Silkroad Online Forums

How do you feel about the extraction of oil sands in Canada?

For those who don't know: Canada is well known for its wonderful landscapes, biodiversity etc etc. Yet large oil companies like Exxon Mobile, Shell and so on want to rip up a part of Alberta the size of New York State.

Canada has the largest oil reserves out side of Saudi Arabia.

-----

Pros:

Social: Plenty of jobs. Increase in housing in Fort McMurray. Higher wages. High consumer spending.

Ecological: Using somewhat recycled water.

Economical: Alberta is reliable resource for oil and will reduce reliance of Middle Eastern countries. Will define and strengthen relationship with USA. Money injection for community.

-----

Cons:

Social: Poor quality of life. Workers separated from families. Drugs and prostitution are rampant. Transient workers are not spending. Homeless numbers increasing "Working Poor" (Have jobs but can't afford housing).

Ecological: Large amounts of energy used thus greenhouse gas emissions increased. Worlds largest ecosystem (Boreal Forest) ripped up and used as open pit mine. 2-4.5 barrels of water per barrel of oil produced (coming from the Athabasca river). Toxins and pollutions from tailing pools seeping into drinking water. Deformed fish have been found and a flock of migratory birds found dead. Oil companies want to rip up a part of Alberta the size of NY state.

Economical: Short term gain. High rent and cost of living. For each job there is in the mine, there is three in the service sector.

---

I mean, I feel really strongly on this issue, even though it isn't my country (duh). I'm quite the animal lover, and I substitute Alberta for the Great Barrier Reef, and Australia's oil reserve underneath that, if someone wanted to rip that up etc.

What are your opinions?

Snoopy

NO FLAMES or "OMG USA IS THE BEST, CANADA ARE OUR BITCHES, BLAH BLAH"

It's not they the companies want too, it's that they already have. The money has made Calgary one of the greenest cities in Canada. Last year the provincial government had so much money that they sent out cheques to everyone in the province (a couple hundred dollars if I remember - but I might be wrong). The province is also known for needing workers so bad that they're paying $20 wages at McDonalds.

It's good for Canada but it needs to be managed carefully. Better than it has been so far.

I was hoping you would reply .

I agree with you, the Towns and Citys in Alberta are booming! However it is tearing apart an amazing part of the environment. I don't know whether Canadians value their biodiversity etc, but I as an Australian value mine, and I think it is sad to rip apart innocent animals habitats etc.

About the job issue, I don't think the towns are necessarily in need of workers, it's just that they're working in the better playing places (the mines, as opposed to Wal-Mart / McDonalds etc (service sector)).

It is good for the Canadian economy, not so much the social side or ecological side of things.

Snoopy wrote:I was hoping you would reply .

I agree with you, the Towns and Citys in Alberta are booming! However it is tearing apart an amazing part of the environment. I don't know whether Canadians value their biodiversity etc, but I as an Australian value mine, and I think it is sad to rip apart innocent animals habitats etc.

About the job issue, I don't think the towns are necessarily in need of workers, it's just that they're working in the better playing places (the mines, as opposed to Wal-Mart / McDonalds etc (service sector)).

It is good for the Canadian economy, not so much the social side or ecological side of things.

So lets go kill innocent Middle Eastern citizens instead and steal their oil so we could save the precious squirrels.

izmeister wrote:

Snoopy wrote:I was hoping you would reply .

I agree with you, the Towns and Citys in Alberta are booming! However it is tearing apart an amazing part of the environment. I don't know whether Canadians value their biodiversity etc, but I as an Australian value mine, and I think it is sad to rip apart innocent animals habitats etc.

About the job issue, I don't think the towns are necessarily in need of workers, it's just that they're working in the better playing places (the mines, as opposed to Wal-Mart / McDonalds etc (service sector)).

It is good for the Canadian economy, not so much the social side or ecological side of things.

So lets go kill innocent Middle Eastern citizens lives instead and steal their oil so we could save the precious squirrels.

Speaking of squirrels...

I got on campus early this morning, about 7:30am, there was still maintenance guys doing their thing and they left the doors open to some stuff around in one of the buildings. While I was crossing the lobby a squirrel ran inside the building. He was so chill, he just was walking around leisurely exploring.

LETS DO IT HAHAHA!

I'm all for the extraction of oil from the oil sands, one the oil gets extracted they put the oil free sand back in place, thus making it habitable. Not only are they helping Canada's economy they are creating more greenspace in Alberta.

you gotta do what yeah gotta do to get oil theses days, and these days you have to get it from the sands (which has a long extraction process).

I say just drill, north america as a whole would benefit.

dom wrote:It's not they the companies want too, it's that they already have. The money has made Calgary one of the greenest cities in Canada. Last year the provincial government had so much money that they sent out cheques to everyone in the province (a couple hundred dollars if I remember - but I might be wrong). The province is also known for needing workers so bad that they're paying $20 wages at McDonalds.

