powers in her place, in theory all executive power is vested in the Queen, and the governor-general can veto any bill, dissolve parliament, etc. However there is an unwritten rule that the Queen and by extension the governor general can't exercise those powers without the consent of parliament, though in one case the Governor-General of Australia dissolved parliament without its consent because of a budget deadlock.
    • Phylodome, on 07/28/2008, -0/+7no *less* foreign...?
    • Taiyoryu, on 07/28/2008, -0/+11Forget Alaska and offshore drilling. Annex Canada! :-D That's the easy way to increase domestic production! I kid, of course, but how else am I going to get myself some Tim Horton's?
      • evandyk, on 07/28/2008, -0/+6Well, since Tim Horton's is American-owned, it shouldn't be that hard :)
      • Speed, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4If you must try, do it while Harper is still in power, or you might actually face a bit of a struggle.
      • georgetds, on 07/28/2008, -5/+2Yeah, please take over Canada, at least we might be cheaper gas out of the deal. Sucks that we pay, what is it, $4.94 per gallon right now in the Edmonton area? You would think having all those refineries near by would give us a bit of a break, wouldn't you?
      • bipolarruledout, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3That's really not bad considering the higher taxes. I wouldn't mind the $5.00 a gallon if I could get some health insurance out of the deal.... in fact sign me up!
      • ramreezy, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7@georgetds: i love how you are willing to trade national sovereignty for cheaper gas. good thinking, genius.
      • m3mn0n, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@georgetdsgeorgetds

        I live where most of that is coming out of in Canada and we're still paying a ***** for gas.

        Taking over Canada won't do you any good besides ... well no, it won't do you any good.
      • RobotLeAwesome, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@ramreezy: I love how you think we're still more sovereign than Canada.
      • SHv2, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1@bipolarruledout
        You need health insurance? Get a job...

        @georgetds
        Be thankful we pay as little for gas as we do. Take a look at European prices and you'll see that what we're paying is a steal.
      • metroidragon, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1@everyone,

        We need to be able to make reply chains go deeper.
    • assbeard, on 07/28/2008, -0/+18100 bucks says if the US got all it's oil from within the country, gas prices wouldn't change a bit.
      • clickwir, on 07/28/2008, -6/+2Not now.... now they know how much they can sell it for. Prices might go down a bit, but never as low as they once were. Which I think is good, it helps keep people from wasting so much. It forces them to consider things that matter more.
      • saxmaster, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1If we opened up drilling in America, then there would be a larger supply in the market and prices would drop. However, if we ONLY used American oil, the supply would be much lower and prices would increase dramatically.
        Clickwir: If your logic holds true, then prices would never drop because people would "know how much they could sell" something. That's just not true.
      • czeman, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1I wouldn't bet against you on that. The Wall Street traders will still bet on high futures, and it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. They say it will cost x amount per barrel, so of course that's what it's going to be. The problem is that the greedy oil company executives would just keep gas prices high if trading oil futures was outlawed. I don't think we can win. Greed is greed.
      • Midgetmouse, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3Not just the greedy oil executives.

        The high gas prices is simply a supply and demand thing.
        They'll go back down.
        The oil companies like Saudi Aramco will start realizing that the alternate energies is a bigger threat than they imagined.

        But the oil supply in Saudi Arabia probably won't run out untill 2100 or later
    • themastersb, on 07/28/2008, -4/+1i hope you guys stop needing our oil soon so our gas prices will hopefully go down.
      • Nboy514, on 08/12/2008, -0/+0Well the US buys it from us, and we buy it back as gas.
    • clickwir, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Well you definatly have quite a lot to say.... I think the point of this picture is to point out where it's coming from. Not to make a case that it makes it ok. I think most people didn't even know Canada was on the list of top suppliers, let alone the top.
    • godofallcows, on 07/28/2008, -4/+1EH?
    • oldgal, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4Now the North American Security and Prosperity Partnership (SSP) makes more sense:
      http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/2006/09/21/ ...
      http://www.spp.gov/myths_vs_facts.asp
      Just couldn't bear to leave you without something to complain about:)
    • jamessavik, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2Yeah cuz Canadians are way cooler than desert dopeheads with sand in their vaginas all the time.

      They aren't know to blow ***** up either.
      • userperson, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2"They aren't know to blow ***** up either."
        Which only ticks The US off 'cause it's encroaching on their specialty.
    • kanuk20, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2Fine with me, we'll just give it to China.
    • Oatlord, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0How will wind and solar keep our gasoline engine cars running?
    • llbbl, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4"None of the Middle Eastern countries "
      The submitter is stupid if they think Saudi Arabia at #2 isn't "on the list". Come on are you lazy write a decent description!
    • Midgetmouse, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5YEAH LET'S JUST STOP IT.
      So much talk.

      "We need to stop foreign dependence."
      "Let's stop debt."
      "Let's find alternate forms of energy."

      IT'S EASY JUST STOP IT. JUST LIKE THAT.
    • Spartyon, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3isolationism is dead. and foreign isn't foreign. A barrel of oil from the middle east isn't the same as one from canada.
      • userperson, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1You're correct the barrel from Canada is made from tar-sands.
    • dankenstein, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1Just an FYI, natural gas is not an alternative fuel, it is a FOSSIL FUEL
    • happycat, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0No, but the point is that most Americans don't know this. They have been 'educated' by the US government and large media to believe that most of the US oil comes from the Persian Gulf.
      Sort of like how most Americans still believe that the 9-11 terrorists came in from Canada.
    • machinist09, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0To be fair, yes we(Canada) are as foreign as any other country. But don't forget how much our economies depend on each other(yes, ours more than yours, but yours still too). If you can't fulfill your oil needs in-country, isn't it better to get your oil from a close ally with whom you have much in common? Do you want to support those who only want to screw you? Canada does not want to screw America.

      Also, I work in oil field support. FYI, 90% of the gas pumped out of the ground here is done so by AMERICAN companies. Keep that in mind. That is why we still pay more than you for gas.
    • mikeyrock, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Canada is in the same trading block as the USA. NAFTA. So yes it is actually a little less foreign as the costs associated with importing from them are greatly reduced.
  • diizy, on 07/27/2008, -21/+46We're making money, not complaining.
    • Bittermanscolon, on 07/28/2008, -20/+9That's not really the point man. Think of the bigger picture *****. Selfish.
      • userperson, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Selfishness is bad, because other people don't like it. /s
    • Abominable, on 07/28/2008, -6/+57On the whole, we are actually getting ***** up the ass because of NAFTA and being forced to sell our oil.

      If we didn't have NAFTA, our gas prices would be much lower along with a few other things. Sure some are making money, but Mr and Mrs. Every-Day-Canadian would see more benefits if we kept our oil rather than selling it all off, or being forced to sell it off.
      • bigmac375, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3Well then we share common ground. ***** up government.
      • erhanaltay, on 07/28/2008, -16/+6'your' oil? What gives you the God given right to some black liquid that's under the ground? If you 30 mil Canadians are going to get such a big chunk of land, the least you can do is accept free trade.

        I seriously don't understand why America did not conquer all of Canada and Greenland when Europe was murdering it self in WW1
      • Rahodeb, on 07/28/2008, -5/+14Selling things makes you money. Given the high tax rate in your country and socialized health care system, I would venture to say that a lot of that oil money is going directly to Canadians in the form of that care.
      • Meany123, on 07/28/2008, -7/+3Forced to sell our oil? Yeah, forced to sell it at the outrageously cheap price of $150 a barrel? Whatever.

