Are Americans aware that Canada has the largest oil reserves next to Saudi Arabia?
477181
No but they soon will when Bush realizes that his oil is now in Canada
1061464
opec and saudi arabia probably couldn't exist with out the u s
567343
Producers\n1 Total oil production   Exporters\n\n 1. Saudi Arabia 10.37  \n 2. Russia 9.27  \n 3. United States 8.69   \n 4. Iran 4.09  \n 5. Mexico 3.83  \n 6. China 3.62  \n 7. Norway 3.18  \n 8. Canada 3.14  \n 9. Venezuela 2.86  \n10. United Arab Emirates 2.76 \nfind more detailed information here.\nhttp://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0922041.html
193951
Oil officials 10, 20, 30, and 40 years ago said AT THAT TIME that we were going to use up what was known to be total global "proven oil reserves." We keep finding more total oil reserves every few years than was thought to exist worldwide a few years previous - kind of funny logic, isn't it? If we keep finding more oil that exceeded known reserves just a few years back, then what are we so concerned about? Interestingly enough, at the same time we keep finding more proven oil reserves, people keep screaming more and more that we are running out of oil - who is right? History says we can keep finding oil, so maybe there is a regenerative process unknown to the scientific community - they can't possibly know everything about everything. \n\nOnly one thing is certain in SCIENCE: it IS ALWAYS CHANGING. Geologists have been getting better year after year at locating oil reserves, and yet so little is known about oil reserves other than location. What is understood to be fact now will be ridiculed in the future by new theories - which have already happened. They thought we couldn't use most crude oil in the early 20th century because nobody knew about cracking or synthesis of crude products, so they just dumped unusable crude products that were not immediately usable as gasoline or diesel. We have come very far since that time in chemistry alone. \n\nIsn't it interesting that what is vaguely understood by a few scientists is continuously spouted as "truth" by those who know far less. SCIENTIFIC FACT IS CHANGEABLE, meaning it can be tested, and if a different result occurs, then the theory changes, resetting what is known as "fact." Oil may be replenishable, and may not necessarily only come from prehistoric plants and animals as current thought suggests. You raise an interesting argument about oil resources, and only the future will let us know for sure - but there will be a definitive answer. Now, who is ready for the truth?
365608
I'm a Petroleum Engineer, and about the closest thing you'll find to an expert on this subject, other than "The Expert," whomever the media says that is next.\n\nThere will never be "no oil" in your lifetime. You may not be able to afford it, but they cannot run out. \n\nNow that oil is $70/bbl, it opens the door to production of different grades of oil and different kinds of oil. \n\nAmerica has the biggest "Shale Oil" field in the world, at over a trillion barrels, that has never been tapped because it will be expensive to extract, and the technology has not yet been improved enough to tackle it. But money solves all of these prices, and $100/bbl oil would certainly do it. You will have to be surprised how fast the technology will ramp up when there's a profit to be made.\n\nAnother example is the "Coal Oil" sands in Canada that they are already extracting by truck and converting to usable oil. It's slower to extract and convert than to simply produce liquid oil, but the one field they are producing from today is bigger than the Saudi field, which is the biggest in the world. And that isn't the only "Coal Oil" field in Canada, and certainly not the only one in the world.\n\nMost people don't realize that we only produce about 20% of the oil from a producing oil sand, and leave the rest of it there because it was too expensive to produce by secondary or tertiary recovery methods. That is no longer true, so the natural oil reserves just doubled when the price of oil doubled.\n\nGovernments are good at creating crisis after crisis, so that they can be your friend and be the only one to solve the problem, that is, by taking control, taking your rights, enacting more laws, forming more committees out of their cousins, and generally living like Kings off of years of perceived crisis. Oh yeah, and they can take over whole countries if they need to and the gullible public is behind them on an invasion, and they can get enough young people to fight their special-interest wars for them.\n\nWhen I was in college in the 1970's, the known problem of that time was that temperatures were getting "colder." By the year 2030, it would be so cold that plants could not live and man would face extinction without drastically chaging things. That was to be in my lifetime.\n\nBut now the "experts" claim "Global Warming." It's all just a theory, like Evolution, but after so many "experts" parrot the "truth" in the media, and even colleges and universities begin teaching it as truth, then it becomes "truth,' even when at best it's a 50-50 shot. Why make a crisis out of something? There's money to be made, control to be taken, and new gov't offices to fill.
