# Article: Canada Pays For U.s. Oil Thirst



## gregjoyal (Jan 25, 2005)

This is a pretty interesting article... For Canadians and Americans. I felt compelled to share.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13039234/

To me it's simple... We use too much oil and sacrifice our environment in the process. The big oil companies are profiting at our and the environment's expense.

Greg


----------



## hurricaneplumber (Apr 12, 2004)

Imagine if everyone here gave up their gas sucking trucks used to tow their campers how much oil we would not consume in a year.

That is the problem, no one wants to give up any of their comforts.

Someday something will really need to be done about the problem.


----------



## CamperAndy (Aug 26, 2004)

Sorry but the issue is not that simple.

Most of the complaints for this project are the first nation people that just want a bigger profit share.

Nobody complained too loud 30 years ago when they first started trying to get the oil sands to produce but it was not profitable. Now it is looking to be profitable, so now it is bad.


----------



## gregjoyal (Jan 25, 2005)

CamperAndy said:


> Sorry but the issue is not that simple.
> 
> Most of the complaints for this project are the first nation people that just want a bigger profit share.
> 
> ...


True, lots of people wants a piece of the pie. But I'm not Aboriginal and I think it's terrible that they are allowed to consume that much fresh water (they don't pay for that water I might add, whereas the residents of the city of Calgary do) while harming the environment with very little true research done.

It's also only within the last 5-10 years that we have accepted and starting dealing with some of the injustices done to the Aboriginal people in Canada. For example, in Winnipeg, the original land treaty signed (about 150 years ago) with the aboriginal people stated that each family was to receive a tract of land adjacent to the Red or Assiniboine Rivers. Two things happened:

1) The good land was given first to european settlers.
2) The remaining land was purchased by traders from the government or from the few luck aboriginal peoples who got them. It's also been widely accepted that these traders were not honest and used whatever means to get the land.

Now, I live on the river and I don't feel like giving up my property... But I do think they are entitled to more than some crappy swampland in northern Manitoba. And those land treaties were binding agreements with the then government of Canada. How would you like it if we said 'screw free trade' and started selling our oil to someone else (NAFTA binds us to supply the US with a certain amount of oil). I wouldn't... Good business partners need to respect deals that have been signed (whether I agree witht their contents or not).

<off soapbox>

I just thought it was interesting to learn that Canada supplies more oil to the US than any other foreign country. I often hear (read) Americans complaining about their dependency on Middle Eastern oil and I wondered if you guys knew how dependent you were on Canadian oil and what we grapple with in providing it to you and ourselves.


----------



## OutbackPM (Sep 14, 2005)

I wish the same effort was put into biodiesel e.g. the algae source. This will reduce transportation across vast distances and biodeisel is carbon neutral leaving NOX and particulate to deal with ( I think we have a good grip on that too). The sun light is the basic engry source so no fossil fuel is required to make it. It needs alot more work to bring up to technical requirments but it has a potential much bigger than the oil sands in Canada now bring.

Do you think this would interfere with the big oil profits? Do you think thay have lobyists working to keep this stuff at bay?

I am not a tree hugger as they say but common sense can surely come to the fore at least once can't it?


----------



## Highlander96 (Mar 1, 2005)

Camper Andy is right on. This resource has been know about for years. However, only recently it has become cost effective. Now everybody wants a slice of the pie.









As far as the enviromental concerns go, I am sorry to hear that is happening. However, resources must, at some times be consumed to enable production.

I live on the Chesapeake Bay and have lived here for 35 years. The steel plants used to dump Benzine straight into the bay. It was not uncommon for people who touched the waters to have Chloride burns. The bay has changed greatly in the past 20 years. It has taken a lot of work, but it is getting better. Let's hope some responsibility is taken up there.

As far a Greenhouse Gases go......That is like trying to find the "Shooter on the Grassy Knoll" JMHO.........

It was a very good article. However, I guess the writer has never seen the strip mines in WV, VA, PA, OH and KY.









I guess I'll go hug my Spotted Owl now........ Don't forget about everyone who wants their alternative electrical generation, but they don't want the windmill farms within 500 miles of their homes.....

The world is so full of double standards.

I am done ranting, please don't flame........

Happy Outbacking!

Tim


----------



## hurricaneplumber (Apr 12, 2004)

The wind farms mess with the migratory patterns of bats..at least that is what we were told...CU just got turned down by the residents for a nice looking wind generation facility. If they only knew what they were giving up. Their ignorance to the system and its potential is a big loss for all. And then they complain about the coal burning stacks emmisions, yep definitely lots of those double standards.


----------



## gregjoyal (Jan 25, 2005)

hurricaneplumber said:


> The wind farms mess with the migratory patterns of bats.
> [snapback]116013[/snapback]​


I've never heard that before, but it sounds like it could be reasonable.