It's good for Canada but it needs to be managed carefully. Better than it has been so far.

I do think it was $400 to anyone, But if you were under 18 your parents would get your share.

crazy_foo wrote:I say just drill, north america as a whole would benefit.

Except Mexico =/

Blindfire wrote:I'm all for the extraction of oil from the oil sands, one the oil gets extracted they put the oil free sand back in place, thus making it habitable. Not only are they helping Canada's economy they are creating more greenspace in Alberta.

Thing is the companies getting the oil rich sand are american companies. The product isnt even processed in Canada, it gets shipped down to the US in pipelines with a tremendous amount of water to transport it then it gets processed down there and Canada buys it back.

oil is too short term to go destroying valuable parts of the environment over. If you think about it Oil is a limited supply at the rate industries are growing in other countries the Oil will probably be used up faster and faster. You can delay hitting peak oil for 10-120 more years but at the price of damaging an ecosystem so badly it probably won't recover for 30-50 years if at all...

im not too green but i don't like the idea of doing long term damage for short term gain, its way to greedy to my taste....

If you think about it Oil is a limited supply at the rate industries are growing in other countries the Oil will probably be used up faster and faster.

They said that about coal...

im not too green but i don't like the idea of doing long term damage for short term gain

Been awhile, +1, As long as Canada makes a profit without harming their own infrastructure and environment it's all good in da hood.

theres enough coal around to last us maybe 100+ more years at this rate but production in increasing in fact china was using so much coal the entire country ran out of it for a period of time this year...

more and more countries are hitting peak oil and while there have been new discoveries they come at a cost, i don't really want to see the planet full of holes just so we can keep using oil for 100+ more years...thats not a solution and we'll be in an even worse situation...

We need to keep our kids and grandkids in mind as we destroy this planet. We have to stop being selfish and look for different energy sources that will keep the earth green.

My whole familly had to move to Calgary(Alberta) because my dad had severals jobs offer there,its ripping off famillies too

Juicy wrote:Thing is the companies getting the oil rich sand are american companies. The product isnt even processed in Canada, it gets shipped down to the US in pipelines with a tremendous amount of water to transport it then it gets processed down there and Canada buys it back.

LOL at using water to transport oil in pipelines.
You are correct though, it is mostly American companies buying the land with the oil rich sand. They spend billions for the land and make even more selling it. It's not like they are preventing Canadian companies from doing the same, so I see nothing wrong with it.

chickenfeather wrote:

Juicy wrote:Thing is the companies getting the oil rich sand are american companies. The product isnt even processed in Canada, it gets shipped down to the US in pipelines with a tremendous amount of water to transport it then it gets processed down there and Canada buys it back.

LOL at using water to transport oil in pipelines.
You are correct though, it is mostly American companies buying the land with the oil rich sand. They spend billions for the land and make even more selling it. It's not like they are preventing Canadian companies from doing the same, so I see nothing wrong with it.

Erm, It's raw sand rich oil from the Oil Sands. meaning dirt.

Juicy wrote:

Blindfire wrote:I'm all for the extraction of oil from the oil sands, one the oil gets extracted they put the oil free sand back in place, thus making it habitable. Not only are they helping Canada's economy they are creating more greenspace in Alberta.

Thing is the companies getting the oil rich sand are american companies. The product isnt even processed in Canada, it gets shipped down to the US in pipelines with a tremendous amount of water to transport it then it gets processed down there and Canada buys it back.

Hmm... they do?

I thought that they used the water from the Athabasca River (2-4.5 barrels per barrel of oil) and extract it up in Canada, then put it in tailing ponds in Canada.

However you're right, it is mainly US oil companies, however this by no means Canada doesn't get any money, because Canada gets a lot.

XemnasXD wrote:theres enough coal around to last us maybe 100+ more years at this rate but production in increasing in fact china was using so much coal the entire country ran out of it for a period of time this year...

more and more countries are hitting peak oil and while there have been new discoveries they come at a cost, i don't really want to see the planet full of holes just so we can keep using oil for 100+ more years...thats not a solution and we'll be in an even worse situation...

when we are done with coal there will be numerous replacements like nuclear and whatever the greenpeace tree huggers can come up with (no offense to tree huggers its just u rather use crappier technology to save some animals and force people to pay higher bills and its scared people who think using nuclear power will kill us all ex. chernobyl when its the same people who say global warming will kill us all its a lesser of 2 evils I guess =.=) I wouldnt be surprised to see china and or india go nuclear because their economy will soon greatly overpower america and with all those billions of people consuming energy coal is just not enough

as for canada I suggest they keep drilling last I checked America gets 30% of its oil from canada which makes it a extremely good business until they run out of oil, but if we have oil for 100 yrs u think that in those years our technology would adapt within our needs and provide us ethanol that is actually sufficient solar powered cars that are efficient and whatever scientists can come up with so the actual amount of oil is not the problem solutions will come in time just be patient

in short KEEP DRILLING until u run out of oil then your going to need to lower your standard of living unless ur country has other ways of making money

Nuclear energy is harmless.