403304
Canada has a lot of oil. According to all the liberals, that is the only reason Bush invaded Iraq, so it makes sense that Canada would be next. Plus it's closer to home.
655560
In truth, most every major land mass has natural gas reserves, but has motivation to not use them. China, for example, just entered into a 3-year, multi billion (or maybe trillion, I forgot) dollar deal with Iran for Oil. China probably has oil, but given it's mountainous terrain, probably not worth it. \n And there is political motivation. As we move forward in the steps in a war with Iran, China effectively halted a great amount of advance by siding with Iran, espicially considering our rather large debt to the Bank of China. And as the Middle East is known as a "conflict zone", and being in the Middle East as I write this, I can agree, the long-term idea for many nations, esp. those in the U.N., is forcew the OPEC nations to sell away their prime export, leaving them succeptable to influence in later years.\n   America has a great deal of oil. Much more than Iraq in Texas alone. But we chose to leave wells covered, so as to ensure that the US will be able to function in the decades to come.\n   As far as dinosaurs.... couldn't say, but if you were to observe the geographic locations where there are several skeletons/fossils found, these lands are not known for being rich in oil\nhope that helps some.
363890
Its in north america.Not all that a popular country,but famous for invading other countries for oil.
258320
The US was purchace from Russia in the mid 19th century.  It was called Seward's Folly because it was believed that there wasn't anything worth having.  If they would have known about the oil, they would have given Seward a medal
211130
Ok, the guy who wrote about the US having a secret stash of oil... did you know that everybody KNOWS that the US has there own oil up in Alaska... so it's not much of a secret if CNN has reported on it and congress has asked the President to tap into our own oil reserves. I think what the originator of this question was saying is, instead of the entire world sitting on their hands and letting the Saudi's or OPEC or whoever get away with pretty much robbing the world blind with oil prices the world should fight back with what ever means neccessary.\n\nAnd whoever it was that said it was OPEC that sets the prices not the Saudi's, well you obviously are one of the many many people in the world that are blind to the situatation, OPEC is an organization that is run by man y countries, the list of countries that run OPEC are: Algeria, Indonesia, Iran, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates and lastly Venezuala. The last time I looked most of those countries hate the U.S... so what his point was about OPEC is beyond me.\n\nRaise the price of everything, I say do it. What do we have to loose? If the entire world did it what options would OPEC have? I dont care how many countries are using oil, the good thing is that there are ALTERNATIVES to fossil fuel now and they will only become more and more advanced, let's see what OPEC and it's members do when we dont need their oil... THEN the price of everything they import should go through the roof. Fight fire with fire I say, they obviously dont care if the cost to heat out homes this winter is $400 per month, then we shouldn'y care if they starve. DAMN this administration for letting this go on. Kudos to the originator of this post, and I will gladly be your running mate in the next election!!!! God Bless the USA.
429139
You're observations are for the most part accurate.  Most Americans know little about Canada.  Keep in mind that the USA is the superpower of the world (I'm not saying that is a positive thing) Just that our media, foreign policy is force fed to the world, so everyone know about us.  \nI'm American. Perhaps I'm an exception because I do have some knowledge of our neighbors to the north.  I know lots of Canadians and I have observed that Canadians for the most part have negative feelings about America but the reverse is not true.  We mostly think Canada is a nice place with mostly friendly people who love hockey.
