digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Oilsands tour impresses chair of U.S. energy subcommittee

cbc.ca — Two U.S. congressmen ended their oilsands fact-finding mission to Alberta, saying they will urge their colleagues to ignore talk of "dirty oil."

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • PinkChicken, on 07/02/2008, -4/+29Two congressmen urge colleagues to stick their heads in the sand.
  • Brad324, on 07/03/2008, -1/+16Living in Alberta, myself - it's unbelievable how much the oilsands have influenced the local economy. Jobs pay twice as much here as they did on the west coast. If you live in Canada and want to make a lot of money fast, get a job in Fort McMurray for the summer - you will come back home completely loaded. $20/hour starting wages for people fresh out of highschool, with 12 hour days for 24 days straight (4 day break), you're getting plenty of overtime pay.
    • ostracize, on 07/03/2008, -0/+6Careful, living expenses are through the roof. This is ideal for a summer job while keeping costs way down. The 12 hour days are long and hard. I've talked to people who have done it and nobody recommends doing it for more than a summer.
    • jsauter, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3I think you can still get $12+ an hour for a McJob here in Calgary as well. If you can afford the housing, pretty much anywhere in Alberta is still doing well right now.
  • gavinhudson, on 07/03/2008, -11/+5Dirty? Try filthy oil.
    • jonnyboy1544, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3How's that "clean" ethanol working out for ya?
      • MacEnvy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Fine, as long as it isn't made from corn.
  • zyl0x, on 07/03/2008, -6/+13It makes me sad that as a country, Canada actually cares what US congressmen are saying about our oil. It's ours. You have a coastline full of your own. Get to work.
    • Rahodeb, on 07/03/2008, -3/+10Who do you think would be buying all of that oil? Moose?
      • zyl0x, on 07/03/2008, -3/+3Yes, the moose. How'd you guess?
      • Smogtdi, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2how about China ?

        ...moron...
      • ostracize, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Sounds like a Family Guy setup.
      • KnightWhoSaysNi, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3What? The US is the only country in the world that needs oil?
      • drmangrum, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3@Knight

        Don't be obtuse. Oil sands are far from the most efficient means of getting oil. Adding on transport costs would cause the oil to be more expensive than just buying it from Saudi&Co. Canada doesn't need near the amount of oil they produce. They can either sit on it, transport it at a loss, or sell it to America and make a killing. The choice isn't a hard one.
    • pinchduck, on 07/03/2008, -0/+4As a national policy, Canada has decided to sell the Oil to the United States. Blaming the U.S. is silly. Contact your representatives in Ottawa and tell them your opinion, it will have more impact than complaining on Digg.

      FWIW, I agree with you, we should do our own drilling down here if we want the dino juice.
      • zyl0x, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1See, people assume that I don't actually write my representatives. I do. I write emails to them all the time. The problem is that no one else does.
    • drmangrum, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2It's simple economics. It's far cheaper to buy oil from Canada than drill for it in America. When the costs equalize, you'll see a push for more domestic (US) acquisition.
    • calipan, on 07/03/2008, -5/+1that is about the dumbest comment I've ever read on digg. zyl0x, let me know when you figure out that in business the customer is always right. lol
    • stonebear, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Not sure, but I think NAFTA prevents the Canadian government from interfering with such commerce. Didn't the WTO recently rule that Canada cannot regulate water sales to the US? Seems like the same would apply to oil.
  • koft, on 07/03/2008, -3/+16FTA:
    "We will never have to send troops to the border between Montana and Alberta to protect that energy supply."

    At least they're being honest about what the wars we're in are for. I guess that was a slip up.
    • savagegenius, on 07/03/2008, -2/+0That quote was by the Governor of Montana....not either member of congress. Governors have little to do with troops being sent anywhere, so it was no slip up on his part.
    • stonewall123, on 07/03/2008, -0/+0Oil is a commodity that's sold to the highest international bidder. The country of origin does not matter. Not sure how this has anything to do with troops to protect the energy supply. Pressure elsewhere in the world oil supply has a direct effect here (US or Canada) and vice versa. It's all supply and demand compounded with over speculation.

