Keystone Pipeline

[DrMike]

I'm fascinated, though not surprised, at the decision of the Obama administration to kill the Keystone Pipeline, blaming Republicans for not allowing Obama enough time. I also appreciate the response of the Canadian Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, who says the US decision only spurs Canada's resolve to diversify its sales of oil. At the present, 99% of Canadian oil goes to the US. Now, you may be certain that more--much more--of this oil will flow to Asia (http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ia-after-obama-rejects-keystone-pipeline.html). It is interesting that as Canada builds the Northern Gateway Pipeline to deliver Alberta crude to the west coast, the majority of the opposition to building this pipeline comes from American groups lining up to testify against this project!. These American environmental groups (including Robert Kennedy's Waterkeeper Alliance and a host of Hollywood stars and starlets), aligned with such interested parties as Hugo Chavez' Citgo! Americans have to wake up and take back their country from the enviro-loonies and left-leaning politicians who pander to their idiocy! One thing is certain, ethical oil from Canada will be sold somewhere, which the US continues to seek out conflict oil pumped by people who hate the nation. Man, the world has gone insane.

 

[Mooswa]

Personally I am glad that this may actually cause a shift with a bunch of oil being sold to Asia. Canada depends far too heavily on the US for trade in too many things. The result is that when there is a hick-up for one reason or another, it is really painful for those working in the respective industry.

We are always told it is not good to have all of your eggs in one basket and for too long that has been the case. The more we diversify and establish other major trading partners the better off we are in the long run.

 

[IdahoCTD]

I'm not surprised with all the environ"mental"ist we have in this country that feel they need to push their agenda on the rest of the US. It's going to come to the point where people are going to have to pick reasonable prices at the pump/grocery store/etc. or the environment. I think eventually there will be a shift away from caring for the environment so much when people can't afford to feed their families or buy gas to go to work. Maybe the majority of the population has become too dumb to realize the full effect high gas prices actually have.

 

[baltz526]

As most Americans are finding out, Obama is intentionally driving the cost of energy up. Blocking off shore oil, regulating coal out of business, Stopping construction of the nuclear depository which kills all new nuclear power, regulating small local biomass power plants out of business and stopping all new project in the works. Affordable energy is the driving force of capitalism. Now Obama is cutting off another project. Ask yourself why Obama would want to direct this oil to china? He is doing it because he needs to subjugate America to china, to continue the democrat driven debt growth. Intentional subjugation is a good discription for the obama energy policy and many other policys his administration is driving. Why would obama seek to bankrupt citys/countys/states and the federal goverment?

 

[jmad_81]

Nothing like stomping on progress to help out a hurting economy. :roll:

 

[JD338]

I can't believe anyone would be that stupid to say no! Me thinks it is deliberate.

JD338

 

[CanuckBen]

Would any of you guys who fully supported the keystone pipeline also fully be ready to take all of the responsibilities for any spillage caused by ruptures in the said pipeline?

Will have to find the exact stats again, but the millions of barrel of crude oil spilled both in Canada’s and the US’s wildlife land was mind blowing.

Would you be ok in potentially spilling millions of gallons of crude oil in your back yard? I don’t think so. I respect the environment way to much to forgo that very know fact. Aren’t all hunters here? Those who enjoy the wildlife and all that it as to offer? What if for those near the then proposed route of the pipeline it would affected them directly in their hunting activity?

I’m sure also that you all are aware of where this oil is coming from right? Tar sands – not conventional crude oil. The exploitation of this type of oil is a far cry from what conventional oil drilling. Look and up and you’ll understand why the majority of Canadians are not in favour of it, expect the folks in Alberta of course.

 

[DrMike]