        As long as they keep paying on time (and keep paying these outrageous prices), I say send them as much as they'll take. We're making money by the ***** truckload here, thank you very much Mr Bush and your stupid wars.
      • CobaltBlue, on 07/28/2008, -8/+3Imagine how ***** up the ass you would be if you had to have a real military. That's an expensive proposition.
      • Speed, on 07/28/2008, -4/+13erhanaltay: how about the fact that it's on OUR land. That's why it's OUR oil. And "God" didn't give us that right, we did, when we kicked Americas ass in 1812. ANd why the ***** should we accept free trade if we don't want to (we have, and it's ***** us over, but why should we be forced to?)

        Rahodeb: Canadian companies have that oil, not the government. Mr. and Mrs. Joe Canadian don't see a dime of that and our gas prices just goes up. The oil companies pay almost nothing in taxes, and our services are provided by our tax dollars (and most services are provincial). Also, our health care system is public, but far from socialized.

        Meany123: if we weren't forced to sell our oil to the States and pay world market prices, our gas prices would be a ***** cheaper than the $1.40/L we pay now. Honest to god, the gas is refined 10 KM away from my house, why should I have to pay more than the people in the States?
      • Meany123, on 07/28/2008, -5/+4Speed, what difference does it make if it was refined 10KM from your house? Oil is a commodity like anything else, and should be bought and sold at market prices, which it is. We pay the exact same price for gasoline as Americans do, the delta is due to taxes and that's a whole different issue.

        If geography was the biggest determining factor, then what about cars? Half of all the friggen Honda Civic's on the road are made in Alliston, Ontario. Should we also decide we're not going to sell those to the US, and make them half price for Canadians? What about Blackberries? Should they also be hella cheap for us? The way the world works is the owner of the resource should sell to those who pay the highest price. If that person is from the USA, China, India, or Timbuktoo, it doesn't matter. That means if you want oil, you pay too. Sorry, such is how it works.
      • Jacare, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4@speed roughly 30% of your 1.40/L is taxes sometimes more because some provinces worked their fuel taxes as % so the higher the price of oil the more tax you pay and then theres the federal tax on top of that...to sum it all up theres a ***** load of taxes on our gasoline like over 5 different ones(the liberals are proposing another one the carbon tax which is similar to one just added in BC by the liberal party and its gay
      • bejayel, on 07/28/2008, -2/+5Meany:

        Actually our gas prices are much higher. At the current price we are paying about a dollar more per gallon than the people in the states are. About 25 cents per liter more.

        And YES, if we are the world leader in manufacturing of something it should be ***** cheap for us. Why the ***** shouldent it be? Must of our 25 cents extra is attributed to the whole selling to the states and buying it back thing. Travel time tends to make things go up in price, so if it is made here why the ***** should we pay more?
      • Meany123, on 07/28/2008, -1/+8bejayel:

        My point was that 80% of the extra cost of gasoline in Canada vs the US is due to policy. It's how we designed it. Our people, through our politicians, decided to tax the ***** out of gasoline to discourage it's usage, which is why per capita we have 1/10th as many SUV's and Light Trucks than Americans do. There is no conspiracy at work here, it's just public policy we have enacted, and we are going even furthur in that direction with policies such as the new Carbon Tax in BC, and the Federal Green Shift as proposed by the leader of the LPC, Dion, whereas in the US politicians are falling all over themselves trying to find a way to make gasoline CHEAPER. We are trying to find a way to make it more EXPENSIVE. See the difference? If we wanted lower gasoline prices, we'd cut the provincial taxes on gasoline, the federal excise tax on gasoline, and the federal and provincial sales taxes which are applied after all that, so you end up paying a tax on a tax. All in, we tax that ***** like 50%, whereas some states barely tax it at all. The other 20% of extra cost is due to the fact that gasoline is NOT manufactured here. Through brain dead Canadian policy, we produce crude, export it to the United States, have them refine it, then sell it back to us for more money. So really, gasoline is manufactured there, not here.

        Anyway, the NDP, the Liberals, and the Bloc all want higher gasoline prices. On the provincial level, nearly every premier comes from a party that has enacted policy that leads to higher prices, such as Dalton McGuinty's ethanol requirements, Charest's taxes, and Campbell's Carbon Taxes. These guys all also support Kyoto and reducing GHG emissions, which goes hand in hand with higher carbon taxes. So if it bothers you so much, vote for the next politician that comes to your door and says "***** kyoto, I want a hummer." Problem is, Canadians don't know what they want. They want lower taxes, Kyoto support, less emissions of GHG, and dirt cheap energy prices. You can't have it all.
      • Speed, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3Meany, considering the fact that they cut down the buffer zone between my town and the refineries, so if something goes wrong, I'll be killed by the explosion, and the fact that I have to breath in any toxins coming from those plants, I damn well should get lower gas prices.
      • CaptainShaun, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1***** Kyoto, I want a hummer.
      • fuckinhell, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Preparation H DOES feel good... On the whole.
      • JnOrris, on 07/28/2008, -0/+6"I seriously don't understand why America did not conquer all of Canada and Greenland when Europe was murdering it self in WW1"

        Wana know why? Because Canada had a very formidable army and navy during WW1, the courageous Canadian soldiers were responsible for winning some of the toughest battles against the Germans, and were known as some of the toughest soldiers during WW1. On top of that we had the second largest Navy in the world. Ohh and attacking Canada at that point would have been a declaration of war against the British Empire, not a good call....

        Check out the war of 1812, remember your White House.... yea we burnt that bitch down.
    • chamberlanderic, on 07/28/2008, -4/+14living in Edmonton. not complaining
      • Alegoo92, on 07/28/2008, -9/+5more liike DEADMONTON!
        no, really, that place is boring as *****.
      • frsrblch, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3No complaints here, either. Cost of living is a bit insane, but it's offset by the amount of work available.

        I hear about recession in America on Digg, but I could go out and get another job tomorrow if I hadn't already have enough money for school next year.
      • bejayel, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3You guys should see Saskatoon. I could walk down one street and have 8 jobs tomorrow if i wanted. Too bad wages are ***** and cost of living in the last 2 years has skyrocketed.
      • thebusdriver, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4Ya, I moved to Etown couple years ago from Nova Scotia, so many jobs here its retarded.
      • nickert0n, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Im an Edmontonian born and raised.
        But I agree with the statement that yes NAFTA ***** us.
    • luckless, on 07/28/2008, -4/+24shhh... Don't tell em or they'll invade us.
      • windandstorm, on 07/28/2008, -4/+9Just tell them "Its colder here."

