• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Pro-oil Canada fights U.S. environmental groups

I like the idea of getting our energy from canada, and even russia, before the middle-east. Or, how about we start figuring out a way to efficiently convert that 300 years of global-energy-consumption worth of coal under our own soil into usable gasoline.

Alaska is ready to send more oil south but the Obama government doesn't want it.
 
You do realize that it goes through an area that if contaminated will result in billions in losses as well as billions in water decontamination? GOP Congressmen, Governors and Legislatures are against the pipeline for that reason.

Are there any areas where this wouldn't be true?
 
I oppose the notion of selling the US more oil. We need to re-nationalise it and sell only the surplus after supplying our own market. There is no reason our gas prices should be fluctuating due to stupidity in the Middle East when we have enough oil in Alberta to supply ourselves.
 
wouldn't that be local governments using eminent domain?

It is a privately foreign owned company using eminent domain and the governments in those areas aiding those companies in taking that land.
 
Beneath the peat bogs and boreal forests in the northern part of this Canadian province are among the largest oil reserves in the world. Canadians have been getting it out of the prairies for over 100 years and piping much of it to the United States, which imports more oil from Canada than anywhere else.

But President Obama's denial of a permit for a new oil pipeline from Canada to Texas that has been worked on for years has angered many here who claim that the U.S. environmental lobby is harming their livelihoods without scientific basis.

They even accuse it of illegally assisting Canadian environmental groups and say it's time to scrap plans to sell more oil to America and step up efforts to redirect the pipeline to the Pacific Coast and energy-hungry markets overseas.
- Pro-oil Canada fights U.S. environmental groups

Why would President Obama want to hinder our best source of oil? Makes no sense at all.


It's not pro-oil Canada. It's pro-oil Harper government. Big difference.
 
I oppose the notion of selling the US more oil. We need to re-nationalise it and sell only the surplus after supplying our own market. There is no reason our gas prices should be fluctuating due to stupidity in the Middle East when we have enough oil in Alberta to supply ourselves.

"We" have enough oil in Alberta? You mean Alberta has enough oil in Alberta.
 
It’s easy to figure out

OIL …. Bad
Coal……Bad
High gas prices …. Good

That’s Obama’s philosophy
 
Alaska is ready to send more oil south but the Obama government doesn't want it.

Grant the Alaskan pipeline has been running at 60 of capacity for over 2 decades.. and the last projects by the majors were shut down because of Palin's windfall tax. You have no idea what you are talking about.
 
Oil companies are struggling to survive, and you want to deny them tax breaks?

There's little benefit to Americans... and its been explained why.

Oil companies aren't struggling to survive at all.. They have invested heavily in exploration and drilling, but they aren't going to flood the market with cheap gasoline and go bankrupt...
 
The short answer is Obama does not want to confront the environmental whackos who helped him get elected.

Why are people who have concern for a sustainable and clean envrionment "whackos"?
 
"We" have enough oil in Alberta? You mean Alberta has enough oil in Alberta.

By "we," I do mean "we." As in Canadians, because I'm a Canadian.
 
It's also my philosophy, too. It's time we look towards the future.

The future should include fully utilizing coal and gas, not harming families by jumping up gas prices and not fully utilizing coal and gas resources.
 
The future should include fully utilizing coal and gas, not harming families by jumping up gas prices and not fully utilizing coal and gas resources.

But heck, harming their health is no big deal, eh? If you don't believe the averse effects that these industrial practices have on our health, then you are either naive or uninformed.
 
Except for a bunch of refineries in California, most of the US refineries are in the South, and many along the route where the pipeline would come down. So there is plenty of potential to refine more oil for US consumption.

Except that it won't be for US consumption. It'll be refined and put on a tanker to China.

If the price of oil sinks to a certain point, the pipeline and the oil sands will suddenly dry up until it becomes profitable again.
 
Except that it won't be for US consumption. It'll be refined and put on a tanker to China.

If the price of oil sinks to a certain point, the pipeline and the oil sands will suddenly dry up until it becomes profitable again.

The Alberta Tar Sands--that are now golden in many an eye--were considered complete garbage in the 70's and 80's. By OUR OWN government, none-the-less.
 
Grant the Alaskan pipeline has been running at 60 of capacity for over 2 decades.. and the last projects by the majors were shut down because of Palin's windfall tax. You have no idea what you are talking about.

Is ANWR included in that 60% capacity?
 
The Alberta Tar Sands--that are now golden in many an eye--were considered complete garbage in the 70's and 80's. By OUR OWN government, none-the-less.

They were useless back then but when prices rose and new technology became available they proved to be a very valuable resource.
 
But heck, harming their health is no big deal, eh? If you don't believe the averse effects that these industrial practices have on our health, then you are either naive or uninformed.

In fact technology has advanced to the point where there isn't near the risks there once was. All you need do is ask the coal miners and their unions.
 
In fact technology has advanced to the point where there isn't near the risks there once was. All you need do is ask the coal miners and their unions.

I have a bridge to sell you. Interested?

Sorry. I'm not one to fall hook line and sinker with I see a puke-inducing 'feel good' Suncor commercial. All I have to do is visit a polluted city and I will develop an instantaneous sinus infection. Been that way all of my life, and I am almost certain it's what will kill me in the end.

You know, I could say a lot of things here, but I will leave you with this. A few years back I watched a documentary on how some people in West Virginia were upset because environmentalists were forcing their mountain top coal mining jobs out of business. The enviromentalists were called every name under the sun, and told to mind their freaking business by many, including the featured man and wife who lived in a most pristine setting. No doubt, times were tough for the couple money-wise. The reporter then asked how they would feel if the mountains that surrounded their beautiful home were chosen to be blasted. Without missing a beat, the husband blurted, "I'd do everything to stop it." (I paraphrase to the best of my memory, but the same gist). So basically, it's all okay, as long as it does not happen in my neighbourhood. :roll:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom