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

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by HOZ

We should all refuse to use petroleum based products and live on faerie dust and unicorn power!

There's no job market for designing piping systems for faerie dust and unicorn power so I'm going to have to opt out of your plan.

[shermanator]

Originally Posted by HOZ

We should all refuse to use petroleum based products and live on faerie dust and unicorn power!

As long as I can doing that makes me burn my pants! These things have been bugging me all day!

[Kipper is King]

Originally Posted by Reaper

There's no job market for designing piping systems for faerie dust and unicorn power so I'm going to have to opt out of your plan.

Actually, the job market is fairy good!

[Sluggo]

This ad is more to rally the Environmentalists than anything else. The Gulf oil spill has been a big distraction to their strategy of focusing all their energy on one big environmental issue and it can only hurt their cause by kicking their own people (Gulf Residents) when they are already down.

[Sluggo]

Forgot to mention that the oil industry is already kicking tourism's butt by inflating the dollar's value if they really wanted to hurt Alberta tourism they should be supporting oil sands development.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Sluggo

This ad is more to rally the Environmentalists than anything else. The Gulf oil spill has been a big distraction to their strategy of focusing all their energy on one big environmental issue and it can only hurt their cause by kicking their own people (Gulf Residents) when they are already down.

This campaign from environmental groups is very definitely a reaction to the earlier Alberta government boast that the Oil Sands were a safer and environmentally more palatable option to drilling in the Gulf.

Cowperson

[Jimdon]

Welcome to the propaganda machine that is the US government, the truth is what they tell you it is, and if it isn't, they'll make it that way. All hail the almighty dollar.

[Burninator]

Originally Posted by Jimdon

Welcome to the propaganda machine that is the US government, the truth is what they tell you it is, and if it isn't, they'll make it that way. All hail the almighty dollar.

How does that relate to this topic at all?

[MelBridgeman]

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/0...ing-error.html

Anti-oilsands video has 'editing error'

Its Rethink Alberta website posted a 90-second video that said oilsands development in Alberta is destroying an area twice the size of England.


Kenny Bruno, a spokesman for Corporate Ethics International, said the video meant to say the area is actually the size of England, period. That's about 130,000 square kilometres.

ooopsies

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by MelBridgeman

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2010/0...ing-error.html





ooopsies

Why would they need to exaggerate that? As if an area the size of England being raped isn't bad enough.

[burn_this_city]

Its such a gross over exaggeration regardless. A very small percentage is open to strip mining and the rest is in-situ. In-situ extraction is about as hard on the land as conventional drilling.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Its such a gross over exaggeration regardless. A very small percentage is open to strip mining and the rest is in-situ. In-situ extraction is about as hard on the land as conventional drilling.

Wasn't there just a few days ago some accident involving in situ extraction near Conklin?

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Wasn't there just a few days ago some accident involving in situ extraction near Conklin?

Not that I heard of. What kind of accident??

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

Why would they need to exaggerate that? As if an area the size of England being raped isn't bad enough.

England is 32.2 million acres of land.

The actual amount of land physically turned over or otherwise disturbed by oil sands development to date is depending on whom you believe, somewhere between 150,000 acres and 250,000 acres (of disturbed wetlands as it was described on the site of one environmental group).

So . . . . that's about 95.3% or a 92.2% exaggeration, depending whom you believe.

Environmentalists might like to note that land leased for oil sand exploration and development is, I think, 20 million acres.

That's about 62% of England.

Alberta is 163.4 million acres. So, about 12% of the province has been leased for oil sands exploration and development. That means 88% of the province has not been leased for that purpose.

Cowperson

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

England is 32.2 million acres of land.

The actual amount of land physically turned over or otherwise disturbed by oil sands development to date is depending on whom you believe, somewhere between 150,000 acres and 250,000 acres (of disturbed wetlands as it was described on the site of one environmental group).

So . . . . that's about 95.3% or a 92.2% exaggeration, depending whom you believe.