  • PeaTearGryphon, on 07/03/2008, -6/+13I'd take "dirty oil" over "clean coal" any day
  • tufftugg, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6 U.S. Energy Subcommittee salivates on shirt, while touring oil supply, without having to send in the Marines looking for WMD's.
  • dupswapdrop, on 07/03/2008, -7/+10Bush says" attack canada now they have oil, we must set them free!"
    • CaptainShaun, on 07/03/2008, -0/+8I bet those are his exact words.
    • tufftugg, on 07/03/2008, -0/+9 You guys tried that once, and the Canadians marched all the way to the Capital and set it on fire, that is why you had to use chicken house whitewash to paint it.
  • jotate, on 07/03/2008, -2/+6I was under the impression the cost of extracting this kind of oil would be much greater that conventional drilling. I kind of feel like, given the fact that oil isn't just used for fuel (plastics, for example), we should be saving these less conventional sources for when we're tapped out for fuel and just need it to continue making basic goods.
    • SkippyDoorknob, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5It is more expensive, but as oil costs rise, it becomes worth it.
    • rdmillar, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Agree with SkippyDoorKnob, the cost is coming down due to R & D into new extraction technologies. I hear production costs are in the $12 - $18/bbl mark these days. Keep in mind that this does not sell at the "Sweet Texas Crude" price that everyone is talking about in the news, the quality of crude is much lower, hence the price is much lower.
    • kingmanic, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1It much more energy intensive but it's still a significant net energy gain. Instead of just sticking a pipe into the ground, you need to dig up a large amount of oil drenched sand/dirt/clay, then steam it to release the oil and then do various purifying processes to convert it to synthetic crude. But the price has jumped to such a level that it's still insanely profitable.

      The deposit is huge. About 1/3 of all known oil sources. For saving this source, you won't get significant capacity over night so there isn't any need to wait. Production from the oil sands reduces pressure on the world energy markets. Attempts to conserve ought to be promoted world wide but this will continue to be a significant source of US petrochemical energy and petrochemical derivatives.
    • craftyshrew, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Oil Sands mining is profitable if the price is $40/barrel. What was the price today? I think it hit $146.00...
  • num3thod, on 07/03/2008, -9/+4Link whore for a good cause IMO. Tar sands are dirtier and more harmful than coal....any day.
    http://stoptarsands.wordpress.com/
    • jonnyboy1544, on 07/03/2008, -1/+3I get all my news from blogs on wordpress.

      But seriously, you probably haven't had it as bad as the people that can't afford to get to work. Renewables can certainly be part of the future, but we aren't there yet. Slightly cleaner air is nothing if people have no money in their pockets. We need this stuff now... and we can have it now.
      • num3thod, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Still doesn't justify rapping hector after hector of land and polluting vast amounts of water to quench America's SUV love affair. Give me a ***** break, dude.

        And no, that link wasn't intended for "news" you freaking moron. It's called social awareness.
      • jonnyboy1544, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Rapping who? Listen buddy, I'm all about social awareness. As someone that's so aware of society, you should know that SUV sales are way down and people are having a hard time affording anything nowadays... mostly because of the unintended consequences of politicians who think like you that have "good intentions" but not rational policy sense.

        Sorry dude, you're wrong.
      • num3thod, on 07/04/2008, -1/+1Worthless troll. You don't even know what you're saying.
      • jonnyboy1544, on 07/05/2008, -1/+1Troll? Stick to World of Warcraft guy.
  • jonnyboy1544, on 07/03/2008, -3/+2Wow, our government is starting to make sound energy policy decisions. Good for you!!
  • EdmontonEh, on 07/03/2008, -4/+3If you have concerns or questions about the Oil Sands, please go here:
    http://digg.com/environment/Canada_s_Oil_Sands_A_n ...
    http://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/index.aspx
  • JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -9/+2Waaaaaah, cry me a river. If someone owns that land (I'm hoping a private individual and not the socialist Canadian government) then they have every right in the world to extract and sell it by whatever means and for whatever price they can get for it.

    Congress can tax it, that's about it. They talk like they import our oil for us and distribute it through rationing. WE MAKE THAT DECISION every time we go to the pump, flip a light switch or buy a plastic toy phone, computer or dildo. You talk about government stepping in? You pathetic fools, step up and do it yourself, stop using these things, stop buying it.

    As for Canada and with regard to the US "stealing" its oil and the idea we should go elsewhere? Canada has about 25,000,000 people, that's basically Texas. You couldn't use all the oil there in a 100 to 200 years, and the amount of money we pay you far exceeds its worth to you than just hanging on to it. If anything you should be jumping up and down spanking your monkey for the fact you have it that their is such a rich nation nearby willing to buy it at all, considering how hard it is to refine.

    Last i checked i didn't give a ***** about some pandering govs trying to make a name for themselves. Obviously they don't have the best interest of their constituencies in mind. Hopefully they don't get reelected.(fat chance of that)

    Coal and oil are so clean(relative to your idiotic standards) now to burn in a power plant (don't pull that stupid ***** term "carbon footprint" on me, its a nice catch phrase that will die like "global cooling" and "whole in the ozone layer" did back in the day) , all factories combines probably couldn't equal half the output of the smalled active volcano in the world. Yet you say that we contribute to this myth called "man made global warming."