Highlander96 - you are so right, the world is full of double standards. I myself am often guilty. I mostly drive our Jetta around, though I prefer to drive my truck even though I know it burns more fuel. So sometimes, I take the truck anyways... Heck, we often walk to the grocery store for exercise, the environment and our pocket book. I just try to limit my environmental damage and at least be honest that I would like a better solution... I'm waiting for a biodiesel-electric hybrid!

Greg


----------



## mswalt (Sep 14, 2004)

Guilty here as well. BUT, I'm not willing to give up my perks and comfies just yet. As long as there reamins two different opinions, there will be controversy about the environment.

I am a firm believer that good Ol' Uncle Sam could come up with alternative sources of energy if he wanted to bad enough. BUT, and I am also a firm believer in this, our elected officials don't really care about what's good for *us*, only what's good for *them*!

Ok, I'm done, too.

Mark


----------



## Highlander96 (Mar 1, 2005)

Just so everyone knows.....

I really do care about the Enviroment....

We are growing Wild Celery in our basment right now that will be transplanted to the Chesapeake Bay in early June. I only wish we could have saved the Oysters in the bay.

I too am at fault........I love to drive my 3/4 ton around the block









Happy Outbacking!

Tim


----------



## hurricaneplumber (Apr 12, 2004)

This is a start but it also has consequences. There is no cut and dry solution that makes everyone happy and rich.

I'll just keep burning







and thank my Canadian neighbors for gas and good beer.


----------



## Reverie (Aug 9, 2004)

Just a point...

It is not the responsibility of the government, any government to do the research and development it would take to get any of these technologies to maturity. When (and if) the people are willing to support this, the people that actually USE the resources bear the responsibility for paying for this. Trusting the government to create miracles is to abrogate our own personal responsibilities...

I work for a power company. One of the options we give consumers is to purchase "green" power. Green power is electricity generated using renewable resources. It cost more per kW but it impacts the earth so much less. Can you guess by percentage, how many people purchase green power???

Less that one half of one percent...

Reverie


----------



## hatcityhosehauler (Feb 13, 2004)

While I do appreciate the damage that is being done to the enviroment, and then injustices to the native people of the area, I really take offense to the headline of the article...

Canada pays for U.S. oil thirst
Huge mines linked to environmental damage

This is misleading, in that it implies the only reason this mining is being done is to please Canada's neighbor to the south. How about line the pockets of the operators of said mines, and the polilticians that allowed them to be built in the first place.

This is another example of the media twisting the truth to line their own pockets.

Tim, don't forget to mention the huge mines out in Wyoming, and Montana.

Off my soapbox now.

Tim (too)


----------



## Thor (Apr 7, 2004)

hurricaneplumber said:


> This is a start but it also has consequences. There is no cut and dry solution that makes everyone happy and rich.
> 
> I'll just keep burningÂ
> 
> ...


You said it Kevin - My new truck can burn E85 fuel - corn!!!!!

Thor


----------



## Fire44 (Mar 6, 2005)

There are many new fuels that are on the brink of becoming available. E85 is the one that I think is the best and fastest solution. Will it solve the problem...no but it will help with the dependence on oil, help with the emissions, and help the farmers with another source of income. The downside to E85 is that your fuel mileage will suffer (around 10%-20%), so until the government is ready to help keep the prices inline (per mile) then the general public will not accept paying for a new vehicle to get less miles per gallon.

Hybrid vehicles (gas/electric or diesel/electric) is another solution but they have their limitations also, the weight of the batteries is a hurtle that must be overcome.

The long term solution would be Hydrogen but that is 15-20 years down the road.

All of the solutions have postives and negatives, but each will help in its own way.

Gary


----------



## gregjoyal (Jan 25, 2005)

hatcityhosehauler said:


> While I do appreciate the damage that is being done to the enviroment, and then injustices to the native people of the area, I really take offense to the headline of the article...
> 
> Canada pays for U.S. oil thirst
> Huge mines linked to environmental damage
> ...


Now that you mention that, I do see the irony in the headline. The fact is, Canadians are typically rather indifferent to this kind of news as well. We are a nation who is just as thirsty for oil - but at 10% of the American population, we just simply can't consume all the oil we produce and are therefore net exporters in the name of profits.

Ads for the media lining their own pockets, I don't know what it's like in the US, but in Canada, most major media outlets are owned by a few large corporations who are a) in it for profit, b ) typically referred to as tree-huggers by the extreme right wingers even though they'll support whichever government is in power and c) normally divested in such a way that to report on the negative aspects of capitalism the big corporations have taken advantage of to line their pockets would harm their overall bottom line.

I can't remember the exact figures, but if you counted the seats on executive boards, something like 50% of the execs sit on more than one board and if there were 1000 seats, they are occupied by only 600 people (I know I don't have these numbers right, but I'm not far off). And this cross-contamination is between everything from toy companies, to oil companies, to large agricultural companies, to media companies. They are all bound together by their board of executives... It's disgusting really how much power corporations have over the media and government....... And by controlling those two items, they can touch the lives of almost everyone in whatever way they'd like.









- edited because my original b ) was replaced with







.. oops


----------

