Well said, DG...........totally agree with you on this. :salute:
And with the price of corn going through the roof, Coke will be getting much more expensive. LOL!
B.C. and Alberta in dirty fight over oil profit
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Well said, DG...........totally agree with you on this. :salute:
And with the price of corn going through the roof, Coke will be getting much more expensive. LOL!
She knows she can't stop it, she knows F.N.s can't stop it and they both know they need it.
Politics...
Politics...
Who knows what will happen... but if for whatever reason, the project is cancelled, I will laugh at you.. a lot.
It's not going to be cancelled. It's too big of a piece in the Asia Pacific Gateway Corridor as XL is to the NASCO Corridor. This is big scale sh!t and the politics are global. Pissants like Christy are meaningless to the people behind this.
Less than a year is acceptable. Ten years is not. But to make it work a certain amount of pre approval is necessary. It is both stupid and not cost effective to sell drilling or mining leases in an area that there is no possible way of extracting the resource because of environmental concerns. All that does is clog up the system and slow down approvals on ones that can go ahead.
Foreign environmental groups must be excluded from the approval process. It is of no concern of theirs and often they are financed by companies that have an interest in stifling competition. City people don't really have any right to protest what goes on in rural areas either unless we start having veto power over any developments inside the city limits either. Most of us have had more than enough of cityots impacting our livelihoods.
How is this Gateway project coming along?
The Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway
Can I get my mitts on nickel and hydro royalties?
The Ontario-Quebec Continental Gateway
Can I get my mitts on nickel and hydro royalties?
Lot'sa directional options to help avoid (or minimize) the "Christy's" for that project:
Big resources require big infrastructure and most importantly,big balls. When it comes to resources we (and Russia) have the world by their balls.
right down to the to the gulf bone, the gulf bone is connected to the mexico bone....
The Atlantic bone is coonected to the central Canada bone, the central Canada bone is connected to the prairie bone, the prairie bone connected pacific boneLot'sa directional options to help avoid (or minimize) the "Christy's" for that project:
right down to the to the gulf bone, the gulf bone is connected to the mexico bone....
I think that until the research work is done by the proponent to show that the project is justified and economically/ecologically viable, or not, then the hearings shouldn't even begin. Because that is when the fine tuning of the Hearing panels decision should take place. If the proponent of a project gets the impression that if they stall off the real work for a year or two because of some government imposed timeline the environmental assessment just becomes a farce.
Foriegn investment groups should be denied access to the approval process because they have no concern for our social, natural, or financial environments. On the other hand the impact of using tar sands oil is going to be felt worldwide by all of us whether we live in Fort Mcmurray or not. And rather than going to the difficulty of banning any foreign intervenors, it should be possible to have them show where there money is coming from and show that competitors financing isn't happening.
I find it interesting, just skimming the Thread, as to who uses the term "Tar Sands" &
who uses the term "Oil Sands" in this discussion. It's very polarizing with respect to
which side one takes in the opinion (for or against) on this topic.
who uses the term "Oil Sands" in this discussion. It's very polarizing with respect to
which side one takes in the opinion (for or against) on this topic.
Which term do you think describes them best, and which term was used first as being the most descriptive. The use of the spin term calling them oil sands is relatively recent to my knowledge. Trying to hide the impact on the environment and the cultures of that area by pretending that they aren't tar sands strikes me as deceptive.
Oh sure, choose option C.... From my 1983 version of the Gage Canadian Dictionary. " 1, a heavy, almost solid form of petroleum occurring in natural deposits, as in the Athabaska Tar sands..." Chicken or egg?
I entered this only to point out the humor in the polorization via terminology. You
asked, & I answered. Your dictionary definition gives you a small insite into the
mind of the person who wrote it, doesn't it?
asked, & I answered. Your dictionary definition gives you a small insite into the
mind of the person who wrote it, doesn't it?
Perhaps a better option would be for posters to declare how they derive their income and its relationship to industrial activity.
Calling it tar sands or oil sands is irrelevant since both just describe carbon deposits that are being harvested to fulfill a demand.
Calling it tar sands or oil sands is irrelevant since both just describe carbon deposits that are being harvested to fulfill a demand.
I don't think that declaring income source is the only relevant question. Perhaps we should declare whether we breathe, with difficulty, are getting cancer, enjoy clean rivers, are determined to use energy as wastefully as possible, and all the other reasons why we might be for or against the tar sands and a pipeline carrying our very dirty energy to foreign countries.
Calling something conservation or efficiency is irrelevant since both just describe a means of reducing demand.
I understand that there may be some division along the lines of who calls this energy resource one thing or the other. So, I don't know, what insight is evident, do you think someone in 1982 was looking for a spin that would be derogatory to the Athabaska oilsands? Do you have a reference for them being called that before my reference? The reason I ask is that I'm curious about who started the spin doctor routine, it might shed some light on the motives.
117 years ago some guy named Riel and his buddy Dumont tried to stop a railway. It didn't work out so good for Riel.
And yet he has been honoured all those years, and is more honoured now than ever, for trying, for putting up the fight. I think that kind of example is positive in as much as we now understand that sometimes you have to do what you can in the face of a bad decision. Rather than being a fatalist people who are opposing a damaging proposal like the Northern Gateway now understand that there is public support for people protecting the environment.