Tar Sands Debate

[theonlywhiteout]

Originally Posted by 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

I could get behind that, but I think the federal and provincial government should have very serious regulations for restoring the land, with fines that have teeth to ensure it gets done. my only concern is that, not c02 emissions (which frankly dont cause global warming imo). if you can fix the damage done to the land by strip mining then go for it.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by theonlywhiteout

I could get behind that, but I think the federal and provincial government should have very serious regulations for restoring the land, with fines that have teeth to ensure it gets done. my only concern is that, not c02 emissions (which frankly dont cause global warming imo). if you can fix the damage done to the land by strip mining then go for it.

I think that is one area where the government should require bonds in place up front to prevent what happened in ontario where mining companies went bankrupt and the government has to foot the clean up bill.

[SeoulFire]

Just separate and tell Ontario to go have sex with themselves.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by 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

I think politics come into play here. It would be difficult to do what you are proposing without painting the Saudis as terrorists.

Then again this could teach the Saudis a lesson for renegging on their commitment to back us at the last UN vote.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by 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.

You obviously haven't taken any time to read Levant's arguments, because that's basically the sum of it, not the part below.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by rubecube

"Venezuela,"

In all honesty, I don't understand the problem with Venezuela. Chavez was democratically elected; is it because he's a communist? I honestly want to know why Levant always trots out Venezuela to go along with Saudi Arabia.

Why doesn't he trot out Kuwait? When was the last time an opposition party was allowed to exist there? Oh, right. They're our friends.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by billybob123

In all honesty, I don't understand the problem with Venezuela. Chavez was democratically elected; is it because he's a communist? I honestly want to know why Levant always trots out Venezuela to go along with Saudi Arabia.

Why doesn't he trot out Kuwait? When was the last time an opposition party was allowed to exist there? Oh, right. They're our friends.

Well the issues with Venezuela might be the persecution of its people and the sudden nationalization of the industry in the past decade or so? Just guessing though.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well the issues with Venezuela might be the persecution of its people and the sudden nationalization of the industry in the past decade or so? Just guessing though.

That might be true. I hadn't considered the complaints about human rights abuses...

Here's the top 20 oil-producing countries:
(sourced from here)

# 1 Saudi Arabia: 10,250,000 bbday 2007
# 2 Russia: 9,876,000 bbl/day 2007
# 3 United States: 8,457,000 bbl/day 2007
# 4 Iran: 4,033,000 bbl/day 2007
# 5 China: 3,725,000 bbl/day 2008
# 6 Mexico: 3,501,000 bbl/day 2007
# 7 Canada: 3,425,000 bbl/day 2007
# 8 United Arab Emirates: 2,948,000 bbl/day 2007
# 10 Venezuela: 2,667,000 bbl/day 2007
# 11 Kuwait: 2,613,000 bbl/day 2007
# 12 Norway: 2,565,000 bbl/day 2007
# 13 Nigeria: 2,352,000 bbl/day 2007
# 14 Brazil: 2,277,000 bbl/day 2007
# 15 Algeria: 2,173,000 bbl/day 2007
# 16 Iraq: 2,094,000 bbl/day 2007
# 17 Angola: 1,910,000 bbl/day 2008
# 18 Libya: 1,845,000 bbl/day 2007
# 19 United Kingdom: 1,690,000 bbl/day 2007
# 20 Kazakhstan: 1,445,000 bbl/day 2007

There's a lot of countries in there whose human rights abuses are as bad or worse than Venezuela; why do Levant and the others seem to target Saudi, Nigeria, and Venezuela?

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the tarsands are more 'ethical' than the other countries. Ethics aren't what people are arguing - it's the environmental impact ... in Canada. It's not really our concern that others aren't 'ethical' or their environmental impact is so bad. As Canadians, I suppose, we tend to care about Canada. It seems to be a common political tool these days to use comparisons for things that aren't comparable. If a country with a similar standard of living and environment (e.g. the USA, Norway, or the UK from the list above perhaps) can do similar work with less environmental impact, maybe that's what we should look at?

That's why I don't watch or listen to political debate these days. It really attempts to polarize people. Black or white. Saudi Oil is evil, so Canada's oil environmental impact is unimportant. How about Saudi Oil is evil, and Canada's oil production should work to reduce their impact? Why can't we have both?

Though rationality in political debate seems to be completely absent these days, so perhaps I'm an artifact from a previous era?

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by billybob123

In all honesty, I don't understand the problem with Venezuela. Chavez was democratically elected; is it because he's a communist? I honestly want to know why Levant always trots out Venezuela to go along with Saudi Arabia.

Why doesn't he trot out Kuwait? When was the last time an opposition party was allowed to exist there? Oh, right. They're our friends.

Also i think he pulled some Putin stuff by changing the laws so he could stay in power longer. Of course he did it under the guise of the "people demanding it".

