Oilsands 'much worse' than BP spill: U.S. campaign

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by Addick

How about per capita?

Its terrible but we live in a large country and the climate is pretty harsh.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

As an aside they should be foccussing alot more on China and Japan, and thankfully plans are in place for a pipeline to the west coast, now we just have to get the native groups on board - I wonder who is more difficult to deal with, them or green peace?

Definitely the natives... Greenpeace doesn't have land rights. Ring road, anyone?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Addick

How about per capita?

The environment does not exist on a per capita basis. That alone is why Kyoto was garbage from day one. China and India cause far, far, far more damage to the environment than Canada ever will.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

The real truth is America and their way of life is the world's greatest environmental disaster.

I seriously have the biggest love/hate relationship with that country.

Originally Posted by zarrell

Go ahead and add Canada, Europe and pretty much any other developed country in the world to that list.

You want to talk environmental pollution, how about nations like China and India that will effectively burn anything for power? Dont see the States trashing them, then again you dont generally see many people going there for the local tourism.

Comparing the Oilsands to the BP Gulf disaster is laughable at best.

San Francisco advertising agency eh? Goddamn Hippies!

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Does anyone else find it laughable that people from the same state as Bakersfield, are advocating staying away from an entire provice because there is a large oil development that they think is destroying the environment?

Damn, I guess if I subscribe to their logic, I'll never be going to Disneyland ever again.

[Russic]

Originally Posted by fotze

No, just show gas costing 8 bucks per gallon, no one gives a crap about the environment over having cheap gas.

Exactly. This was the same reaction to watching Food Inc. People see the conditions that the animals live in and there is outrage, but at the end of the day nobody is going to pay $8 for a Big Mac.

People* care about the welfare of animals or the Earth up until it impacts the type of living they've grown accustomed to.

*Obviously not all people, but the vast majority.

[octothorp]

You'd never see someone advocating against the New Orleans tourism industry because of the BP Oil spill; it would be not only disingenuous but downright unethical, and you would have to really seriously question the motives of anyone who did so. Advocating against the Alberta tourism industry is similarly unfounded; the industry is not the region.

Let's be clear; a few billboards is not going to have any significant impact on the Alberta tourism industry. But let's say, hypothetically, that it did and tourism in Alberta went into the tank... what would be the effect? A province that is even more dependent upon the petroleum industry, and thus a province that would consider easing oil sands development restrictions further. If you ask the province to choose between a policy that hurts tourism or that hurts oil and gas revenue, they'll protect O&G every time. Conversely, policies that positively impact economic diversity in Alberta strengthen the
province and give it a better bargaining position to increase economic restrictions on the industry.

So either their understanding of the factors at play is completely delusional, or their agenda isn't nearly as upfront as they make it out to be.

[IliketoPuck]

I smell coverup! Nice breakdown octo.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by octothorp

So either their understanding of the factors at play is completely delusional, or their agenda isn't nearly as upfront as they make it out to be.

We could just blame Ontario?

[IliketoPuck]

No, then they would want more subsidies from us to keep their mediocre car manufacturing industry going.

edit: And then all of eastern Canada would want in on the susidies, and we would eventually just have to create a pipeline to the East to funnel all the money to them.

[Bertuzzied]

It's been capped!!!

Holy BP shares just spiked right at the end! I wish i had bought those $35 calls last week.

[IliketoPuck]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

It's been capped!!!

Holy BP shares just spiked right at the end! I wish i had bought those $35 calls last week.

I would be careful of BP right now man.

There is alot of things about the accident that haven't come to light yet.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by octothorp

You'd never see someone advocating against the New Orleans tourism industry because of the BP Oil spill; it would be not only disingenuous but downright unethical, and you would have to really seriously question the motives of anyone who did so. Advocating against the Alberta tourism industry is similarly unfounded; the industry is not the region.

Let's be clear; a few billboards is not going to have any significant impact on the Alberta tourism industry. But let's say, hypothetically, that it did and tourism in Alberta went into the tank... what would be the effect? A province that is even more dependent upon the petroleum industry, and thus a province that would consider easing oil sands development restrictions further. If you ask the province to choose between a policy that hurts tourism or that hurts oil and gas revenue, they'll protect O&G every time. Conversely, policies that positively impact economic diversity in Alberta strengthen the
province and give it a better bargaining position to increase economic restrictions on the industry.

So either their understanding of the factors at play is completely delusional, or their agenda isn't nearly as upfront as they make it out to be.

I suppose the difference is that the Alberta oil sands are essentially planned environmental destruction, supported and regulated by the Alberta government, whereas the Gulf spill was an accident. Not an exact comparison. I don't care either way, but I would assume that's their angle.

Can someone play the devil's advocate for me and tell me what the actual environmental impact of the oilsands is? Is it primarily GHG? Destruction of wetland/habitat? Use of fresh water? And if it's GHG (or something like that), exactly what process is causing that?