Ben,

I certainly appreciate your view; it obviously represents the concerns of a number of people. We who live in the west are compelled to live with oil and gas production and delivery. It is fair to say that if the cities would quit using the stuff, we'd quit pumping it. Oil from these tar sands have enriched Canada, allowing for considerable transfer of moneys to Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces to underwrite social programs. Similarly, the oil pumped and the gas derived by fracking the Bakken shale in Saskatchewan will provide considerable wealth to Canada. While everyone would like to see some form of "clean" energy, it won't happen right away. People living near wind farms, such as those on Bear Mountain which are visible from my home, or those situated on Lone Prairie to the west of us. are deplored because of all the birds--especially raptors--they are said to kill and because of the subsonic sounds that disrupt wildlife migration patterns and because of the physical distress claimed by people living nearby. Solar energy as a major provider of energy is impractical at this point. Likewise, nuclear energy makes many people very uncomfortable (witness the problems associated with the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station). Thus, in the short run, it is oil and gas that will continue to supply the demand for energy in Canada and in the United States. The question is not whether we should extract these resources, but where we will get the resources we demand. Will we continue to purchase ethical oil and gas, such as that produced in Canada; or will we purchase conflict oil from Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Because oil will continue to be purchased and used, will we transport via rail (which is considerably more expensive than pipeline and much more liable to spillage), via ocean tanker (again, more expensive and more susceptible to spillage) or via pipeline. Most people enjoy the benefits that come from a ready supply of oil and gas; but it is true that few people want a pipeline through their backyard. By the same token, few people appreciate the long-term desecration that attends incidental spillage at moorage or that occurs as result of grounding of ocean-going tankers. Neither does anyone enjoy the prospect of tank cars jumping the track and spilling their contents into the streams, lakes and forests, such as recently occurred north of Edmonton.

You really raise two points that deserve at least a cursory response. First, the tar sands do look hideous when viewed during the mining. Frankly, the pits look suspiciously like coal mines (of which there are a number in this immediate area) or perhaps even asbestos mines. What is seldom acknowledged by those offended by the tar sand pits is the excellent job of reclamation when the mining is concluded. These reclaimed areas are quite pristine (as are the coal mines that have been reclaimed in this area). Canada, and especially Alberta and British Columbia, has extremely strict regulations concerning reclamation of land following mining, including the mining of the tar sands. I don't want to be dismissive, but I do want to introduce another side concerning this mining.

Most of our gas and oil around where I live is from wells. All this gas and oil is transported across Canada and into the United States. The oil from Fort McMurray is combined to the oil pumped from wells in central and southern Alberta and northeastern British Columbia and piped to destinations to the east, to the west and to the south. Pipelines move massive volumes of oil and gas, and do so quite safely on a daily basis. Because of this, the availability of oil and gas to the great cities of the Midwestern United States, Central Canada and the Eastern seaboard is guaranteed and delivered more safely and at a substantially lower cost than were if transported by rail. To be certain, occasionally, ruptures in these pipelines have occurred. However, safety equipment shuts down the pumps immediately as the pressure drops and the transmission companies bear responsibility to clean up the spill (just as ocean tanker companies bear responsibility to clean the shorelines and the ocean bed when spillage occurs and as railroads bear responsibility to clean spillage when their tankers jump the tracks). Few of us have any idea of the number of miles of pipeline crisscrossing Canada and the United States. There are over 2.5 million miles of piping carrying natural gas and petroleum products in the United States. To move that volume of materials on a daily basis would require more trains than currently exist, and they would do so with less safety.

Undoubtedly, your concerns are genuine and there is need to address the problem of any damage to the environment. However, until we ween ourselves from energy, which isn't likely to happen within our lifetime, the proposed pipelines from the Fort McMurray facilities, whether these pipelines extend to Houston or whether they extend to Prince Rupert where the petroleum is loaded onto tankers for shipment to Asia, are going to be built.

 

[35 Whelen]

This is a great post Mike and I think you have nailed it. But you guys are giving this President; way toooooooo much credit. He has never worked ONE DAY in his whole life. He only knows what he was taught at law school. He has never luged in an armful of wood. Never sit on an outdoor toilet seat. Never changed his own oil. Probably never even mowed his own lawn; Never has had to stuggle for anything, he has no concept of work what so ever. He thinks work, is going to a government office; and having dougnuts and coffee, brought into you by a cute secretary . Hard work to him, would mean you had to stay until 5pm that day.
His whole policy, to create new jobs, was to start a construction project somewhere, and then fund it with printing press dollar bills; that you will soon be able to; wipe your "you know what" with. Every thing he has tryed that has failed, is funded with this phoney paper money . You can be wrong, and fail over and over, when all you have to do is just print somemore. I dont think he is really a bad fella and may very well, be doing the best he knows how.......................... he just doesnt know; how it all works in the real world, and has no idea how to get down to that level. If he spent one year out of his element; working in any industry as a common laborer, living in a single wide trailer, and just barely making it, he could come back, and probably do a great job .................. unfortunately he never will. Why he wont go for the pipeline will center around money of course and I dont blame the Canadains for finding new markets. If he gets back in and he probably will.................... I will predict $5 per gallon gas here by the time he is outta D.C. It sounded to me last nite like he is going to try the old "Santa Clause syndrome" and run this time on lets "tax the hell otta the rich" and that has worked very well for years in this country ; as it is exactly what the poor wants to hear . Just one problem with that platform. It never has worked, and never will, but people love the sound of that song. The rich have no intention of ever paying any tax; and never will. The working man is going to pay the taxes like they always have. Like old Warren Buffet said, he pays less tax rate than his secretary!

