Tar Sands Debate

[troutman]

http://www.pages.ab.ca/index.html

For a lively discussion on the merits and dangers of developing Alberta's oil sands, come to the Plaza Theatre for a debate between Ezra Levant and Andrew Nikiforuk.

Levant, author of "Ethical Oil: The Case for Canada's Oil Sands" will argue that the ethical cost of buying cheap oil from corrupt regimes is far too high. He feels that oil from a democratic state is an asset to world peace and stability. In contrast, Nikiforuk argues in his book, "Tar Sands: Dirty Oil and the Future of a Continent," that the environmental cost of developing Canada's oil sands will irreparably harm our environment. Nikiforuk would like an immediate moratorium on oil sands development.

The event takes place on Sunday, November 7 at 11:00AM (doors open at 10:30). General admission is $5.00. Lunch is also available, prepared by Red Tree Catering. Admission plus lunch is $15.00; admission plus Levant's hardcover book is $30.00; and admission plus lunch plus Levant's book is $40.00.

[Frequitude]

Serious question, why do the Oil Sands receive so much negative attention and coal does not?

I'm not trying to say "well they're bad too so we're ok", because I hate it when this arguement is made. The Oil Sands do have a huge environmental impact. Don't paint it any other way.

But really, coal is really bad. And its used to make electricity, something that today is being produced renewably. The only alternative to the Oil Sands right now is to buy it from someone else.

It just baffles me.

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Frequitude

Serious question, why do the Oil Sands receive so much negative attention and coal does not?

I'm not trying to say "well they're bad too so we're ok", because I hate it when this arguement is made. The Oil Sands do have a huge environmental impact. Don't paint it any other way.

But really, coal is really bad. And its used to make electricity, something that today is being produced renewably. The only alternative to the Oil Sands right now is to buy it from someone else.

It just baffles me.

The Oil Sands are an easier target. They're limited to a specific geographic area, so it's easy to say those evil Albertans are destroying the world; you can also show pictures of the tailings ponds, oil coated ducks and maps showing how big the area supposedly is.

If you target coal, on the other hand, pretty much no matter where you live you're potentially hurting your own area's economy; it's also so pervasive and such a big part of power generation that you'll have a lot more opposition. The diffusive nature of the coal industry also makes it harder to come up with those graphic pictures to get people on your side.

[CaptainCrunch]

If you target Coal, your going after Russia, China and the States. Of the first two any protests will be harshly dealt with, and the States probably doesn't care too much right now with the economy the way it is.

Plus its got the cute sad factor which is the greatest sales piece ever created.

what would you rather show when your fund raising. Some smoke stacks spewing smoke? Or cute ducks and baby bunnies coated in goop? People won't open their wallets for air pollution, but they'll practically hand you their wallet for the fuzzy bunnies.

Plus we're Canada, we're nice guys, we won't do anything but write a sternly worded letter.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you target Coal, your going after Russia, China and the States. Of the first two any protests will be harshly dealt with, and the States probably doesn't care too much right now with the economy the way it is.

Plus its got the cute sad factor which is the greatest sales piece ever created.

what would you rather show when your fund raising. Some smoke stacks spewing smoke? Or cute ducks and baby bunnies coated in goop? People won't open their wallets for air pollution, but they'll practically hand you their wallet for the fuzzy bunnies.

Plus we're Canada, we're nice guys, we won't do anything but write a sternly worded letter.

We will also take Hollywood directors on helicopter rides. Sternly worded letters and helicopter rides, the keys to public relations.

[Bill Bumface]

I love the "Tar Sands" vs. "Oil Sands" naming convention. "Tar sounds dirtier, and stickier! That will get people on our side!"

[rubecube]

I actually saw Levant speak at a conference out here a few weeks back. Normally I find him to be a little too far right for me but his arguments in favour of the oil sands was pretty solid and compelling. Wish I could attend this because I'm sure it would be an interesting debate.

At one point Levant asked: if you were at a gas station and there were three pumps labeled "Canada," "Saudi Arabia," and "Venezuela," which one would you be more likely to buy?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If you target Coal, your going after Russia, China and the States. Of the first two any protests will be harshly dealt with, and the States probably doesn't care too much right now with the economy the way it is.

Plus its got the cute sad factor which is the greatest sales piece ever created.

what would you rather show when your fund raising. Some smoke stacks spewing smoke? Or cute ducks and baby bunnies coated in goop? People won't open their wallets for air pollution, but they'll practically hand you their wallet for the fuzzy bunnies.