        That will scare 90% of them of lol!
      • Hoinah, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2You forget, Americans have a severe obesity problem, we'll just train a new corps of soldier, with built-in insulation for Low Temp Warfare. They wouldn't be suited to stealth ops though. Also military begins research into the bullet-resistant nature of human body fat.
    • Stevo23, on 07/28/2008, -10/+8***** the Middle East, let's invade Canada ASAP!
      • bejayel, on 07/28/2008, -7/+14Too bad our farmers have more training that 3/4 of your military! And you are in a weak enough position as it is.
    • kinologik, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5Stop drinking our milkshake!!!
  • smartmlp, on 07/27/2008, -6/+139This makes sense. First think about location. Im sure its alot cheaper to bring in oil from someone who is just north of us compared to someone who is thousands of miles away. Next, think about size. Canada is a lot larger than Saudi Arabia, so they are bound to have more resources available even if they are a lot less dense per square mile.
    • Bittermanscolon, on 07/28/2008, -14/+35The tar sands are far more costly to bring oil out of. That and it's ***** destroying our environment. It is sickening.
      • InfernoX, on 07/28/2008, -11/+20Alberta sucks, everyone here is a bunch of retarded rednecks that always vote conservative.
      • Rikkochet, on 07/28/2008, -4/+22The oil sands are a waste to begin with and are being, in effect, "vacuumed" by the harvesting process leaving behind a far smaller area of pollution.
        Spew all the FUD you want, the oil sands project isn't the ecological disaster it's being decried as.
      • expert01, on 07/28/2008, -4/+11^I'm with stupid.

        The US takes care of its little brother up north. We'll clean up that gigantic oil spill you have. Hell, we'll pay you tons of money for the inconvenience.
      • Speed, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5Destroying our environment more than two wars, and having all production plants in ***** China? The oil sands are the least of our problems.
      • askantik, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Oil sands might be a lesser priority, but do not underestimate them. Traditional refining methods are crudely (no pun intended) inefficient... tar sand extraction is far worse.
      • marjo9, on 07/28/2008, -5/+5destroying what environment? cold oily sand?
      • mbelleghem, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2You're talking about surface mining - which is pretty ugly, but which is an older process. But what about SAGD, which does no more to the surface than a conventional wellhead does? How's that wrecking the environment - considering the environment in question is a freezing-cold blotch of oily, sandy, carcinogenic, otherwise inhospitable nowheresville?
    • kevinwiz, on 07/28/2008, -1/+9Definitely. Canada has the second largest oil reserves anyway.
      • PhilLesh69, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Saudi Arabia still claims 260 billion barrels of reserves, Canada claims 179 billion barrels of reserves.

        Of course, when you bring production and reserve life into the equation, some might get a bit confused.

        Saudi Arabia produces 8.8 billion barrels a year, Canada produces 2.7 barrels a year, so Saudi Arabia's reserve life is only 81 years while Canada's reserve life is 182 years.

      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3Everyone who sells oil and isn't Saudi Arabia, claims to have the second largest oil reserves.
      • JnOrris, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1The amount of potential oil in the oil sands is far greater then all the traditional 'wet oil' combined in the world. It just that we can only extract a small percentage of it right now. If we wanted to we could feed the worlds thirst for oil from the oil sands for hundreds of years. The only problem would be our whole ecosystem collapsing...
    • pauleric, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Of course it makes sense, only the uniformed thinks there is anything "surprising" about it. They need to look up the word "fungible" and learn some basic economics.
    • chaiwalla, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7We are using tons of natural gas to get the oil out of the sand, and the US wants us to quintuple our output. This is so bad for the environment, but great for Canada's economy.
      • Speed, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1It's pretty much all we have now that we sent all our manufacturing plants to China.
    • NorrisTwithman, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Gravity model of international trade.
    • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/28/2008, -1/+12Not to mention that there hasn't been a war in Canada since 1812, when the United States tried to invade.
      • JnOrris, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7and we burnt down the White House down...
      • Xondar, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2It used to be blue back then. I think we did them a favour. Blue's an ugly colour for a house.
    • Kanidia, on 07/28/2008, -0/+7Yay we also have 80% of the world's drinkable water. Except our population is only 5 times larger than the population of Hong Kong (which is the size of Greater Vancouver).
    • SHv2, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1@smartmlp
      Little flawed on your thinking there... Since the US is so much bigger than India the US should have a larger population, just less dense, right? (don't forget more elephants too, gotta have those lumbering bastards)
    • zbor, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1"so they are bound to have more resources available even if they are a lot less dense per square mile"

      Actually, that's false. If Saudi Arabia's oil concentration is dense enough (as it is), they could potentially have more proven oil reserves than Canada (as they do).
  • rootnik, on 07/27/2008, -16/+103How do futures affect our cost of oil if there is no conflict in Canada?

    Speculators are killing us, even when virtually avoiding Iran's oil.
    • mfc5200, on 07/28/2008, -1/+16Because the rest of the world uses a lot of middle eastern oil. If they can't get it from them, they will have to get it from someone else (maybe Canada). It's a world commodity, even if supplies get cut off from countries we don't buy oil from, the price will still go up because they were supplying SOMEONE and that someone would then have to get oil from somewhere else, theoretically by offering a higher price which we would then have to match.
      • timoumd, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Dugg up for having a basic comprehension of econ...
    • duckbillgates, on 07/28/2008, -3/+17Ding, ding, ding! Exactly.

      And the fact that oil is a world commodity makes the GOP push for more drilling in the U.S. more than a little misleading. They're trying to revive a little "buy American" mentality, but the reality is that we won't be keeping any oil we discover just for America, and that little bump in the world supply a decade down the road will do almost nothing to the price of oil and gasoline.

      You know what would push the price of oil down? A major breakthrough in alternative energy.
      • HMTKSteve, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1But, if we don't drill new wells the current wells will eventually run dry. what impact will there be when the wells run dry?
      • wonderworm, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3Or, an Obama presidency that will remove oil tax subsidies and provide billions for renewable energy and electric cars.
      • userperson, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1@wonderworm
        ... and wreck the economy, while producing nothing of worth.
    • ammundsen, on 07/28/2008, -4/+11Speculators are not killing us. That is just rhetoric from the Bush administration designed to deceive the American people. The decline of the dollar thanks to the Fed and beating the war drum for Iran are pushing oil prices up.
      • MikeFallopian, on 07/28/2008, -1/+10The speculators argument is rhetoric from the right, and the Iran "war drums" argument is rhetoric from the left, and the "decline of the dollar" is rhetoric from the libertarians. The fact is, supply and demand have been overwhelmingly responsible for the current high prices. A tight supply with rising demand led to increased prices, and in the past couple weeks we have seen them come down about $25/barrel as demand has dropped accordingly. The strength of the dollar moved a tiny bit during the big increase; speculator activity was not accompanied by hoarding (the only way for futures traders to really affect the price of a commodity); political discussions over Iran likewise had no effect on the amount of oil being pumped there or anywhere else.
      • Spudster, on 07/28/2008, -3/+2I think Mike hit it exactly. All these excuses are only conveniant to those political ideologies. I think the increased demand in China and India alongside a drop in supply worldwide is by far the most important factor.
      • ponyboy96, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Actually the speculators argument is coming from the left. See Nancy Pelosi.
      • scutter, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1The speculators argument is coming from the Democrats in Congress. Didn't you see the debate over their legislation to restrict speculation from US investors? It was in the news quite a bit last week.
    • rac3r5, on 07/28/2008, -0/+8The sad part of all of this is Canadians pay a really high price for gas. Right now in the south west (Vancouver) we pay about $5.68 a gallon. The only ppl who are making money are the oil companies and the speculators.
      Ppl keep on saying it demand and supply, but its not. Its all about how much more can I charge and get away with. The sad part is that oil as a commodity is an essential economic necessity over which the average joe has no control.
      • otayyo, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Supply and demand have everything to do with how much can be charged for a commodity. Just look at the housing situation in Vancouver.
      • Zanier87, on 07/28/2008, -1/+0Anything that has to be transported over the Rocky Mountains will be more expensive
      • scutter, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Wow, I am really discouraged at how many people don't get basic economics.