 

[Mooswa]

Very well said Mike and although many may not like some of what you said, it is the simple truth. No amount of bitching and whining is going to change what is, only time and resolve will do that.

I always find it funny that the people I know who complain bitterly about pipelines and the tar sands have done nothing on their own to wean themselves off of fossil fuels, whether it is heating their home with heating oil or natural gas, driving their vehicles using gas or diesel, or the electricity in their home powered by a coal powered plant.

It is much like the many individuals who despise hunting but drive a car with leather seats and sit down to a steak dinner. Few put their money and their actions where their mouth is. How many who campaign tirelessly against the oil and gas industry, have gone out and spent the money to install a solar system or a hybrid system to run their homes?

I am all for seeing an end to the use of fossil fuels, but as stated, it is not going to happen in our lifetime................ and in the interim the huge volume of oil and gas that is needed to fuel our major centers has to be delivered. Modern pipelines are the lesser of the evils.

 

[Oldtrader3]

At the same time, Obama is arm-twisting the EU governments to put a permanent embargo on Iranian oil which will drive European oil prices even higher than they are now and make the free flow of market oil less even than it has been for the past 2 years with ever higher prices. Just when some of the weaker EU economies are starting to stabilise and grow a little.

Dr. Steven Chu has never held a real job either and somehow these guys think that by driving US Government investment in $550 financial scams like the Solyndra fiasco will make up the lack of energy development with real, proven fuels of any sort. This Solyndra end game functioned accordingly and stole $550 million from the American Taxpayer! Now, in order to assure that this mandate has been followed, Chu has outlawed sale of the incandescent light bulbs and on it goes.

I am tired tonight and not organized but consider this: George Soros has contributed over $500 Million to Obama's various campaigns in the past 4 years. Soros is the Greek billionaire who renounced his Judaism as a youth and became a clearing clerk for Adolph Eichmann's, Final Solution (the SS) as a clerk for sending Jews to the gas chambers. This man (Soros) has a stated goal of replacing the US Constitution with his own version that closely matches the mandates of UN Security Council Resolution 21. Obama has publicly stated in the past two months that he will pursue this agenda in a second term as President. The dog will serve his master!

 

[CanuckBen]

Ben,

I certainly appreciate your view; it obviously represents the concerns of a number of people. We who live in the west are compelled to live with oil and gas production and delivery. It is fair to say that if the cities would quit using the stuff, we'd quit pumping it. Oil from these tar sands have enriched Canada, allowing for considerable transfer of moneys to Quebec and the Atlantic Provinces to underwrite social programs. Similarly, the oil pumped and the gas derived by fracking the Bakken shale in Saskatchewan will provide considerable wealth to Canada. While everyone would like to see some form of "clean" energy, it won't happen right away. People living near wind farms, such as those on Bear Mountain which are visible from my home, or those situated on Lone Prairie to the west of us. are deplored because of all the birds--especially raptors--they are said to kill and because of the subsonic sounds that disrupt wildlife migration patterns and because of the physical distress claimed by people living nearby. Solar energy as a major provider of energy is impractical at this point. Likewise, nuclear energy makes many people very uncomfortable (witness the problems associated with the Pickering Nuclear Generating Station). Thus, in the short run, it is oil and gas that will continue to supply the demand for energy in Canada and in the United States. The question is not whether we should extract these resources, but where we will get the resources we demand. Will we continue to purchase ethical oil and gas, such as that produced in Canada; or will we purchase conflict oil from Iran, Iraq, Venezuela and Saudi Arabia. Because oil will continue to be purchased and used, will we transport via rail (which is considerably more expensive than pipeline and much more liable to spillage), via ocean tanker (again, more expensive and more susceptible to spillage) or via pipeline. Most people enjoy the benefits that come from a ready supply of oil and gas; but it is true that few people want a pipeline through their backyard. By the same token, few people appreciate the long-term desecration that attends incidental spillage at moorage or that occurs as result of grounding of ocean-going tankers. Neither does anyone enjoy the prospect of tank cars jumping the track and spilling their contents into the streams, lakes and forests, such as recently occurred north of Edmonton.