Environmentalists might like to note that land leased for oil sand exploration and development is, I think, 20 million acres.

That's about 62% of England.

Alberta is 163.4 million acres. So, about 12% of the province has been leased for oil sands exploration and development. That means 88% of the province has not been leased for that purpose.

Cowperson

I think the ad is referring to the total size of the bitumen deposits, which is slightly larger than the size of England, not just the currently uprooted and/or contaminated parts of it. Not sure why you used a number representing only wetlands.

Current land leased for E&D is, yes, around 21M acres -- 84,000 square kilometres or so, roughly the size of Scotland, I think. An area almost as large as the state of Florida. Maybe they would have been better off using those comparisons -- or any number of others. Over 4000 square kilometers of that belongs to a company in Texas.

Does anyone have an average amount of land leased per-year by the Alberta government?

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

England is 32.2 million acres of land.

The actual amount of land physically turned over or otherwise disturbed by oil sands development to date is depending on whom you believe, somewhere between 150,000 acres and 250,000 acres (of disturbed wetlands as it was described on the site of one environmental group).

So . . . . that's about 95.3% or a 92.2% exaggeration, depending whom you believe.

Actually, that would be a 12,780% to 21,367% exaggeration. Twice the size on England makes it 25,660% to 42,833%.

If you assume all leased land is destroyed (which is really a piss-poor assumption), it's still 53% (using 21M). Twice the size of England makes it 207%.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

I think the ad is referring to the total size of the bitumen deposits, which is slightly larger than the size of England, not just the currently uprooted and/or contaminated parts of it. Not sure why you used a number representing only wetlands.

So they are exaggerating and being intentionally misleading.

In related news...

In California, approximately 159 thousand square miles of land (an area the size of the state of California) is covered by nearly 40 million people and their 32 million cars and trucks.

Maybe they should look at cleaning up their own act a little. But they won't, so on it will go.

The only winner here is whoever sold them billboard space for 50 grand. He'll probably go buy an Escalade with it.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

So they are exaggerating and being intentionally misleading.

In related news...

In California, approximately 159 thousand square miles of land (an area the size of the state of California) is covered by nearly 40 million people and their 32 million cars and trucks.

Maybe they should look at cleaning up their own act a little. But they won't, so on it will go.

The only winner here is whoever sold them billboard space for 50 grand. He'll probably go buy an Escalade with it.

No-one (except BP, maybe) is going to defend their little attempt at misdirection here. Their campaign director seems to have a personal vendetta against tar sands development.

California, is, though, the leader in hydrogen based vehicles and the drive toward a hydrogen-based economy. The cars might cost $1M or so right now, but they have all those movie stars there abouts. . . . No exaggeration there.

[CaptainCrunch]

Well they exagerated or lied in their ad, which could damage out tourism industry.

Alberta should sue the group for 11 billion dollars in damages.

The fact that the group has the word ethics in their name is a bigger lie.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

No-one (except BP, maybe) is going to defend their little attempt at misdirection here. Their campaign director seems to have a personal vendetta against tar sands development.

California, is, though, the leader in hydrogen based vehicles and the drive toward a hydrogen-based economy. The cars might cost $1M or so right now, but they have all those movie stars there abouts. . . . No exaggeration there.

Yeah I know, and they have the strictest emissions rules there too.

To me, any griping by Americans (and Canadians) about what we do in Alberta smacks as totally hypocritical. If it's so bad, don't buy it. Problem solved. That's the only way to stick it to the oil companies. Syncrude doesn't give a $h!t if some guy from Denver doesn't go to the Stampede.

But it never happens. Everyone always wants, more, they know where it comes from and accept every drop, but then bitch about it.

It's like a drunk blaming the brewery for his problems.

"Goddamn Heineken, who do those sons of bitches think they are, making all this beer that I'm drinking? Screw Heineken, I'm never going to Germany again! Honey, where's that Heineken I was drinking? While you are at it, can you get me another Heineken please, I'm just going to have one more before I go to the liquor store".