        It is ALL about supply and demand. The rising price of gas is the market's way of causing the demand to lower to match the restricted supply. In the United States, during the Carter administration, people who thought similarly to you set price caps for gasoline. This quickly led to a rationing situation - long lines at the gas pumps while people scrambled to grab the available gasoline before it ran out. The policy was quickly abandoned.
      • JnOrris, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Actually its not the speculators, if our gas prices were based of the speculated market our gas prices should be in the $4/L range (seeing that oil prices have gone up from $30 to $130 now). Yes our gas prices have doubled, but that is purely based off supply/demand issues, the Chinese/India/Americans are stealing all our oil.
    • bcclist, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Inflation - not speculators - are killing "us." Every time there's an interest rate cut, inflation increases, and so does the price of oil. Every time there's an interest rate hike - or a hint of a hike like at the June 24/25th fed meeting - the price of oil decreases as does the "fear" of inflation. All of this said, we'll be paying $3.50 a gallon in the near future as long as the fed continues to hint of an interest rate hike or actually hikes the rate. Of course, this all assumes the administration doesn't wake up and decide it would be a good day to invade Iran...which we can't afford anyways.
  • TalkingBanana, on 07/27/2008, -25/+24lol @ hypocritical Venezuela.
    • 0Xonox0, on 07/28/2008, -0/+9I don't really see what is hypocritical about their stance, sure Chavez dislikes America, but its not like they have an embargo or anything. Anyway, they're just reserving the right to cut off a big chuck of our oil supply when it'll hurt us most (probably the onset of a war in Iran).
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5Not to mention the United States supported a Coupe D'Etat, to throw Chavez out of power by turning the military against him, and having all 3 major media stations pretend he ordered soldiers to shoot innocent civilians.

        When word circulated that the whole thing was fake, people demanded he be put back in power.

        The man supports poor people often at the expense of Business elite. That's why he's portrayed badly by American media. He doesn't obey.
    • JKAL, on 07/28/2008, -4/+3I think you failed to understand the word hypocritical or you just don't understand the situation.
      JIC: they are basically forced to supply the US, even though Chavez keeps threatening to stop his supply, he really cannot, he knows the US would invade them in an instant if he did that.
      • sc0rpi0n, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4Invade on what ground? Venezuela is not like typical Iraq. Chavez is obviously on high ground. That's why he could get away calling Bush a devil at UN meeting. Literally, US is begging Venezuela for oil.
    • arjie, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7He also started this big campaign to sell cheap heating oil to some Americans. I find it funny how you say 'hypocritical Venezuela' and not 'hypocritical USA'. After all, the latter is the one that is supporting what they call a dictator by buying his oil.
    • jamessavik, on 07/28/2008, -5/+4Chavez is a putz. He should put his money where his mouth is and only sell his oil to his commie butt-buddies.

      Oh- that's right... THEY DON'T HAVE ANY MONEY!
    • Abomonog, on 07/28/2008, -2/+5Hypocritical. Chavez supplied free heating oil to the poor of Philly when our our own government failed them. He only charges his own people 1 cent over cost for oil and gas. Meanwhile we suffer markup of nearly 1000 percent. It is our government that made him close Citgo in the U.S. (the only Citgo stations left are now owned privately or by the U.S. Oil Co.) and then whined when he wanted to stop exporting to us.
      We also attempted to overthrow him even though his own people elected him.

      We are the hypocrites, not him.
      • Nordjak, on 07/28/2008, -4/+2Too bad Chavez didn't put that money towards helping his own people. Venezuela is still dirt poor and Chavez is squandering the countries wealth on political publicity stunts.
      • showat, on 07/28/2008, -2/+4The government didn't fail the people of Philly you dope. It wasn't even philly, it was HARLEM (in NY). It was a stated emergency at the time and Chavez took it upon himself to provide the oil. Publicity stunt/political move...definitely, however, don't look a gift horse in the mouth.

        HOWEVER, Nordjak is completely right. Even though the people of Venezuela don't pay that much for gas, they live in abject poverty. Chavez is using the wealth he's garnered to create political moves instead of helping his people right here at home.

        Not saying that we don't do that ourselves.... just pointing it out.

      • Abomonog, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4" Even though the people of Venezuela don't pay that much for gas, they live in abject poverty. Chavez is using the wealth he's garnered to create political moves instead of helping his people right here at home."

        You do realize that if I changed "Venezuela" with "America" and "Chavez" with "Bush" this statement would cover 30 percent of our own population easily. People are living in abject poverty in sight of the White House and yet our own president squanders our own money in high dollar elections and wars and bailing out the rich. Oh and lets not forget the billions we send oversea to aid other countries when our own people need it just as much and yet receive none. BTW: Location doesn't matter. What matters is that our people were saved by a 3rd. world president when our own turned his back on his own people.

        We are hypocrites so long as we allow a single American to starve while pouring trillions into Iraq or any other country for that matter.
      • showat, on 07/28/2008, -4/+1Look, you can't just go throw together a bunch of attention grabbing words together into a sentence and pretend like it's fact.

        1. Location does matter when you are having a discussion. Any INTELLIGENT CONVERSATION requires facts.

        2. If you think Bush is directly responsible for how much heating oil is available to PART OF A CITY then you display a disturbing lack of understanding of how our government works. You should be pissed at city council members, the local energy organization... or someone who actually has the power to FIX those problems.

        3. When you consider that almost HALF (48.80% according to Venezuela's National Statistics Institute - INE) of Venezuela's population lives in total poverty then you have to recognize Chavez isn't some benevolent 3rd world leader...


        In general, I agree with your premise about hypocrisy... it's disturbing at times, I completely agree. My main point of contention is that you just randomly stated different "facts" that... aren't even true...

        Effective activism and working for change requires FACT, PLANNING AND WISDOM, not ill informed opinions.
  • bmaltais, on 07/28/2008, -6/+176Canada Tar Sand is known to hold about 1.75 trillion barrels of crude oil. Canada hold the second world largest oil reserve. Right after Saudi Arabia.
    • sejr, on 07/28/2008, -39/+6Actually, the United States has the world's largest oil reserve. Do your homework.
      • SilverBlade2k, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Then why don't they use it then, hmm??
      • ColdFireArow, on 07/28/2008, -2/+6I hope that was sarcasm.
      • elhutcho, on 07/28/2008, -1/+18Only if you count oil shale (which we have unfathomable amounts of), but they don't count oil shale when classifying reserves because it is not yet true oil and is still prohibitively expensive to make real use of at this point in time.
      • maley, on 07/28/2008, -1/+13We have oil shale, not oil. Oil shale != oil.

        Do your homework.
      • pauleric, on 07/28/2008, -5/+2Yes ColdFireArov, he was talking about you when he said "do your homework". US has about 2.1 trillion barrels in shale oil, largest reserves in the world. And at current prices it is more than economical to get it. If prices stay high for a while (i.e. a decade?) and Congress allows it (maybe never) then big companies will invest in the infrastructure to get at it.
      • andy314159pi, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3pauleric, Congress does not have to authorize opening shale reserves on federal property. The are already opened and Shell is working on tapping U.S. shale with an underground processing method. They have to show the dept. of interior that the runoff will be minimal.
      • Meany123, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Not really. The way you count reserves is if the oil in the ground is extractable. We're yet to find a way of economically getting that shale out of the ground and into your hummer.