Mike – I also appreciate your point of view.

I will ask a few questions that I know you will know the answer too, but perhaps not everyone does. What is the difference between the excavation and refining (well get into the transportation later) between the tar pits of Alberta and the Light Sweet Crude (LSC) as we know it from the standard oil drilling rigs?

To be able to transform the bitumen from Canada’s tar sand pits into usable oil (diesel and other bi-products such as adhesive and in building material), a refinery would need to employ steam injection while mixing it with other hydrocarbons as refining techniques.

I’m sure of it, but I’ll mention it anyways – you all are fully aware that this refining technique produces up to 4 times the amount of greenhouse gas emission PER BARREL when compared to the conventional oil (LSC) right?

That it be here, in Texas or elsewhere in the world, are you honestly ok with that? Or is it as long as we “enrich” ourselves in Canada, its ok?

You really raise two points that deserve at least a cursory response. First, the tar sands do look hideous when viewed during the mining. Frankly, the pits look suspiciously like coal mines (of which there are a number in this immediate area) or perhaps even asbestos mines. What is seldom acknowledged by those offended by the tar sand pits is the excellent job of reclamation when the mining is concluded. These reclaimed areas are quite pristine (as are the coal mines that have been reclaimed in this area). Canada, and especially Alberta and British Columbia, has extremely strict regulations concerning reclamation of land following mining, including the mining of the tar sands. I don't want to be dismissive, but I do want to introduce another side concerning this mining.

There is certainly no other way around it – the excavation of the tar sand pits MUST be highly and extremely regulated. Why would this be? Certainly not because they are a clean way of mining for a resource now would it!

The reclamation may be “pristine” (I personally wouldn’t go as far as calling it pristine as that’s pushing it imo), but is it better then when the pits were open? What about the displaced wildlife and natural habitats? Are they 100% replaced as they were? What about the any disruptions of underground water source? You can’t honestly tell me that all that matter is what hits the eyes. The tar sands are found underneath the Boreal forest – you CANNOT replace that. If you tell me you can, then this discussion will go circles with no end in sight!

I have seen for myself what the “controlled” exploitation of our natural resources will do to our natural landscape here in Quebec and Ontario with the mining and forestry industry. There is a very strong opposition in Quebec to the gas fracking. Even though it would be an immense income to the province and the country, we have realized that the environmental risks associated with currently proposed excavation methods supersede any possible income. We have immense mineral deposits in Quebec and any future excavation of it will be very highly regulated as well. We need to take charge of both and not let foreign companies be in control. We are world leaders in the production of hydro-electricity and we can become the same IF we take charge of our own gas and mining excavation.

Most of our gas and oil around where I live is from wells. All this gas and oil is transported across Canada and into the United States. The oil from Fort McMurray is combined to the oil pumped from wells in central and southern Alberta and northeastern British Columbia and piped to destinations to the east, to the west and to the south. Pipelines move massive volumes of oil and gas, and do so quite safely on a daily basis. Because of this, the availability of oil and gas to the great cities of the Midwestern United States, Central Canada and the Eastern seaboard is guaranteed and delivered more safely and at a substantially lower cost than were if transported by rail. To be certain, occasionally, ruptures in these pipelines have occurred. However, safety equipment shuts down the pumps immediately as the pressure drops and the transmission companies bear responsibility to clean up the spill (just as ocean tanker companies bear responsibility to clean the shorelines and the ocean bed when spillage occurs and as railroads bear responsibility to clean spillage when their tankers jump the tracks). Few of us have any idea of the number of miles of pipeline crisscrossing Canada and the United States. There are over 2.5 million miles of piping carrying natural gas and petroleum products in the United States. To move that volume of materials on a daily basis would require more trains than currently exist, and they would do so with less safety.