152389
Look at the first answer. This is why you cannot take Liberal whockos seriously. The ASSUME they KNOW an answer, just because they have some stupid and ill advised preconceived notion. "The war is about oil" "We get most of our oil from the Middle East" etc. The combination of Canada and Mexico more than doubles our import totals from Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Kuwait (the top 3 Middle Eastern countries from which we import Crude Oil, and the only 3 in the top 15 countries from which we import oil)\n\nIn actuality Canada IS the top country from which we import crude oil. The majority of our crude oil imports will continue to come from the Western Hemisphere for the forseeable future.\n\nCANADA 1,892 1,776 1,642 1,556 1,616\nMEXICO 1,707 1,658 1,550 1,552 1,598\nSAUDI ARABIA 1,438 1,267 1,438 1,449 1,495\nVENEZUELA 1,183 1,009 1,231 1,379 1,297\nNIGERIA 1,174 1,163 1,060 1,006 1,078\nANGOLA 425 641 450 306 306\nIRAQ 390 572 520 626 655\nECUADOR 340 264 276 261 232\nKUWAIT 268 273 215 205 241\nALGERIA 212 265 228 199 215\nBRAZIL 159 65 94 0 51\nGABON 139 66 127 233 142\nCOLOMBIA 135 281 156 135 142\nNORWAY 66 103 119 63 143\nTRINIDAD AND TOBAGO 62 70 62 22 49\n\nWe are not in Iraq for oil, nor were we ever. We were first there because of the invasion of Kuwiat, and we helped answer the call of the Kuwaiti people for assistance. We are there now to finish the job because of the violations of the cease fire agreement that ended hostilities from the military action from Desert Storm.\n\nAs evidenced by the actual documentation...\n\nThe Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public law 107-243, 116 Stat. 1497-1502) was a law passed by the United States Congress authorizing what was soon to become the Iraq War. The authorization was sought by President George W. Bush. It passed the House on October 10 by a vote of 296-133, and by the Senate on October 11 by a vote of 77-23, obviously receiving a limited amount of support from Democrats, and must be considered an overall unsupportive vote when compared to the "war vote" for the Second World War and other more poplularly supported conflicts. It was signed into law by President Bush on October 16, 2002.\n\nThe Resolution cited several factors to justify a war:\n\n* Iraq's noncompliance with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire
306206
The  current largest shares of US oil imports come from Mexico (1.77 Mil Barrels per day), Canada(1.74), and Saudi Arabia(1.48).\nIn 2001 it was Canada (1.79, Saudi Arabia (1.66), and Venezuela (1.54).
1165951
All over the place.  All along the Pacific Coast for example.  There are lots of reasons, not just hiding reserves.  Environmental concern is one reason.  Strategic reserves another.  Why not dry up all the foreign oil before we fully deplete ours?
83125
First off, for those that answered, we are NOT in Iraq for oil. Our main oil supply comes from Canada. North America(including our own country) supplies almost THREE TIMES the amount of oil we get from the Middle East. If we were in it for oil, we would have invaded Canada long ago, and it would have been an easy fight(no offense to Canadians). It is well known(to those who dont ignore it) that Iraq harbors, even promotes, terrorism toward other nations. Well, it used to, before Good ol' Dubya handled it. So get some facts before you force your unfounded statements on everyone.\n\nAnd to answer the question, no, the war in Iraq is not over. It will not be until the job is done. If we had an immediate withdrawl, as many liberals want, Iraq would become a refuge, a hive, of terrorists, greatly increasing the chance of another attack against the U.S. We are trying to make peace, because you cannot keep it if there is none to begin with. If liberals really try hard and look into the future, then they will see that its for the better, but i highly doubt that their highly biased minds will consider that.
284858
I dont!\n\nRussia is like Canada to me.\nI dont give them much thought.\nIf I could live long enough to see the USA buzz thru all of our natural resources, I'm sure I would be luv'n maple leaves and vodka.
439923
Yes, it is on the continent of North America. It has two languages that are spoken: British English and Canadian French. Canada's leader is the Prime Minister. It is divided into provinces. Commercial fishing, timber, and agriculture are very intrinsic to Canada's economy. Tourism is beginning to become a large industry. There are many pristine areas containing abundant wildlife. The major cities have everything that one would find in any major city anywhere on the planet. There is more I could say but I hope this answers your question. Not all American's are uneducated or close-minded, there are plenty that do know about other parts of our planet. :)