        Another dirty little secret of Alberta oil sands is the amount of fresh water they use up, approximately 3 barrels for every 1 barrel of oil produced. America's shale oil deposits are not near massive fresh water rivers like the Alberta ones are.
      • Spudster, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1The oil sands in Alberta consume more water than the whole consumption of Calgary and it's surrounding suburbs.
      • Saad85, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Guess where I am right now! (hint: it's suncor's plant in fort mcmurray) supposedly working.

        to spudster, water usage is a massive issue, but it may not be as bad as you think. the water cycle is recycled.. a LOT. It gets taken from the river, used to cool hot equipment, heated more by the embedded power plant (to make steam for power, duh) then used as the hot water necessary for extraction then goes into massive ponds (by far the biggest environmental problem with the process) where it is allowed to cool and settle before some of it goes through the process again.

        If you want something to be concerned about, look up tailings ponds.
    • chaiwalla, on 07/28/2008, -0/+52According to a recent National Geographic, Canada has the biggest reserves when you include tar sands.
    • pauleric, on 07/28/2008, -12/+3bmaltais, make that 179 billion, not 1.79 trillion, though Canada is 3nd behind Saudi Arabia. The USA dwarfs Saudi Arabia with over 8 times the reserves. But this is in Shale Oil, not as economical as wells.
      • FlibidyDibidy, on 07/28/2008, -1/+8No. You are wrong.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_Oil_Sands
        1.7 Trillion Barrels

        sorry mate.
      • pauleric, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Uh-oh, I was wrong, but still less than US's shale oil reserves. But I guess to get at all of that is even more expensive than shale oil, at least with current technology. But I think the real point is that there are huge reserves of fossil fuels. Transitioning to nuclear would be a good idea, but we're not running out anytime soon like some would have us believe.
      • SHv2, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Wow pauleric, I should send you back to "3nd" grade for that typo...
    • KingGorilla, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3Is that usable?
      • andy314159pi, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3It requires a bit more processing. Well, yeah, maybe a little more than just a bit but it is readily converted to crude, with some labor.
      • Jaspah, on 07/28/2008, -8/+2Nope, nobody is allowed to dig it up. It's some law Congress passed back in the late 20th century I believe.
      • iPanda, on 07/28/2008, -0/+7Congress is in the united states, the tar sands are in canada.

        The process to take it out of the ground and make it usable used to be too expensive to be worth it. That was back in the days when oil was cheap, now that oil is at $100/barrel, it now has become more worth the cost.
      • asnider, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2You've been using it for a while.
    • MAGZine, on 07/28/2008, -1/+14It is usuable. It must be mined, and refined... and it ain't cheap.

      But it's usable.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2All crude oil needs to be refined.
      • Banichi, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3More expensive then normal drilling but the costs have come down a lot. It costs about $25 a barrel to turn oil sands deposits into a usable oil that can be refined. They're making money hand over fist with oil at $130.
    • person425, on 07/28/2008, -9/+6motha fukin tar sands!
    • soybeast, on 07/28/2008, -3/+14I've heard extracting crude oil from tar sands is one of the most environmentally destructive ways to extract oil. Probably why they have a law about it.
      • metroidragon, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Actually it's a way to claim back huge areas that can not support life into wilderness.

        The process could be improved upon, but the end result is actually great for the local enviornment.
    • carp1185, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3it is, actually. before now it was not even economically logical to turn the pits to usable crude, but the cost of oil so exceeds the cost of the coal needed to extract the crude that it's done now. it is basically asphalt before the process is done. if you're interested...http://www.theoildrum.com/node/3839
    • stoanhart, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2They are thinking about building nuclear plants in Alberta that are solely dedicated to powering the extraction of the oil sands. It would cut costs a lot, since right now they burn oil to get oil.
      • elmuerte17, on 07/28/2008, -2/+13as an Albertan I'm all for nuclear power plants at the tar sands... stupid greasy hippies are ruining it tho. dumbasses think chernobyl is the inevitable outcome of nuclear plants...
      • asnider, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2They also don't seem to realize that there is already a fully functioning nuclear reactor at the University of Alberta. It's small, I admit, and used mainly for creating medical isotopes or something like that, but its existence still makes them seem like idiots when they go around waving their "Keep Alberta Nuclear Free" signs.
      • jncro, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Same as at the U of S they have a slowpoke 2 MW reactor. Really tiny purely for research.
    • AchaIemoipas, on 07/28/2008, -0/+5Canada holds the biggest oil reserves in the world.

      Alberta tar sands alone are the second largest oil reserve in the world.

      And that's without even knowing how much oil there is in the Arctic.
      • userperson, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Arctic oil ... that will be useful when oil hits $400 a barrel (inflation adjusted)?
      • AchaIemoipas, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Well they said the same about tar sands.

        It's the most expensive method of oil production. Now that the price is so high, it became viable.
    • crodulfo, on 07/28/2008, -3/+1http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_reserves

      souce to the comment which discredits "Canada Hold biggest oil reserves"

      wiki is always right! isnt it?
    • missusjones, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1The Energy Non-Crisis
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3340274697 ...

      Lindsey Williams talks about his first hand knowledge of Alaskan oil reserves LARGER THAN ANY ON EARTH. And he talks about how the oil companies and U.S. government won't send it through the pipeline for U.S. citizens to use.

      An amazing talk, as long as you can hang in there with the southern gentleman's slow drawl. He's got a lot to say, it's worth the 75min...
    • machinist09, on 07/28/2008, -0/+0We don't even now yet what might be under the arctic, but some think that there is a s h i t load under it. We likely have the largest reserves in the world(and relatively untapped), but none of it is going to be cheap to get.
  • SpiritOfRock, on 07/28/2008, -36/+2Pointless picture is pointless.
  • Richie311, on 07/28/2008, -43/+24***** You, my two friends died while importing oil from Canada
    • sejr, on 07/28/2008, -4/+12I love how this is now considered old and gets buried.
      • inigomntoya, on 07/28/2008, -1/+3I love how I just saw people using this phrase today, yet its already considered old.
    • Fludd777, on 07/28/2008, -3/+7Fail meme is failed.
    • life036, on 07/28/2008, -4/+3lol
    • 0Xonox0, on 07/28/2008, -1/+19***** you, two of my friends died from being old.
    • PhilLesh69, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1Richie311, it used to be "Why would you say that? That's how my father died!"
    • hiimcliff, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3this is still funny for me. maybe next week ill be sick of it.
  • pittpat, on 07/28/2008, -25/+506Then why in the hell haven't we invaded, I mean liberated Canada then?
    • Spikito, on 07/28/2008, -55/+20Because we didn't invade Iraq for oil.
      • Aikidi, on 07/28/2008, -9/+13you will be buried.

        what do you think we invaded Iraq for?
      • antiorblkflag9, on 07/28/2008, -2/+23Yeah, THEY HATE OUR FREEDOM! They're freedom haters, we're freedom lovers.
      • aftern9ne, on 07/28/2008, -6/+10I like how you're being dugg down. Sarcasm.