Undoubtedly, your concerns are genuine and there is need to address the problem of any damage to the environment. However, until we ween ourselves from energy, which isn't likely to happen within our lifetime, the proposed pipelines from the Fort McMurray facilities, whether these pipelines extend to Houston or whether they extend to Prince Rupert where the petroleum is loaded onto tankers for shipment to Asia, are going to be built.

I was not aware that it was possible to mix within the same pipeline unrefined tar sands with any other kind of oil?

The usage of pipelines to move any type of material is indeed cheaper, I agree with you. But again does “cheaper” supersedes the potential risk of spillage – even if its ONE spill – over say the Ogalalla Aquifer, which is the groundwater resource from which U.S. states, from South Dakota to Texas, pull from for drinking water needs? What about the folks in Nebraska, who clearly see a great risk to irrigation water they use?

Both sides of the political spectrum in the US have said loud and clear on many occasions that they didn’t want this pipeline extension. Clearly this isn’t the case in Canada where our right-wing Conservative party could not care less – export, export, export it as fast as possible and let the others take care of the fallout from its production. I know it must come as a shocker to see a fellow Canadian be so concerned about the environmental impact the refining of tar sands in the US will have, but their environment is our environment – it belongs to everyone on this planet.

I’m attaching a number of links below for anyone who’d want to read up on it some more, from this side of the perspective of course. I know full well that I am probably the only member of this board on stands on this side of the isle and I’m perfectly fine with that as its not uncommon that I am the only center-left-wing political member in an hunting forum. Let the onslaught begin!

http://www.canadians.org/energy/issues/tarsands/
http://www.naturecanada.ca/enews_jan09_tarsands.asp
http://www.tarsandsaction.org/spread-th ... ystone-xl/
http://www.texansagainsttarsands.org/

 

[DrMike]

Ben,

Undoubtedly some would slag anyone who holds a point of view that differs. I would hope that would not be the case on this forum. Perhaps you are somewhat left of me, but that doesn't mean that I should dismiss your concerns anymore than you should dismiss my views. I assume that both of us seek what is best; and I do recognise in you one who enjoys the outdoors and has respect for the environment, just as I do. There is great concern for the production of greenhouse gases, and the tar sands have been condemned for generating more greenhouse gases. I'll respond by first noting that many (dare I say most) climatologists and atmospheric scientists question the impact of greenhouse gases on the earth's environment. These scientists do not get the publicity of their more vocal brethren, and when they do speak in the popular press, they are ignored or dismissed by advocacy journalists and politicians. Again, whether the petroleum products are produced from bitumen or from wells, it will be consumed, producing greenhouse gases. Certainly, the production of such gases by Asian nations that are far less concerned for the environment than for the generation of wealth will continue regardless of the source of energy.

I question how extensive the displacement of wildlife may be as result of the mining operations. To be certain, ungulates and predators don't hang around to see what is going on. However, in areas that I can assess in my own AO, I can tell you that the reclaimed mines hold far more animals than were present prior to the mining operations. The exploration for oil and gas has opened large tracts of land that result in ungulate populations that are markedly more dense than prior to the exploration. Certainly, in this immediate area, these mine sites and well sites combined with the need to harvest vast tracts because of the pine beetle infestation has resulted in population increases in all ungulate populations, and consequently in predator populations, as they adapt to the increased availability of food.

I believe we can agree on the need for sensible regulation of mining operations. You say

We have immense mineral deposits in Quebec and any future excavation of it will be very highly regulated as well. We need to take charge of both and not let foreign companies be in control. We are world leaders in the production of hydro-electricity and we can become the same IF we take charge of our own gas and mining excavation.

I unreservedly agree with your point in this instance. The responsibility for Quebec lies in assessing the need and assuming oversight of the operation. I would argue that Alberta and British Columbia (and now Saskatchewan and Newfoundland) have assumed those same responsibilities for the various operations in question.

As for the replacement of the Boreal forests, I am not a forester, so I acknowledge my lack of credentials in addressing the issue. However, I do know that I hunt a fair number of second growth (and even third growth) forests in my own AO, and few people are even aware of the history of the forests they love. I am aware that Alberta does not allow wholesale deforestation of the northern areas where the mines are situated. The amount of land affected by the mining is certainly less than that inundated by the creation of one major lake created for power generation--and that is land that will be unreclaimed forever.