Plus we're Canada, we're nice guys, we won't do anything but write a sternly worded letter.

Plus it competes against oil directly purchased from the Kingdom of Saud who has deep corrupt pockets to fund campaigns against it.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by hulkrogan

I love the "Tar Sands" vs. "Oil Sands" naming convention. "Tar sounds dirtier, and stickier! That will get people on our side!"

In fairness, bitumen is a lot more tar-like than it is oil-like in its raw form. It is funny, however, that most that are in favour refer to it as "oil sands" and those opposed refer to it as "tar sands".

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

There's a crazy debate (shrill fest) between Levant and greenpeace that made me laugh. Dude is over the top.

http://albertaprimetime.com/Stories....PTG_091610.flv

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

In fairness, bitumen is a lot more tar-like than it is oil-like in its raw form. It is funny, however, that most that are in favour refer to it as "oil sands" and those opposed refer to it as "tar sands".

I totally agree, I just find it funny how you can often tell what side of the debate someone is on right away by what word they use for it. It's pretty nasty crap. I wouldn't want to be involved in a tar/oil sand flinging fight.

[troutman]

Levant is strangely enough being given time on a CBC Radio show Saturday mornings. They seem to know it is an odd fit, and invite people to respond to his opinions.

[tete]

Originally Posted by troutman

Levant is strangely enough being given time on a CBC Radio show Saturday mornings. They seem to know it is an odd fit, and invite people to respond to his opinions.

Levant and Nikiforuk faced off on CBC's "Q" about a month ago on the oil sands topic. They're both fruit loop crazy, but I found myself siding with Levant - no surprise since I'm in the industry.

I think one of the things that needs to be publicized more by oil and gas companies is their R&D. Companies are spending billions in R&D trying to find ways to reduce water consumption and tailings, but that seems to get missed in all the debate. I have seen a few ads by CAPP, I think, about remediation, but it's still not much.

[theonlywhiteout]

the tar sands are an ecological nightmare... but i also like money. it's a crappy reality

[blankall]

The oil/tar sands contribute about 3% of Canada's total greenhouse gasses, yet produce a much larger part of Canada's total GDP.

If Canada wants to cut its ommisions much better targets would be the manufacturing industry in Ontario. Instead we see the government doing everything in its power to prop that industry up. Not only is it a far greater polluter than the oil/tar sands, it is no longer economically viable.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by tete

Levant and Nikiforuk faced off on CBC's "Q" about a month ago on the oil sands topic. They're both fruit loop crazy, but I found myself siding with Levant - no surprise since I'm in the industry.

Thanks, I found the debate here:

http://www.cbc.ca/q/blog/2010/09/15/...-oil-on-earth/

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by blankall

The oil/tar sands contribute about 3% of Canada's total greenhouse gasses, yet produce a much larger part of Canada's total GDP.

If Canada wants to cut its ommisions much better targets would be the manufacturing industry in Ontario. Instead we see the government doing everything in its power to prop that industry up. Not only is it a far greater polluter than the oil/tar sands, it is no longer economically viable.

Any government that put any kind of restrictions on Onatario manufacturing can count on losing the next election.

Thats why when Stephane Dion was promoting his green plan he focused it around the Oil industry while igoring the auto and manufacturing industry.

Alberta's energy industry will always be a poking stick target under the current voting system.

[Jimmy Stang]

Surely there must less extreme people that could actually have a productive debate. I know that entertainment sells, but I find myself having a hard time siding with either of these guys.

I understand that the world needs oil, and the demand isn't going away overnight. I'm also concerned about the environmental impact of the oil sands. Surely it would be more productive to be realistic and acknowledge that: yes, the oil sands are necessary and yes, there is an environmental impact. Now let's grow the eff up and figure out some realistic ways to move forward.

Getting stuck in this "try going without oil, hippie" and "the world shouldn't use anymore oil" argument is really not helping either cause.

[MotoRacer]

moratoriam! LOL! these yahoos can blah blah blah all they want

world needs oil, and these will be developed. End of story.

[GGG]

in the 100 year time frame they aren't all that bad ecologically. Suncor just finished reclaiming its first tailings pond. So even the dreaded mines essentially can put things back the way they found it.

I really think that Alberta should go on the offensive and brand ourselves as 'Terror free oil' and 'oppression free oil' I haven't read levants book but it sounds like a similar stance. Usually I disagree with him but here and on human rights commissions he makes excellent points