These Pictures May Give You Nightmares About The Canada Oil Sands en-us Wed, 31 Dec 1969 19:00:00 -0500 Sat, 27 Dec 2014 12:41:37 -0500 Robert Johnson DLM Fri, 09 Nov 2012 13:27:06 -0500 The photographs themselves are not biased... those visual facts The lens through which the viewer interprets them is where the bias comes in. The photos really don't convey the scope and stink of the place. Nor the natural beauty of the forest and marshes. Nor the native people whose trap lines and lands are being polluted so much so that kids in the 20s are dying from rare, petroleum related cancers. Nor the HUGE climate impacts of mining and refining oil that is mostly dirt. Just one mine out of many emits the CO2 of nearly 1 million cars and it takes 5 barrels of water for every barrel of oil produced. The oil carried by the KXL pipeline would be the equivalent of putting 6 million more cars on the road or building 7 new coal fired power plants. Dana Thu, 08 Nov 2012 16:14:56 -0500 I did an environmental assessment with my class in college on a farmers property to help him argue against the land being expropriated for a landfill near Toronto. In the reports from the landfill company it actually allowed x number of deaths a year due to increased traffic. When we value money over life, it is indeed a sad day. The good news is we prevented the landfill from going in with the effort of our entire class. OhSusana Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:05:41 -0500 What this article fails to show is the reclamation that's done after the oil has been extracted. The sites are turned into parks. The water is left cleaner than it was found. There has always been oil in the Athabasca River. The natives used it to waterproof their canoes. That mess made by Mother Nature is actually being cleaned up by oil companies. Alberta needs to make a law that anyone who criticizes the Oil Sands will be cut off and barred from purchasing or using any of its products. That's right. No oil for heating. No gasoline for cars and a permanent ban from any public transportation that uses gasoline. First on my list would be Robert Johnson. Susiecue Tue, 06 Nov 2012 12:03:52 -0500 What this article fails to show is the reclamation that's done after the oil has been extracted. The sites are turned into parks. The water is left cleaner than it was found. There has always been oil in the Athabasca River. The natives used it to waterproof their canoes. That mess made by Mother Nature is actually being cleaned up by oil companies. Alberta needs to make a law that anyone who criticizes the Oil Sands will be cut off and barred from purchasing or using any of its products. That's right. No oil for heating. No gasoline for cars and a permanent ban from any public transportation that uses gasoline. First on my list would be Robert Johnson. Pamela Post Thu, 01 Nov 2012 21:04:40 -0400 I am reading this article you wrote concerning the candian oil companies. I have a man that says he works for exxonmobil as a site manager and lives in Edmonton, Alberta. He says he is getting ready to leave the "campland" and head back home and then to the states. He's been bugging me to open a checking account here in the states for him. He claims he's going to make $18K after he leaves there. I just met this man a few months ago by him finding me on facebook. I have been told about scams and I am wondering if this is part of what you are writing about. I want no part of his money nor scams or anything. I am just trying to figure out how did I manage to be chosen. Does this sound familiar in any shape form or fashion to you? I'm very distressed about the whole situation. Regards, Pam artkra,e Sat, 27 Oct 2012 14:40:31 -0400 Does anyone think what is shown in these pictures is any different than all the other mines all over the world. The method of extracting oil is fracing which essential drills horizontally under the ground. The only major difference is that we don't see what is going under the ground. Everyone is concerned about what this will do to underground water supplies. I don't live in Alberta but wonder why everyone seems to pick on them compared to what has been done and is being done all over the world. It is interesting to note all these green thumbs jumping up and down but I don't see them parking their cars. Recently I read a book, the name of which escapes me, where a study was done on the Alberta oil sands. Basically the study outlined in the book revealed that the oil sands companies deal with the most stringent rules in the world concerning the protection of the environment. These pictures are biased and very misleading in my opinion. Show us pictures of other mines all over the world. Canada's mining is a blip compared to China's environmental policies along with a host of other countries. Fast Orange Thu, 25 