As to opposition to the Keystone Pipeline in the United States, it is important to note the tens of thousands of miles of pipelines that are already located in the Ogallala Aquifer. The pipeline was already approved by all states through which it would pass save for Nebraska. The Governor of Nebraska has stated that his state is prepared to approve an alternative route, which was previously approved by the Department of State, and the entire project could have been approved by September of this current year. Unfortunately, the approval (previously granted, may I remind you) was politicized because this was an election year.

Again, the tar sands facilities are already in place. They will continue to produce petroleum, and the petroleum will be sold on the world market. The United States will continue to be a major consumer of petroleum products. They will continue to purchase petroleum from foreign markets that in many instances are hostile to western democracies, or they can seek an ethical supplier (Canada). The petroleum will be transported, and there will be far greater likelihood of spillage if the primary transportation is via rail and/or highway than if it is by pipeline.

I suspect you are not as lonely in your views as you project, Ben. There are others who are uncomfortable with any prospect of destroying the land or permanently altering the environment. However, not all are prepared to advocate a cessation of mineral extraction until every objection is allayed. I hold that it is possible to reduce risks to the environment and to avoid permanent destruction of the land through reasonable oversight and through regulation of the process. I will say that I have not often witnessed governmental regulation that works as well as self-regulation imposed out of economic concern. Companies do not like receiving a black eye in the press, knowing that bad press will result in loss of income. Thus, through keeping the spotlight on their facilities and production methods, they will endeavour to avoid poor press.

 

[Oldtrader3]

Would any of you guys who fully supported the keystone pipeline also fully be ready to take all of the responsibilities for any spillage caused by ruptures in the said pipeline?

Will have to find the exact stats again, but the millions of barrel of crude oil spilled both in Canada’s and the US’s wildlife land was mind blowing.

Would you be ok in potentially spilling millions of gallons of crude oil in your back yard? I don’t think so. I respect the environment way to much to forgo that very know fact. Aren’t all hunters here? Those who enjoy the wildlife and all that it as to offer? What if for those near the then proposed route of the pipeline it would affected them directly in their hunting activity?

I’m sure also that you all are aware of where this oil is coming from right? Tar sands – not conventional crude oil. The exploitation of this type of oil is a far cry from what conventional oil drilling. Look and up and you’ll understand why the majority of Canadians are not in favour of it, expect the folks in Alberta of course.

Ben, I can relate to what you are saying. I worked on some mining properties in the Cadillac Malartic district of Quebec some years ago and remember the blight on the land from the cyanide leaching gold mining and tailings dumps that went on in the region back around the turn into the 20th century. Many areas are still deviod of vegetation and game 100 years later because of the lack of concern for the land and lack of plans to ever use that strip along the Cadillac Highway for anything useful ever again. This are was just abandoned helter skelter when the ore ran dry and no one ever worried about what they had nearly permanently done to the land.

I think that we need to use these example as warnings on what not to do in the future. They should not necessarily be used as beacons to stop all future development, use and explotation of natural resources and expecially the use of pipelines to transport oill sands or minerals to market.

The rules are already there. The government has the tools to monitor and verify that these companies are doing things by the book but these agancies do not do their jobs either. Look at the record of the FDA on medical enforcement and safety inspections.

You can not totally derail progresss and supplying the raw material needs of an industrial economy just because a few people cheat and break the laws. The enforcement agencies need to also step up to the plate and support the process efficacy and safety for the greater good of us all.

 

[Mooswa]

Ben......... I am much more on your side than you may think.

I am someone who has had to spend most of my adult life fighting with logging and mining companies to try and protect places that I not only enjoyed as an individual, but that were essential for my ability to make a living. I have been forced to swallow the bitter pill on more than one occasion that mineral extraction of one kind or another, and timber extraction were going to happen whether I liked it or not and that my livelihood and that of my employees was of no concern in the big picture.

I have personally had drilling take place on my home property when I lived in Alberta and I had friends who were severely impacted by mineral exploration and extraction on their privately owned land, including spills and the loss of water wells due to the intrusion of gas or contaminants.