Barotix wrote:Nuclear energy is harmless.

*Looks at Chernobyl Disaster*

*Looks at scientific evidence that debunks rumors started by interest groups that want to prevent nuclear power because they're uninformed* It was a nuclear reactor that had a meltdown in the USSR; outdated information is not a case against nuclear power. Nuclear energy is harmless. Nuclear weaponry is a different story. When those dumb lobbyist learn to get their facts straight and stop passing false information as fact the world will be a better place.

Nuclear power is safe, clean, cheap, and efficient.

Juicy wrote:

Blindfire wrote:I'm all for the extraction of oil from the oil sands, one the oil gets extracted they put the oil free sand back in place, thus making it habitable. Not only are they helping Canada's economy they are creating more greenspace in Alberta.

Thing is the companies getting the oil rich sand are american companies. The product isnt even processed in Canada, it gets shipped down to the US in pipelines with a tremendous amount of water to transport it then it gets processed down there and Canada buys it back.

Actually, Petro-Canada owns a lot of the land and they refine it at a plant near Edmonton.

Barotix wrote:*Looks at scientific evidence that debunks rumors started by interest groups that want to prevent nuclear power because they're uninformed* It was a nuclear reactor that had a meltdown in the USSR; outdated information is not a case against nuclear power. Nuclear energy is harmless. Nuclear weaponry is a different story. When those dumb lobbyist learn to get their facts straight and stop passing false information as fact the world will be a better place.

Nuclear power is safe, clean, cheap, and efficient.

It's all good to say it is harmless. Because getting the energy itself is considered relatively harmless. The left-overs (I think they're the reactors) take thousands of years to cool down, where would they be stored? Nuclear weapons etc can be made out of some of this stuff and well that ain't good.

Also, if they were so good why are countries stopping the use of their nuclear power plants?

take thousands of years to cool down,

The "reactors" (they don't remove reactors; they change the power supply which is full of uranium pellets [i.e.] small bits of uranium) don't take anywhere near thousands of years to "cool down." The uranium is harmless unless you're exposed to it ,directly, for an extended period of time (several years).

where would they be stored?

USA is going to start storing it at Yucca Mountain in 2017 after the FERC (I think that's their name) gives them the green light.

Nuclear weapons etc can be made out of some of this stuff and well that ain't good.

Countries like America will build nukes with or without nuclear power plants. That isn't an excuse to block cheap clean and efficient electricity from being used.

Also, if they were so good why are countries stopping the use of their nuclear power plants?

Well, In America (I can't speak for other countries) we haven't upgraded our Nuclear power plants since the 70s because these idiot lobbyist block any attempt to move forward. They should let the plants be upgraded to modern standards instead of spreading their BS. It's their crusade against Nuclear Energy, and like the war on drugs it is fueled by lies and propaganda. It's cheap, clean, efficient, and safe. Test were done on barrels full of the uranium. No explosion, no meltdown, no fallout, and no radiation. Chernobyl isn't even a valid example; the technology used in Chernobyl was outdated and it was the USSR; their plant was crap and badly maintained.

Barotix wrote:

take thousands of years to cool down,

The "reactors" (they don't remove reactors; they change the power supply which is full of uranium pellets [i.e.] small bits of uranium) don't take anywhere near thousands of years to "cool down." The uranium is harmless unless you're exposed to it ,directly, for an extended period of time (several years).

where would they be stored?

USA is going to start storing it at Yucca Mountain in 2017 after the FERC (I think that's their name) gives them the green light.

Nuclear weapons etc can be made out of some of this stuff and well that ain't good.

Countries like America will build nukes with or without nuclear power plants. That isn't an excuse to block cheap clean and efficient electricity from being used.

Also, if they were so good why are countries stopping the use of their nuclear power plants?

Well, In America (I can't speak for other countries) we haven't upgraded our Nuclear power plants since the 70s because these idiot lobbyist block any attempt to move forward. They should let the plants be upgraded to modern standards instead of spreading their BS. It's their crusade against Nuclear Energy, and like the war on drugs it is fueled by lies and propaganda. It's cheap, clean, efficient, and safe. Test were done on barrels full of the uranium. No explosion, no meltdown, no fallout, and no radiation. Chernobyl isn't even a valid example; the technology used in Chernobyl was outdated and it was the USSR; their plant was crap and badly maintained.

Thanks for clearing that up Baro. You've got a great evidence that it is clean, safe, efficient etc. I think Australia has only one nuclear power plant and it's apparently used for 'medical purposes'.

Barotix wrote:Nuclear energy is harmless.

China Syndrome.

Snoopy wrote:Thanks for clearing that up Baro. You've got a great evidence that it is clean, safe, efficient etc. I think Australia has only one nuclear power plant and it's apparently used for 'medical purposes'.

The plant you are talking about is likely used to stock medicinal equipment used to treat cancer (Radiology).