Oct 2012 01:48:28 -0400 The only flaw in your argument (which was intelligent and well written) is that we don't actually need to chase "one" elusive alternative power source. The combined use of ALL sources (including oil), put in places where the natural environment is conducive to their use, coupled with a more conservative lifestyle, could more than cover our energy needs. No one energy source alone is an ideal solution and I doubt you would find many environmentalists that would try to argue this point. Aileron_Trading Tue, 23 Oct 2012 22:32:46 -0400 " We're not saying the project is good or bad ... " Yeah ... uh ... okaaayy. Ya may want to investigate your own framing then ... "May Give You Nightmares ..." "will make your spine tingle." "many are aghast" Good lord journalism is truly dead aepxc Tue, 23 Oct 2012 03:53:59 -0400 The challenges facing the fossil-to-renewables transition are logistical, not technological. If some sooper-aliens showed us and told us to switch 100% of our energy production away from fossil fuels by the time they come back in 10 years (without slowing growth in economic output) or else they will sterilise the Earth of life, we would have no trouble avoiding extermination. But, given the amount of infrastructure set up or optimised for the use of fossil fuels, a lot of people would lose a lot of money during the transition (though almost not at all through productive capital actually being destroyed, but through changing market values – a redistribution, rather than a shrinking of the pie). Of course, in the absence of genocidal aliens no one has any incentive to take the hit and the bigger players have more than enough power to prevent anyone from forcing them to do so. The result is an economic base that isn't even maximally efficient (not enough flexibility, too many externalities), but this is to be expected as markets are path-dependent and so find local maxima, rather than global maxima. 3d1k Mon, 22 Oct 2012 19:26:19 -0400 I guess the author has never been to an operating project before. Can't imagine where he thinks near everything used in modern life is sourced from! Kevin M MacKay Mon, 22 Oct 2012 16:58:10 -0400 I don't see a problem. Denyse Sun, 21 Oct 2012 01:45:29 -0400 My hearts broken I have no more words...... Amelia Slovensky Sat, 20 Oct 2012 17:00:38 -0400 This was an incredible lesson to me. I had never understood this process of getting oil. Thanks, Hope Carole Asche Sat, 20 Oct 2012 12:12:29 -0400 Some points; the last time humanity in North America were frugal with their resources, they were chopping their own fire wood. As history shows us, this did not last all that long, as the illusion of endless resources led to ongoing deforestation and permanent changes in every North American ecosystem where humans settled. While any number of North American species succumb to extinction, North Americans continued to blaze trails, and today we have our current patch -work landscape of desperately held natural reserves, our National Parks system; some public lands which are hands off for development, mixed with a sprawl of Walmart strip-malls, unsustainable suburban sprawl and technicolor loci of industrial waste ponds. Of course, it can be argued that the towers of a smelter or the mountain top mining of the Virginias have a beauty unique to our time, but I still prefer the old-fashioned beauty of plain 'ole nature punctuated with well maintained farms and thoughtfully designed communities. I question how the abundance offered to us in our lives as chronic shoppers improves our experience, and I always see the irony in cultural trends of the super-rich, which is now, rustic this and that; from hand whittled kitchen tools to resettlement, or at least acquisition of oldtyme hobby farms where the bounties of nature lay multicolored with a gentle dusting of sweet loam, unsullied by Round Up or factory farmed steer manure. Yes it is true, while the rest of us get up early to beat the crowds at the strip mall for purchases manufactured in pristine plastics, our wealthy counterparts are scouring the web for hand tooled wooden coffee grinders and organically grown cotton textiles. As things stand for us, the next 100 years could be characterized as the Last Great Rape Years for any and all petroleum resources, so that in our life-times, we never run dry of our Ziplock tubs and crappy holiday decorations. But as the New Years globe drops in Times Square at the close of 2112, the Industrial and Corporate Oncelers will be long rotting in their extravagant tombs, while the children of our future will have that disappointed feeling after the Christmas presents have all been unwrapped, and you are sitting in a sad pile of glittery trash. captaintrips Fri, 19 Oct 2012 20:23:48 -0400 bigots, lololol... people who wrote this article probably drove somewhere today with a gas vehicle that requires frequent oil changes. 