        Just because our government was foolish and hawkish enough to invade Iraq doesn't mean it was for oil.
      • skyshock1, on 07/28/2008, -7/+10Yep, buried just like I thought. But as much as people will bury you, all one has to do is to look at the numbers. If it was oil we wanted, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia. Iraq has NOTHING to offer us.
      • ConfusedCartman, on 07/28/2008, -6/+4Why are you being dugg down, seriously? Our initial intention was not only oil, although it might have been a perk. If we were going to invade someone for just oil, we, like you said, would have found a reason to invade a more resource-heavy country. The bottom line is the war was a knee-jerk reaction to 9/11, and it was a mistake.
      • arjie, on 07/28/2008, -1/+13Right, I nearly forgot. The WMDs, of course.
      • ammundsen, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1It wasnt just oil. And as far as being for oil it certainly wasnt to lower the price. Saddam Hussein wanted to trade oil in Euros not the Dollar. The Dollar is dying. Part of what made it the world's reserve currency was that it was the currency used to trade oil. If you want oil you need to get Dollars. Saddam knew where to hit us.
      • Meany123, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Because, there's no need, dude!

        Why invade with troops? Just invade with your money, and we'll keep those taps flowing. It's worked so far, don't rock the boat.
      • colonelbuckshot, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2http://www.counterpunch.org/roberts04232008.html

        "The more likely explanation for the US invasion of Iraq is the neoconservative Bush Regime’s commitment to the defense of Israeli territorial expansion. There is no such thing as a neoconservative who is not allied with Israel."
      • reuscel, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3No, it was a personal vendetta because Saddam tried to hurt Dubya's daddy.

        And oil.
    • identifiedlogo, on 07/28/2008, -4/+45Hey, You don't know Canada like that, Pal
    • InfernoX, on 07/28/2008, -4/+29Because instead of invading all you have to do is say "Make a DMCA" and our retarded government will do it.
      • Xondar, on 07/29/2008, -0/+1Goddamn I hate the Conservatives.......
    • Connick, on 07/28/2008, -4/+33Cause yall lost the last couple of times you tried ...oh them fightin' words! lol
      • shanealeslie, on 07/28/2008, -5/+51Canada burned down the White House the last time the US ***** with them - do you really want to go through that again?
      • erhanaltay, on 07/28/2008, -29/+5Canada burned down the white house? Is that what they teach up in Canada?? HAHAHHAHA

        It was the BRITISH NAVY that burned Washington D.C. All you Canadians did was squeal for help from big brother.
      • giveer, on 07/28/2008, -0/+26It was technically the United Empire Loyalists. Canada -as a label for the country- had not yet been established. But I'm sure everybody knew that behind all of the useless thread arguing.
      • acegi, on 07/28/2008, -13/+2technically yes it is canada

        canada never gained independence from UK, and is still a part of commonwealth.

        so yes, great britain, canada, same thing.
      • Meany123, on 07/28/2008, -7/+19Canada never gained independence from the UK, eh?

        American's are a funny bunch. They seem to believe that unless your nation was founded through bloody, violent struggle and war, that means you are not independent like them. Also, unless you have the ability to "elect" an imperial President who will run roughshod over your entire constitution and any semblance of legal rights dating back to the Magna Carta, you are not a democracy like them. Finally, unless your nation takes pride in the fact that it spends hundreds of billions of dollars on designing more effective ways of killing fellow human beings that your imperial President disagrees with, you are a bunch of pussies, not a bunch of heroes spreading "freedom" around the world with smart bombs like them.

        Whatever, dude. Shut up, go fill up your gas tank, and send me some more oil money. I want another tax cut.
      • dkapuchino, on 07/28/2008, -9/+4Hey, Meany, where does your queen live?
      • Meany123, on 07/28/2008, -3/+9dkapuchino, my Governor General, Michaelle Jean (who holds all authority for the Queen of Canada), who gives Royal Assent to all Bills, who selects the Prime Minister from Parliament, who calls elections, and who is commander of the Armed forces, lives at Rideau Hall, Ottawa. That's in Ontario. In Canada.

        Thanks for coming out.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5@Meany123
        The Governor General is something called a "Figure Head".
        His position is traditional only.

        It might be convenient for you to ignore this, especially if you don't know what you're talking about, but it is a major detail.

        The Queen does not have any legal authority in Canada.

        If her Governor General "proxy" tried to select his own Prime Minister, everyone would say no, he'd look like a retard, and that would be the end of it.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_Act_1982
      • tim3094, on 07/28/2008, -3/+4@Meany123

        Not really, India GAINED independence from Britain by peaceful protest. They earned it just as much as the Americans because they had the balls to stand up to oppression.

        The president has quite a small amount of power in the government compared to other systems such as Britain's prime minister, and the Magna Carta was a tiny step in getting rid of the Monarch (which England, the country in which the Magna Carta was made, still has. ironic?)

        I do agree that independence cannot be given by another country (the exception there is Japan) because the people will not value it as much. So setting up a democracy in Iraq is *****.

        btw, whats wrong with spending lots of money on weapons. Doesn't it make sense that a lot of money be put into making weapons, you always want to be able to defend yourself, when it comes down to it, that's the governments main role. And what the ***** is wrong with smart bombs, would you rather that America carpet bombed a whole area or took out the threat with a single guided bomb?
      • Gudeldar, on 07/28/2008, -7/+3Canadians burned down the White House? Gee I thought that was BRITISH soldiers, though I guess at the time British and Canadians were the same thing (I mean you did only get your independence in 1982)
      • JnOrris, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3@tim3094

        "btw, whats wrong with spending lots of money on weapons. Doesn't it make sense that a lot of money be put into making weapons, you always want to be able to defend yourself, when it comes down to it, that's the governments main role. And what the ***** is wrong with smart bombs, would you rather that America carpet bombed a whole area or took out the threat with a single guided bomb?"

        how about having a real Health care system, fixing social security, closing the ridiculous wealth gap, ohh and spending one weeks worth of the money you spend on the Iraq war could go a long way to restructuring your failing economy into one based around innovation in renewable energy and help solve the greatest challenge Mankind has ever faced, the destruction of our environment.

        How about using that money and engineering resources for one of those 'smart bombs' into creating a renewable solar energy plant in your (growing...) deserts and provide clean power to thousands of Americans. That sounds like a more useful use of that money...

        I don't understand why Americans are so proud of investing their money in killing Iraqis, when they should be investing the money in their education, healthcare, and infrastructure
      • metroidragon, on 07/28/2008, -0/+3Canada also captured Detroit during the War of 1812, but we were nice enough to give it back during peace treaties.
    • Zorkon, on 07/28/2008, -3/+127You tried it before: War of 1812. :)


      • elmuerte17, on 07/28/2008, -2/+36... and the white house burned, burned, burned, and we're the ones that did it...
        ... it burned, burned, burned, but the americans won't admit it...
      • Jassman, on 07/28/2008, -6/+2Three Dead Trolls in a Baggie.... Hahaha reminds me of the "good old days" of the internet with websites like mp3.com.
      • MacSuxWindozSux, on 07/28/2008, -0/+17This isn't something that they like to teach in schools.
      • tim3094, on 07/28/2008, -11/+6So what the white house burned. At that time, America wasn't centralized, each state was like a separate country. It was only after the American Civil War that the USA became united and Washington actually meant something to all of the states.