    Can you please go back to France or Spain or whatever other wonderfully progressive ***** whole your from and just tell your bosses there that we were not stupid enough to listen?
    • tufftugg, on 07/03/2008, -1/+4 What are you smoking that makes you think Canada is a socialist country? Damn, they really do brainwash you boys down there. Now all they have to do is educate you.
      • askantik, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2lol, he's an idiot. He's right that people first and foremost have to consume less, but no public official has the balls to say that, at least if they want to keep their job. And for the record, the hole (not whole) in the ozone layer isn't a big issue anymore because it has pretty much gone away because of the near-global ban on ozone-depleting CFCs.

        Where is your evidence that "man-made global warming is a myth?" Bleh. More than 90% of all scientists with credibility in the subject (e.g., pscyhologists, sociologists, archaeologists, political scientists do not have credibility in the subject) agree that global warming has been exacerbated by man's activities. Including, but not limited to, the release of carbon dioxide. Are you one of the people that thinks if you can somehow discredit Al Gore then global warming isn't real? Please don't think that "An Inconvenient Truth" is the only evidence for global warming. You fail.
      • JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1Ya i got a little carriered away there. Its not THAT bad. Id have to argue that its mainly the healthcare system that im aware of that I would refer to as a socialist policy.

        As far as being brainwashed and educated please come see some of Americas state run schools....its pathetic. While you can learn from them they are basically platforms for whatever politics the mommies and daddies at the Parent teacher associations want you to be indoctrinated with. And in my particular case it was a taught hatred of capitalism that lead me to a love with that same system.
      • jackkerouac, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2WE ARE a socialist country. Christ - where the Hell do YOU live?
      • JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1pseudo socialist. But ya I wouldnt disagree.
      • JonGalt, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1@askanti
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof please see Science and other uses, its called logic. The burden of proof is on YOU not ME to prove that your claim is valid.

        I'm not the one that posited the argument. And you/they need to bring the irrefutable evidence. I love how you said words like "scientist", "bleh", "credibility" and mentioned things like "consensus" without stating it outright and expect that to be the proof of your claim.

        All of which do not prove your BOLD CLAIM. I couldn't give a ***** less about al gore. I care about facts that are constantly overlooked or set aside by worshipers of this claim, and these are absolutely just some of the bigger questions i have and arent answered:
        1.)water in the atmosphere is the biggest contribute to warmer global temperatures.
        2.)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide i cant explain how many different things contradict what is said by people like you in just this one article. You would have to read it. But it has a gigantic proportion of the questions id like answered.

        The problem is you think consensus is science. Its not. Facts are what science is based on, not your democratically voted consensus.
  • Meany123, on 07/03/2008, -4/+2Wow. What a relief. For a second there, I thought the US, in it's new Obamamania, was going to stop buying oil.

    /Sarcasm
  • TurdZilla, on 07/03/2008, -3/+4Thats Right more OIL is the only solution
    • drmangrum, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Don't be an idiot. Alternative energies are being investigated, but it would take DECADES to get the infrastructure to any new technology. For the US to kick the oil habit, there has to be a gradual weening; do you have any idea how much of the economy is tied to the oil industry? Even if there was some silver bullet alternative energy discovered today, supplanting everything at once would spell economic disaster for the WORLD. I'm not spewing FUD here, it would literally make the Great Depression seem like a golden age.

      It would take at least 20 to 30 years to replace all vehicles with non-oil based engines. At the same time we would have to replace fuel/power stations ( or whatever they'll be ). People who work for the oil companies would have to be moved to new line of work gradually ( could you imagine the impact if 500,000 people were suddenly jobless? ). Luckily most power plants are coal or nuclear based, so relatively few oil based power plants would have to be shut down.