[Bigtime]

The spill is capped so we are officially the worst oil again...

Didn't you all hear? The minute the well capped all the oil in the gulf just went away.

[IliketoPuck]

Yep, it just got all up in the Gulf Stream and washed away.......

I really hope they get the majority of it cleaned up before hurricanes start using the oil like a salad dressing on the southern states.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Can someone play the devil's advocate for me and tell me what the actual environmental impact of the oilsands is? Is it primarily GHG? Destruction of wetland/habitat? Use of fresh water? And if it's GHG (or something like that), exactly what process is causing that?

Well, let's see:

• It's the poisoning of our soils with Satanic / Energy company-based chemicals;
• a raping of Mother Nature right in the butthole with oil-based lubricants;
• the wanton and chlorophyll-splattering destruction of the surrounding ancient trees; and
• the evil oil and gas employees across the province that continually take metaphorical dumps in our fresh water supply every day.

Oh, and don't forget that the heavy extraction equipment up there, combined with the rich slobs, the drugs and the money... make for a fine cardinal cocktail of death, gore, Extravagance, Lust, Gluttony, Greed, Acedia, Despair, Sloth, Wrath, Envy, Pride and Vainglory.

Oh, and I'm sure someone has kicked a puppy up there, too.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I suppose the difference is that the Alberta oil sands are essentially planned environmental destruction, supported and regulated by the Alberta government, whereas the Gulf spill was an accident. Not an exact comparison. I don't care either way, but I would assume that's their angle.

Can someone play the devil's advocate for me and tell me what the actual environmental impact of the oilsands is? Is it primarily GHG? Destruction of wetland/habitat? Use of fresh water? And if it's GHG (or something like that), exactly what process is causing that?

The New York Times earlier this month ran a piece indicating the GHG impact of producing a barrel of oil in Fort McMurray is 1.4 times that of a conventional barrel. Enviromentalists, of course, would claim something much higher but the NYT isn't exactly on the side of the oil sands so . . .

The oil sands is one of the largest industrial projects on Earth, if not the largest, yet it occupies a relative postage-stamp sized plot of land, relative to the wilderness surrounding it, and you have to drive about three or four hours away from civilization before you can even get to it.

Compare that to the impact of the BP spill, where oil might end up going up the eastern seaboard . . . . let alone the impact to highly populated areas in the Gulf.

The real impact of Fort McMurray is a damaged watershed and, of course, GHG if you think that's an issue (and some don't).

Everyone wants to live in a cleaner world. There are some small groups around who say, "Humans won. Let's pave the world and kill all the animals" but those are few and far between. So there is a role for environmentalists to focus pressure for a cleaner world. We all want it but generally, we are selfish and do not want to be inconvenienced for it.

It's smart, of course, for extremist environmental groups to perpetuate the big lie because the other side has to answer and when they do, the debate is on and secondly, they actually ARE guilty of something.

In the end though, this really means nothing to what happens in Fort McMurray. If the Americans are dense enough to reject oil production from up there the Chinese will buy it or it will be otherwise absorbed into the global supply.

The billboards may stick and have some impact on tourism. That's where the impact might be. Maybe.

Cowperson

[troutman]

Some good news - has BP stopped the flow? Just a test?

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/20.../14724776.html

BP Plc said it shut its gushing Gulf of Mexico oil leak Thursday as part of a key pressure test, marking the first time since late April that the company has stopped the flow into the sea.

“There is no flow of oil going into the Gulf of Mexico,” Kent Wells, BP’s senior vice president of exploration and production, told reporters minutes after the shutoff at 2:25 p.m. CDT.


No oil leaking as BP begins critical pressure tests in Gulf oil well
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/07/15/gul...ex.html?hpt=C1

[Flames0910]

Yup. I always check what the billboards are saying when I'm making travel plans to beautiful Banff National Park.

This won't have any discernible impact on tourism.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I suppose the difference is that the Alberta oil sands are essentially planned environmental destruction, supported and regulated by the Alberta government, whereas the Gulf spill was an accident. Not an exact comparison. I don't care either way, but I would assume that's their angle.

Can someone play the devil's advocate for me and tell me what the actual environmental impact of the oilsands is? Is it primarily GHG? Destruction of wetland/habitat? Use of fresh water? And if it's GHG (or something like that), exactly what process is causing that?

I think that raises an interesting point, but arguably many of the factors relating to the PB leak can be traced back to a lack of oversite by a government department that was at best missing-in-action and at worst complicit in the industry's negligence. While you may be right that Alberta's environmental destruction is more planned, the most famous incident (the syncrude ducks) can be traced to one company's errors.

Like you say, we need a better understanding of the factors involved in the oilsands environmental impact. I certainly don't have that knowledge. But from this ad campaign, you'd think that it was acute ecological damage, which I don't think is the case.