        It was the largest Empire the world has ever seen against a couple colonies which had become independent 40 years earlier. And Britain lost, again.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -11/+3Not really, the war of 1812 was the second revolutionary war fought on 3 fronts where, what is now the Canadian border was but one. The Northern front was fought to a standstill but the British were defeated soundly in the Atlantic Naval Battles and the Southern front where they were beaten back into the Gulf of Mexico at New Orleans. Canada was not even a country yet and only obtained its independence because of the US success in the War of 1812. So you can go on believing your 4th grade elementary nationalistic history lessons but if you want the real history you had better get a better education.
      • thisguy457, on 07/28/2008, -15/+41812? You're joking right? Canada wasn't even a country then - it was called "Britain". You guys became a legitimate country in what? 1982? Yeah, 1982 with the Canada Act, right? The act that said that the British would stop making decisions for you and let you be a big boy country?

        Don't kid yourself thinking that Canada would stand a chance against the US Military.
      • Karai, on 07/28/2008, -8/+5thisguy457: Canada would not need to stand against your army alone. Unlike your country, we are respected world wide and I am sure the rest of the world would chip in to nuke you silly bastards to hell and back if you ever tried to attack us. :)
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -8/+1Karai.....and who is going to stand up against America and "nuke" us with impunity??? Name one country you think that will defend you. Canada is but an insignificant spot on the world map, a do nothing country who stands for nothing and only reacts when forced to do so through coercion from the other powerful western nations of the world. You have no friends at all that would side with you and bring retaliation from the US to their populace. NONE!
      • Xondar, on 07/29/2008, -1/+3use2bacanadian: Wrong.

        The Americans invaded Canada. We repelled that invasion. I'sd call that a win.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/30/2008, -2/+1Xondar - Canadians had nothing to do with the Battle of 1812 - it was the British who fought the Americans - Canada was not even a country. And even more importantly - the British LOST the war of 1812 - bean head! They got kicked off of the continent for the second time at the Battle of New Orleans and in the Atlantic. The Northern front was fought to a standstill.
      • Zorkon, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0use2bacanadian: Obviously either you slept through history class, or you missed some of the important bits. Please take a read through the Wikipedia article on the War of 1812: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812 (which btw it was a WAR, not a single battle)

        Granted, Wikipedia can hardly be considered authoritative, but I doubt you're likely to go down to the library and do the actual research, so Wikipedia will have to do.


      • Zorkon, on 08/01/2008, -0/+0thisguy457: Regardless of whether Canada was a country back in 1812, the people that lived here were referred to as "Canadians" at the time, and successfully repulsed American attacks. After the war, the Canada-US border remained unchanged - in other words, the US was unsuccessful in grabbing additional Canadian land.

        The Canadians, or British as you call them, also offered freedom to tens of thousands of US slaves.

        Regarding your last statement: are you planning to invade anytime soon?

    • outofbeta, on 07/28/2008, -2/+8Because canada doesn't need subtitles
    • etnuts, on 07/28/2008, -3/+38Because Canada would go on strike and ask for more money.
    • Ebeach, on 07/28/2008, -4/+60We tried that and got our asses kicked. Know your own history!
    • JKAL, on 07/28/2008, -0/+8because making the sheeple hate people of another very different religion is easier, than convincing to attack others of similar beliefs, you must remember they are the masters at "divide and conquer" techniques.
    • Ebeach, on 07/28/2008, -0/+6Just wanted to add a little primer...

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812#Great_Lak ...
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -2/+2Consequences
        Main article: Results of the War of 1812
        Neither side lost any territory, with the exception of Carleton Island, now part of New York, nor were the original points of contention addressed by the treaty that ended it, and yet it changed much between the United States of America and the United Kingdom. Yet, according to Winston Churchill, "the lessons of the war were taken to heart. Anti-American sentiment in Britain ran high for several years, but the United States was never again refused proper treatment as an independent power."[62]

        The war of 1812 was fought against Britain on 3 fronts and Canada was but one. So the idea that Canada "kicked Americas ass" is a false claim, Canada was no even a country. But because of Britain's SECOND defeat at the hands of the Americans, Canada was able to petition for independence peacefully.
      • akula89, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2go on, try it

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burning_of_Washington
    • yayster, on 07/28/2008, -2/+73America has invaded Canada twice already. Failed both times.
      • allthewhile, on 07/28/2008, -26/+3Major lolz for this joke!!! Ha ha!!!

        Both of those ventures were during wars we handily won.

        The best part about your joke is that implies that Canada is "strong" and America is "weak". Sure we're imperialistic busy-bodies who bully and police the world. We all agree on that. But lolz for implying that Canada has a stronger military.
      • adamje42, on 07/28/2008, -1/+13We're not stronger. Just smarter. The U.S. lost the War of 1812 because you "captured" some "secret documents" that detailed how "strong" our military was. We knew we were weaker, apparently you didn't though.
      • Marmot, on 07/28/2008, -3/+68Look at a map of North America.

        Canada is bigger, and Canada is on top.

        In prison, that would make you the bitch.
      • bejayel, on 07/28/2008, -3/+10our military isnt stronger by any means, but it is definitely smarter. American Philosophy: Keep send as many troops as possible, get children with guns if you have to, ***** training. Canadian: Training and no losses.
      • ddawggin, on 07/28/2008, -9/+3At Bejayel

        It's easy to not suffer any losses when you're troops are primarily peacekeepers. Not bashing the Canadians, just saying.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -14/+3***** - more ignorant Canadian Nationalism in a futile attempt to try to find something "Canadian" to be proud of. Canada was a territory of Britain in the War of 1812. Most settlers, later to be named Canadians, were not fighting at all and those that did were ineffectively organized into poorly trained and led militia handily defeated by the Americans.The British were a little more difficult but were fought to a standstill on what was then the frontier border to the north. The British were defeated on the Atlantic front and on the Southern front in New Orleans and kicked off of the continent for the second time. This allowed Canada, by default, to gain its Independence from Britain. So Canada should welcome their new American overlords and not try to revise history and make claims like "our military is smarter" when clearly is not. You military is still smaller than the NYC police Department only more poorly trained. Canada has nothing that rivals the US Air Force, US Marines, Special Forces, Navy SEALS. You also have NO aircraft carriers, no military aviation transports beyond C130 turbo props, only a handful of AMERICAN made F-18's.
      • oatmeals, on 07/28/2008, -1/+11^ this comming from someone with the nickname "use2bacanadian"
      • asnider, on 07/28/2008, -1/+6@ddawggin: Canada isn't just involved in peacekeeping anymore. I'm pretty sure the situation in Afghanistan counts more or less as a full-on war (or "conflict"). We are not there as peacekeepers, we're there on a combat mission.
      • tehnico, on 07/28/2008, -1/+7Yeah you would probably win an initial battle. But with the best snipers in the world, my money is on the Canadian insurgents in the aftermath.

        Then again, try it now, and you'd probably get yourself in a civil war as thousands upon thousands of soldiers and units belay their orders to invade. Invading Canada is just something you don't do, it would be grossly impolite and one of the biggest political faux-pas in history.

        In the end it would be Black water versus the American military on their own soil. Canada would back the American military, so would every central and south american fighting force. As would probably most of Europe. The incumbent American war machine would grind to a halt since the oil would stop flowing south. The middle east would unify under the neutrality mantra to not get involved and keep selling oil to both sides. At which point the only odd duck over there would be Israel, and while no one is looking Israel would probably disappear over night.

        American nationalists and the world would most likely win since tactically at this point, the western world would be easy to invade. There would simply be too many fronts and after a lengthy war of attrition, The USA would fall to American nationalists and the rest of the world. Then Canada would demand an apology in a strongly worded letter.