No.......... I am on a personal level not a big fan of mining and logging companies in general because I know how easily they simply brush the concerns and interests of the little guy aside. And although media attention will cause them to pause and even change the way they do things on occasion, generally they just carry on unless they experience a media frenzy. Only then do you see constructive changes.

I worked in the Ft. McMurray area back in the late 70's and even then I questioned some of what was going on as a concerned individual. Today, the tar sands development is far larger than it was back then and I know that a lot of the issues raised by people who live there, including the First Nations, are valid ones.......... because I have seen it.

When I lived in the Peace country I was surrounded by gas wells and in recent times there has been a big increase in sour gas wells. Flare stacks are rarely out of site at night in much of that country. The people who live there have valid concerns about well contamination and the crud that is created by the flaring which is spewed into the air and settling on the land around them.

The reality is however that you just can't shut down the entire industry overnight because changes are needed and mankind as a whole needs to head in another direction with renewable energy. It simply is not going to happen no matter how much we detest certain aspects of the industry as individuals.

It really does come down to accepting the lesser of the evils and again, regardless of our perceptions of things as an individual, the almighty dollar will dictate what happens in the end. For ever person who sincerely despises the way things are and actually fights for change, there are another 50 who barely have any idea of what all of the fuss is about because they can't or don't want to think about things any deeper than what is happening on American Idol and who the Argonauts are playing on Sunday.

As far as wildlife goes............. as a person who has spent a great deal of time in areas with very active mining operations and logging companies................. I would say that the operations themselves have far less impact on the local wildlife than the population increase that occurs with the development of mining towns and the easy access created with thousands of miles of logging and exploration roads, pipelines and seismic lines.

 

[DrMike]

As far as wildlife goes............. as a person who has spent a great deal of time in areas with very active mining operations and logging companies................. I would say that the operations themselves have far less impact on the local wildlife than the population increase that occurs with the development of mining towns and the easy access created with thousands of miles of logging and exploration roads, pipelines and seismic lines.

+1

The increased population from major population centres that now have access to what was once accessible only by foot or horseback, has a decidedly detrimental effect. Again, some steps have been taken to decrease this impact, and undoubtedly more can be done.

 

[CanuckBen]

Mike

I was wondering what your thoughts were in regards to the news of today that PetroChina Co Ltd announced their agreement to buy a 20 percent stake in a shale gas project in Canada from Royal Dutch Shell Plc for an estimated $1 billion. This goes with the $5.5billion worth of Canadian assests that Chinese firms since July 2011.

Say we completely set aside any environmental issues (which would be idiotic and you agree with that), should the dig of the tar sand (in this case above gas frackling) be done at any cost, even if that is selling off our assets to foreign holders?

To me this must be of the upmost importance that if this gets done (and done properly), that it gets done by domestic assets or we may as well it away!!

 

[Oldtrader3]

Ben, You would consider setting aside any environmental concerns to please the Chinese? Have you been to China and tried to breath their air lately? Or seen any of the other massive acts against their own people that they routinely do at home that would send them to prison here? This, let alone selling them the most valuble asset that you have right now in your possession, with out safeguards? They will leave a huge mess and you will have nothing!

Believe me when I say after working in China for 7 years, the Chinese Officials are not your friends! They are carnivorous thieves, irrespective of their Socialism which the French seem to always admire.

 

[CanuckBen]

Ben, You would consider setting aside any environmental concerns to please the Chinese? Have you been to China and tried to breath their air lately? Or seen any of the other massive acts against their own people that they routinely do at home that would send them to prison here? This, let alone selling them the most valuble asset that you have right now in your possession, with out safeguards? They will leave a huge mess and you will have nothing!

Believe me when I say after working in China for 7 years, the Chinese Officials are not your friends! They are carnivorous thieves, irrespective of their Socialism which the French seem to always admire.

Actually OldTrader3 I'm saying the exact opposite!!!

The intent of my post was to question whether or not those very much in favor of the tar sand exploitation would still support it no matter who holds all the cards (canadian or foreign company). It was meant to push the discussion some more towards protecting our own assets, eventhough I certainly do not support the way it's being done right now!!!

 

[CanuckBen]

Ohh and also.

I'm a French-Canadian, a centre-left leaning political supporter on most issues/subject, an atheist, which (here) probably (definately?) makes me, for one, a socialist too :wink:

Don't mean I like 'em or support how they go about their business in any means!