If anyone wishes to boycott Vv oil, its sold and marketed under the CITGO brand. Dollars speak louder than forum posts.

[burn_this_city]

Neither the US, Norway or the UK have a resource similar to the Oilsands. Its impossible to point your finger at conventional production as a comparison and say, "see, you're not doing enough".

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Also i think he pulled some Putin stuff by changing the laws so he could stay in power longer. Of course he did it under the guise of the "people demanding it".

I think he TRIED to change the constitution but I recall that in referendum it lost. He seemed humbled but with his ego, he probably was raging.

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

Neither the US, Norway or the UK have a resource similar to the Oilsands. Its impossible to point your finger at conventional production as a comparison and say, "see, you're not doing enough".

True. Apples to apples, like I was trying to say - I guess there really is no comparable apples, so why is Levant trying to make them so, except for that fact that it sells books.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by billybob123

I also think it's a bit disingenuous to argue that the tarsands are more 'ethical' than the other countries. Ethics aren't what people are arguing - it's the environmental impact ... in Canada. It's not really our concern that others aren't 'ethical' or their environmental impact is so bad.

Except it sort of is. The world isn't going to stop using oil tomorrow. We still need oil until we find a proper alternative. I think it makes more sense to support Canadian operations, where we actually have environmental standards, then to line the pockets of Saudi royalty, who use that money to commit horrible atrocities against their own people and fund terrorism.

As Canadians, I suppose, we tend to care about Canada. It seems to be a common political tool these days to use comparisons for things that aren't comparable. If a country with a similar standard of living and environment (e.g. the USA, Norway, or the UK from the list above perhaps) can do similar work with less environmental impact, maybe that's what we should look at?

Except the environmental impact of the oilsands is substantially less than say offshore drilling and other practices used by the countries you mention above. Canada is actually a leader in this area.

That's why I don't watch or listen to political debate these days. It really attempts to polarize people. Black or white. Saudi Oil is evil, so Canada's oil environmental impact is unimportant. How about Saudi Oil is evil, and Canada's oil production should work to reduce their impact? Why can't we have both?

Who is saying you can't have both? Canada has very strict environmental regulations surrounding the production of oil. Saudi Arabia doesn't.

Though rationality in political debate seems to be completely absent these days, so perhaps I'm an artifact from a previous era?

I think this is a rational debate and you're looking for incendiary statements that aren't there.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by billybob123

True. Apples to apples, like I was trying to say - I guess there really is no comparable apples, so why is Levant trying to make them so, except for that fact that it sells books.

He's not. He's comparing the tar sands, and the production that comes from them to countries with competing levels of production and the methods they use. Norway, the UK, and the US are not able to produce on the same scale that Canada is, so they end up importing most of their oils from dictatorial regimes.

[billybob123]

Originally Posted by rubecube

He's not. He's comparing the tar sands, and the production that comes from them to countries with competing levels of production and the methods they use. Norway, the UK, and the US are not able to produce on the same scale that Canada is, so they end up importing most of their oils from dictatorial regimes.

Fair enough - I haven't read Levant's book. I read his column in the Sun. I thought he was equating that Saudi oil meant "funding terrorism". I didn't know he made any equation between environmental impact. I apologize if I misread his argument. Maybe I'm mistaking his argument for the crap that gets spewed on shout tv on a regular basis.

I won't read his book either - if anyone's about making inciendary statements, it's him. I get enough from his column.

I don't really care about the oilsands either way - it makes life good for me in Alberta but I could live without them.

(oh, and you're incorrect with your assertion the US can't produce on the same scale as Canada - see my post further up that shows that the US outproduces Canada by 2.4x)

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by billybob123

(oh, and you're incorrect with your assertion the US can't produce on the same scale as Canada - see my post further up that shows that the US outproduces Canada by 2.4x)

Even though the US produces more, they also have 10x the population consuming it. I believe that is the shortfall that rubecube is referring to.

[Devils'Advocate]

As for coal, environmentalists have been railing against coal since the beginning of the movement. Hell, people complained about coal burning destroying the environment well before there ever was any inkling of environmentalism.

I remember being a student, sitting at a table with Elizabeth May and other well known environmentalists arguing over the best tact to take with politicians - to demand a complete end to coal burning, or demand cleaner coal burning. Those arguing clean coal claimed that the energy needs of the world were too great for ending coal burning to be a realistic alternative. This still seems to be the debate 20 years later. But to say that there are no environmentalists protesting the use of coal are just wrong.

[Shazam]

Coal is pretty well impossible to burn cleanly.

OTOH, without coal there's no electricity.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Stang

Even though the US produces more, they also have 10x the population consuming it. I believe that is the shortfall that rubecube is referring to.

Yeah, sorry. I meant that U.S. isn't producing enough to support itself and ends up importing a tonne of Saudi oil