        Bullies don't pick on the popular nice guys for a reason. The rest of the school would kick their ass.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/29/2008, -4/+1Technico clearly has no knowledge of combat or the US military. Do you think a handful of snipers are going to stop the entire US military???? Backwater does not a combat unit - it is a civilian security agency made up of former military special operations personnel - but I believe that Backwater WOULD probably kick your ass with a little artillery and air support. Speaking of which - where are the Canadian 155 howitzer, MLRS Rocket launchers, GPS and Laser Guided close air support aircraft and Naval Gunfire Units. You have none. Canada in the unlikely event that they would try the suicidal policy of "cutting off Americas oil supply" would enrage the rest of the world, bring condemnation on your country and you would be conquered within HOURS! Let me give you a military lesson in tactics. When fired on by a "Sniper" the unit under fire after the first shot was fired at them would lay down withering fire in the direction of the sniper, then an anti sniper team would move into position while smoke is layed down between the unit under fire and the sniper. The anti sniper team would have a Doppler radar ID with them and find the exact position of the sniper on his next shot. At the same time another unit on the flank would be position themselves to the snipers rear now that they know where he is at the same time laying down 80mm mortar fire on the snipers position with a kill radius of 30 meters when the flanking unit arrives they would either pick up the pieces of the sniper or finish him off and then HI 5 each other while the main unit was slowed for about 5 minutes .Snipers are only a little bit more dangerous than a mosquito in your ear when you are out for a hike in the woods.
        You have NO IDEA what the capabilities are of the US military.
    • mriegger, on 07/28/2008, -3/+53No need to invade when Stephen Harper will do whatever the U.S. wants
    • qbqb, on 07/28/2008, -4/+22You wouldn't want to invade since our health care system wouldn't work for the US. You see, it just couldn't handle 15,000 gun shot wounds a day. And Americans like choice, which is why 50 million Americans choose not to have health care coverage.
      • greenamp, on 07/28/2008, -1/+1There aren't even 50 million people in Canada, so shut up.

    • Antaries, on 07/28/2008, -16/+4There is no need to invade Canada. The U.S.A already owns pretty much most of Canada anyways. MRIEGGER, your right.
      • giveer, on 07/28/2008, -1/+4..turns out you guys don't own our grammar schools - which, apparently, is too bad for you.
    • saromadian, on 07/28/2008, -3/+8Ya cause invading (liberating) other countries has really helped bring the price of oil down and your dollar go up. ya invade Canada, instead of fixing problems within your own country lets go attack someone else and see if that solves our problems.
    • bejayel, on 07/28/2008, -1/+5Because if we seen any form of threat we would cut off your main source of oil and many other coutries would follow, essentially ***** you over and bring your military action to a complete stop. Then while you are walking across the fields our farmers would pick you off 1 by one.Plus an invasion of us would cost so much money you wouldent be able to afford guns for your troops. You already have enough money issues as it is!

      This is all speculation of course.

      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -5/+1If you cut off oil - that would be an act of war - we would conquer you in a week or less, and your farmers, who probably cant shoot anything smarter than a dumb moose, would keep farming as soon as we decided to let them share in our new oil resources.
      • chrishirsch, on 07/28/2008, -2/+3i think you are overlookin the fact that the soldiers would not want to fight each other, this isnt the civil war, theres no slavery to fight over, and everyone would know it would be about oil

        and if u think farmers would pick off US soldiers one by one, then you are seriously doubting modern soldiers.

        but anyway it wouldnt happen, and no one should want it to
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -2/+1I believe that in America soldiers obey orders because they have discipline, unlike Canada, and if it were an act of war then everyone would understand that it is their families that are going to suffer. US soldiers would have NO problem killing Canadians. But you are right that this would never happen, Canada is not capable of fighting ANYONE, let alone America, and therefore they would capitulate without a fight because, unlike most diggtards, the leaders of Canada would not commit national suicide.
    • tapeworm77, on 07/28/2008, -2/+6C'mon Canadians, let's strike!! Eh?
    • kleptomaniac, on 07/28/2008, -0/+13Cause then you'd have to take Celine Dion.
    • Innisskillin, on 07/28/2008, -1/+8If your troops marched up here we would just wait until winter and put on our skates. You would have no chance.
    • Fremen93, on 07/28/2008, -1/+13Well, I can think of one reason why not. In any conflict, there will be dead civilians, and Americans have a much easier time ignoring dead civilians who are brown skinned or black. But once there are dead civilians who look more like the majority, they start freaking out. Make as many jokes as you want about hating Canada, but Canadian civilian deaths would be almost as bad for us as the civilians who died in 9/11.
      I can say this because while only 3000 died in 9/11, and we acted like it was the apocalypse...nearly 100 times that number died between 1992-1995 in bosnia. These victims were mostly muslim which instantly makes them worthless in the eyes of most Americans. but its got less press than Britney Spear's meaningless life.


      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -4/+1WTF are you talking about - Americans were defending the Muslims with our military - and where was Canada??? We still enforce the no fly zone there.
    • brainboy77, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Quick, get Richard Abootman.
    • Pitstopper, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Once you 'liberate', you need not 'import'...you can just 'take it'
    • TubeDigger, on 07/28/2008, -1/+2We are liberal... it's the states/Neo-CONvicts who are not, they use it as a dirty word, then try to 'liberate' a nation by killing them and taking their *****. If anything the states need some true liberation. To bad you nor any of you pussies will do anything about it. This is why your country is falling apart and you'll be running to Canada for sanctuary sometime after Mcain 'wins' the 'election'.
      • use2bacanadian, on 07/28/2008, -0/+1Another product of the weak Canadian Education System. Nobody is going to be running to Canada for anything. It is quite the opposite actually, Canadians, at least those with an education and marketable skills are running to the US for education and quality professional jobs. Te brain drain is south - not the other way around. You can have ALL our draft dodging dope smoking cowards for all I care and let them experience your third world medical care and lack of dental care.
    • DestroyFascism, on 07/29/2008, -0/+2Amero + NAFTA = US Dollar never becomes depreciated...

      Its the same thing as "Invasion".
  • btschul, on 07/28/2008, -28/+14Blame Canada... Blame Canada...
    http://youtube.com/watch?v=wOzG7bBylRo
  • ileftfark, on 07/28/2008, -29/+9One more reason for a complete takeover. That and their ***** flapping heads.
    • BillMoocho, on 07/28/2008, -1/+11How about we just talk it over in my igloo. Grab a seat on the chesterfield, and I'll make some poutine.
      • elmuerte17, on 07/28/2008, -0/+6might be a bit chilly, better wear a toque. and some timbits would make a nice snack for the long dogsled ride back to the border.
  • hafniOum, on 07/28/2008, -4/+83We should go on strike so we can get more money!

    A message from the World Canadian Bureau.
    • dchaosdx, on 07/28/2008, -2/+14I'm really tired of all these messages from the WGA.
    • newstart, on 07/28/2008, -0/+10So you want our Internet money eh?
    • etnuts, on 07/28/2008, -0/+12(sigh)

      What what?
    • ethamajin, on 07/28/2008, -0/+4***** you Stephen Aboutman. I'm not your buddy, guy.
    • had3l, on 07/28/2008, -0/+2Well, that is nothing compared to their Terrance and Phillip exports.
  • Flashtone, on 07/28/2008, -4/+186They also supply the most bacon.