Lineareagle Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 From the people that brought you the tar sands. Travel Prop. Link to comment
Whip Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 You mean there are already a bunch of pipelines from Alberta to the US? I love Canada, I hope there are many many more. BTW...The first video is beautiful! Love live our neighbor to the north. Link to comment
Lineareagle Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 You mean there are already a bunch of pipelines from Alberta to the US Indeed, and that is the issue all the others were built AROUND the aquifer, that new one they want to put through the area, hence the concern. Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 So what's the subtext? America is bullying the Canadians to destroy their land to deliver oil? If the oil flows West to China will Canadians blame the Chinese for bullying? Help me understand your position. I love cheap oil! I take this concern for tar sand production as a good reason to demand more discrete holes be bored in the ground to get at pools of oil. Link to comment
Lineareagle Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 So what's the subtext? America is bullying the Canadians to destroy their land to deliver oil? If the oil flows West to China will Canadians blame the Chinese for bullying? Help me understand your position. I love cheap oil! I take this concern for tar sand production as a good reason to demand more discrete holes be bored in the ground to get at pools of oil. Subtext? America is not bullying Canadians. The issue of the pipeline going through a main aquifer is your issue. The issue of the pipeline going west through the most pristine areas to the coast where there is a high chance that ANY spill would devastate the environment is a Canadian issue. I agree that more discrete holes are better, if in locations that are safe, but the fact that the oil from the tar sands is so environmentally hazardous, and pretty crappy as well is an issue for the world to sort out. How much devastation to our air, water and bio-system is OK before we say, stop? Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I must have missed the dicussion about the pipeline that Whip saw. I did see a number of folks carping about the project. One inferred that there was outside pressure for the oil. I saw a lot of greenpeace footage-an organization not know for sympathy to oil production under any circumstances. So I felt there was a subtext. Thanks for the clarification. Link to comment
DaveTheAffable Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 So what's the subtext? America is bullying the Canadians to destroy their land to deliver oil? If the oil flows West to China will Canadians blame the Chinese for bullying? Help me understand your position. I love cheap oil! I take this concern for tar sand production as a good reason to demand more discrete holes be bored in the ground to get at pools of oil. Subtext? America is not bullying Canadians. The issue of the pipeline going through a main aquifer is your issue. The issue of the pipeline going west through the most pristine areas to the coast where there is a high chance that ANY spill would devastate the environment is a Canadian issue. I agree that more discrete holes are better, if in locations that are safe, but the fact that the oil from the tar sands is so environmentally hazardous, and pretty crappy as well is an issue for the world to sort out. How much devastation to our air, water and bio-system is OK before we say, stop? All other things being equal, If Canada continues tar sand production, which do YOU prefer. Oil sold to America, or China? Link to comment
Lineareagle Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 I would rather see it head south, from an economic as well as environmental stand point. Link to comment
elkroeger Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Wow. Both are incredible videos. Thanks. Now I think I'll go pump up my bicycle tires.... Link to comment
ltljohn Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The issue of the pipeline going through a main aquifer is your issue. The issue of the pipeline going west through the most pristine areas to the coast where there is a high chance that ANY spill would devastate the environment is a Canadian issue. Aren't these the same type of arguments that were used to try and stop the Alaska pipeline 40 years ago? Link to comment
MT Wallet Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 That's always my fallback arguement to the gloom and doom nay sayers. The pipeline has been a resounding success with few problems over the 40 years. Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.