      There is no quick, or cheap, solution.
      • kingmanic, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1As well few "alternative" energy sources scale all that well. Tidal energy is finite and localized as are hydro electric. Solar uses a lot of rare earth metals which are running out. Which leaves nuclear and the marginal oil sources such as the oil sands.
  • pepemt, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2lobby lobby lobby
  • goodinohio, on 07/03/2008, -2/+3Environmental extremists will lose this one. When you say more product on the market will not effect price you look ridiculous and hurt your cause.
  • askantik, on 07/03/2008, -2/+2What exactly about it impressed them? It takes even more energy to produce lower quality oil from the sands that traditional oil.... It's a lose-lose situation as far as efficiency. Of course, politicians don't care about that. Meh. And to the person who said it will take "decades" to introduce renewable technology... I'd say it will only take that long if our government doesn't embrace it. It's chugging along fairly well on its own. Now if it could just get some help, or if 95% of our government could stop getting blowjobs from oil company executives, then we'd be in business!
    • kingmanic, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1More efficient use of energy is key, but it's still an energy source and the bad PR is more a political maneuver then any real problem.
  • banderwocky, on 07/03/2008, -1/+2In 10 years when technology catches up to the oil removal process, it will be cheaper and easier to retrieve. Regardless, if the US starts a war with Iran, and oil goes up to $200/barrel, I'm pretty sure many countries will be happy to buy Alberta Oil. This is just a song and dance routine.
  • brettg102, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2Listen to this:
    US passes legislation to set an artificial "basement" on oil prices...say $50/bbl. We will NEVER pay less than 50/bbl again. By doing this, it becomes profitable for oil companies and other ventures to go get the oil in the tar sands, offshore, and shale oil that are NORTH AMERICAN, but currently cost much more to produce than Saudi Arabia poking a hole in the ground. This effectively removes the bargaining power of OPEC, because they could nto do what they did in the 80's again and artificially drop the bottom out of oil to keep us stuck on THEM. I think American's would gladly go back to $2.00/gal, even though the possibility of .90/gal would never again exist...and we'd be oil independent.
  • Canadian0207, on 07/03/2008, -1/+1you know, for a country being all bent on the environment and recycling and all that jazz, Canada wants to produce as much dirty Oil for the US as it possibly can. It just goes to show, when it comes down to it, everyone has a price.
  • fnordy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+5Look up the numbers, The largest supplier of Oil and Gas to the US is Canada, not the Saudis!

    Better yet, if the US started to shift to nuclear...Canada is the US's major supplier of Uranium. In addition to that, we supply most of the Electricity used by the North East of the US from the hydro-electric plants in Quebec and Nefoundland & Labrador.

    ttyl
    Farrell
  • DarkSideofMoon, on 07/03/2008, -0/+3Here's a video about Avi Lewis (his wife is Naomi Klein; wrote "No Logo") talking about Alberta's tar sands that the place I work for recorded back in early April:

    http://youtube.com/watch?v=RpTsbOMEGe8

    (now that I listen to it more, it talks more about the Alberta public than anything else, but it's still pretty interesting)
    • fnordy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2He used to be on CBC! He left them to join Al Jazeera, didn't he?
    • DarkSideofMoon, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Yes, he did. I gave the link to "Part 6", but in the first few parts, I believe he mentions Al Jazeera.

      And I don't think he "left them". They cancelled his show.

      However, I think he says that Canada and the United States are the only countries that Al Jazeera doesn't operate in.
  • cybrguy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Its funny that they cite environmental concerns with Nuclear power. People in the US who are anti-nuclear are always looking at the worst of the worst in the nuclear industry and inferring that it applies to nuclear power as a whole. Nuclear power is the best source of energy.
    • fnordy, on 07/03/2008, -0/+1Actually, if I had to depend on the US Nuclear Power systems, I would be against them too! Crappy design, bad oversight, and clueless about security.

      Canada had it's first nuclear meltdown, and I do mean that literally, in 1952. Due to that event, Canada implemented very strict laws and regulatory regimes that has prevented anything near the US 3 Mile Island type events.
  • jburka, on 07/03/2008, -0/+2I would suggest the congressmen (and women) also read the article on the tar sands in the June issue of the respected Canadian Geographic magazine: http://canadiangeographic.ca/magazine/jun08/featur ... Then they can learn about the areas of scarred land, the minimal efforts regarding reforestation, and the tailing ponds left behind after the oil is removed. Can the US and Canada not learn how to use less carbon-based fuels, have less environmental impact, and not leave a scarred earth behind for someone else to clean up? Remember the still unsolved mess of the Sydney tar ponds!
  • gkiltz, on 07/04/2008, -0/+0Wouldn't it be nice if the US had a refinery that could actually handle oil from the Alberta Oil Sands project so that we don't have to import finished product!
  • msredsonyas, on 07/05/2008, -0/+0I tend to think of our relationship to heaven, and our accountability to God, a higher power, or whatever one believes in like this. We have a report card, what is written in our books, and obviously we, as individuals, are going to get some A's maybe, and lot of F's, probably in some subject matters. Not only for how we have trespassed (missed the mark, what the word sin actually means) against ourselves, to God, but to others, and our communities/society.
    Personally, if I was in charge of the system standards that esteem the grades, I would have to give these guys a F for failing to take care of the planet, for failing to care for natural resources such as water which is used in large amounts for the oil sands, for failing to put what they are leaving for the children of tomorrow, the animals of today and tomorrow....... and a host of other reasons for scoring a F.

    Just think about it........ if you were the creator of the earth, or the universe and you knew you had left the earth in pristine condition, then you come along to check on it, and you see what has happened to it......

    Hummmmmmmmmm........ I dunno if you, or I would be too thrilled to come home and find our homes trashed.....

    And this is trashing.....pure and simple
    I
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.