| Submit your comments on this article |
| Great White North |
| Canada pays for U.S. oil thirst |
| 2006-05-31 |
| Some whine to go with this morning's cheese omelette. Chateau Wapo 2006 Huge mines here turning tarry sand into cash for Canada and oil for the United States are taking an unexpectedly high environmental toll, sucking water from rivers and natural gas from wells and producing large amounts of gases linked to global warming. The digging -- into an area the size of Maryland and Virginia combined -- has proliferated at gold-rush speed, spurred by high oil prices, new technology and an unquenched U.S. thirst for the fuel. The expansion has presented ecological problems that experts thought they would have decades to resolve. "The river used to be blue. Now it's brown. Nobody can fish or drink from it. The air is bad. This has all happened so fast," said Elsie Fabian, 63, an elder in a native Indian community along the Athabasca River, a wide, meandering waterway once plied by fur traders. "It's terrible. We're surrounded by the mines." |
| Posted by:ed |
| #12 We stand ready to do what's necessary. Altho, I must admit the men are still weary from the assault on Beale Street. |
| Posted by: Task Force Dothan 2006-05-31 17:48 |
| #11 It's true, SU and ERF pay me, but the Canucks take their tax every month. |
| Posted by: anonymous2u 2006-05-31 16:14 |
| #10 Of course this is all America's fault and Bushes plan to destroy the world. This says nothing about CANADIAN GREED that is driving the rape of their own land. Over 90% of Canada's population is along the US border, why, because that is where the money is! If Canada really gave a damn about their environment they would have stopped this years ago. But no they continue to take our money and talk bad about us in the press. They can be worse than Mexico some times. |
| Posted by: 49 Pan 2006-05-31 14:12 |
| #9 ...taking an unexpectedly high environmental toll, sucking water from rivers and natural gas from wells Save the wells?! |
| Posted by: eLarson 2006-05-31 13:35 |
| #8 Even if true, consider the alternatives. |
| Posted by: gromgoru 2006-05-31 10:33 |
| #7 producing large amounts of gases linked to global warming Like water vapor. |
| Posted by: Rob Crawford 2006-05-31 09:35 |
| #6 Build a nuke plant to make the steam. That should satisfy the enviromentalists. |
| Posted by: ed 2006-05-31 09:23 |
| #5 The major oil companies built some pilot 'synfuel' plants to exploit the huge Alberta tar sands back during the oil crunch of the late '70's to early '80's. Operating costs were high, capital investment costs were high, and extraction efficiencies were not so high. Projects were not really profitable once prices fell. Still, operation, experimentation, and test expansions continued, with the sure knowledge that prices would eventually rise. I doubt they expected the rate of price increase that happened. However, at $70 all those years of trial and investment are paying off fast. Plant capacities are doubling every year. I am sure Canada, and even Alberta, have responsible environmental regulations. However, tar sand extraction is not a lot different from strip mining coal in terms of environmental impact. I am sure that the 'boom' expansion of the industry has put a load on environment, and on those who are trying to protect it (both the regulators and in the companies themselves) - no one has the numbers of experienced people available, either engineers or inspectors, to cope with the radically increased scale of operations. No doubt the environment is degraded in some areas, and given how nice it was, I am sure the change is very noticable. If the development was in the 'old' New Jersey Meadowlands, it would probably seem like an improvement. |
| Posted by: glenmore 2006-05-31 09:10 |
| #4 And don't forget the enviro-terrorist have convinced Congress to keep nearly all the American continental shelf off limits for oil production. Time to end the game. Make it the responsiblity of the objectors to come up with new fields elsewhere when they shut out existing fields anywhere else. Don't have any. Objections overruled. |
| Posted by: Slasing Spert8394 2006-05-31 09:01 |
| #3 Only MSN could take a subject like lessening our dependence on Arab oil and spin it against us. Do I smell a pulitzer here? Stinky aren't they? |
| Posted by: bigjim-ky 2006-05-31 08:56 |
| #2 Yes they do anon, at good prices too. But the anti-capitalist "evironmentalists" just HAVE to make a stink about it. Shoot 'em. |
| Posted by: DarthVader 2006-05-31 08:24 |
| #1 Canada pays for U.S. oil thirst I'm very confused : doesn't the oil-thirsty USA PAY for the canadian oil? |
| Posted by: anonymous5089 2006-05-31 08:22 |