Following the (primarily U.S.) money funding Canada’s anti-oil movement

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65

Dean Skoreyko ‏@bcbluecon

"Pembina Foundation and Pembina Institute have received nearly $7 million from American foundations" http://linkis.com/com/924fY




It is no coincidence that U.S. foundations are funding a multimillion-dollar campaign against Canadian energy.

Albertan oil has the potential to contribute more than $2 trillion to the national economy over the next 25 years, about $84 billion per year, according to the Canadian Energy Research Institute. Realizing this unparalleled opportunity requires broad-based, public support for pipeline and infrastructure projects that are essential for getting landlocked crude to global markets. For Canada, there is no single economic issue that is more important.

The greatest obstacle to energy infrastructure projects isn’t technical expertise or financial capital; it’s gridlock due to opposition from strong alliances between environmental organizations and First Nations and their ability to attract media attention and stop or stall development. This gridlock has been fomented by the Tar Sands Campaign, a heavily-funded international initiative launched by the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Tides Foundation in 2008.


The explicit goals of the Tar Sands Campaign are to stop expansion of the Canadian oil industry, to reduce demand for oil sands crude in the U.S. and to stop or stall pipeline and port construction.


With a new premier and cabinet, Alberta has a timely opportunity to break the gridlock that risks keeping its oil out of global markets. The challenge is to convincingly make the case that industry is trustworthy and committed to meeting the public’s high expectations for protection of the environment. This will not be easy if the Tar Sands Campaign goes on unabated.


more


Following the (primarily U.S.) money funding Canada's anti-oil movement | Alberta Oil | Canada’s leading source for oil and gas newsAlberta Oil | Canada’s leading source for oil and gas news
 

Locutus

Adorable Deplorable
Jun 18, 2007
32,230
45
48
65
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
Funny that the White House is encouraging all kinds of resource development in the USA, incl oilsands in Tennessee (?), yet Canada's oilsands are verboten.

PS - I am still waiting for someone, anyone, to show me what 'clean oil' is... I suspect that I will be waiting quite a while
 

Spade

Ace Poster
Nov 18, 2008
12,822
49
48
9
Aether Island
Jesus, not another anyone-concerned-about -the environment-and-unbridled-resource-development-is-anti-Gods's-energy thread.
 

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,337
113
Vancouver Island

Anyone that knows where Sarita river is won't put much credence on this. I tore down the logging camp there a number of years ago.nShipping wise it is not a bad spot but would require a big inch pipe under Geogia Straight and is about 40 miles accross the island. Still better than the one proposed for the old Elk Falls pulp mill in Campbell River which would require ships to either go through Seymour Narrows or go all the way around the south end of the Island. Expect the idle rich to protest that one.
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
109,389
11,448
113
Low Earth Orbit
Anyone that knows where Sarita river is won't put much credence on this. I tore down the logging camp there a number of years ago.nShipping wise it is not a bad spot but would require a big inch pipe under Geogia Straight and is about 40 miles accross the island. Still better than the one proposed for the old Elk Falls pulp mill in Campbell River which would require ships to either go through Seymour Narrows or go all the way around the south end of the Island. Expect the idle rich to protest that one.

That doesn't make it any safer or more justifiable than an oil pipeline.