15.5X38 Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:47:32 -0400 $45,000.00 a tire for the dump trucks? Sounds like a whole lotta gouging going on. Then there are the envoirmental fines - more gouging. Thank god "grown ups" are doing something to get more oil out to the masses to help fight the $4.00 dollar plus diesel costs. Everything we buy costs more because of high fuel costs. The article should've had more about what the oil companies are doing to put things back. I bet they'll be planting trees too. Martha Jundt Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:46:29 -0400 I have family in Canada and what is happening in Alberta scares the hell out of me.We have to stop destroying Fletch Fri, 19 Oct 2012 16:10:33 -0400 I have to add one comment to the post about " there is a plan to show what the area will look like and be used for..." My stepson has been tree-planting in some of the affected areas. The required clothing for the work he was doing, that of planting trees? A HAZ-MAT SUIT! Regardless of what the plan calls for as post-reclamation activity, I would not want to set one foot in such an environment. WrongBus Fri, 19 Oct 2012 15:30:24 -0400 Thanks for this very, very informative photo journey, Robert. The 'oil sands' have been controversial and in the news for many years, but I had no real idea of the actual reality of this process. Wow. Mind-boggling. dethray Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:25:39 -0400 i think it all looks beautiful--but really,i wish they would outlaw all oil-park all trucks-and then you stupid greenies could eat each other-morons e hedges Fri, 19 Oct 2012 14:14:16 -0400 Heartbreaking that mankind destroys everything in its path over greed. A wise mankind would have learned tolive in harmony with nature. Tragic and what does it all mean in the end, nothing. DMG Fri, 19 Oct 2012 11:30:09 -0400 I believe in freedom. My definition for freedom is that people should be able to do whatever they want (whether anyone else in the entire world agrees with them) as long as they don't harm anyone else or their property. The problem is that the earth belongs to all of us. Fossil fuels are potentially damaging this planet for all of us (and future generations) and it may be irreversible. There are 'facts' to support this but like all 'facts' they are subject to change as mankind acquires more knowledge or better ways of seeing. I would rather err on the side of caution and give future generations the best chance for a decent life in the best environment we can reasonably leave them. You would rather lean toward a better standard of living for those alive today. Each of us goes out into the world and tries to persuade people that our point of view is the better one. I am not trying to judge you, I am debating you. My argument is about sustainability, values and risk/reward ratios. It is short on 'facts' because I think the science (not unlike all science) is far from settled. One thing that is a fact is that if we lower our per person energy consumption to the same level (per person) of American's of the 50s and 60s we will not need to import one drop of oil. I don't believe the standard of living of that era represents deprivation or mass misery. I lived it and I was pretty darn comfortable. I also believe life should be about balance. Just where to set that balance is subject to change and should be arrived at through discussions like this one. When you said you wanted an open debate i assumed you asked to hear my "thoughts and opinion". Also, if so many people are living within their means why are we as a country over 16 trillion dollars in debt with trillions more in unfunded promises. This debt belongs to all of us (if we are honorable, moral people) or it belongs to future generations if we are not. If we leave this debt to future generations (and perhaps a polluted inhospitable planet where fossil fuels have been depleted) I doubt they will think we lived within our means. The "policies" that I refer to are policies we arrive at through mutual agreement after intellectually honest debate. We are a nation of laws and these laws are supposed to represent the will of the people. These laws often don't make everyone happy but the process continues and perhaps you or I will be more happy with what future laws look like. Don't harm people or their property or the property we hold in trust for future generations and I will pretty much defend anything you do...whether I agree with it or not. Michael Silva Fri, 19 Oct 2012 10:48:22 -0400 AddI’ve never redefined what you want or state. I’m just giving you the other side of the discussion. You never have given me any facts, just what you think might happen to the world or how you wish people lived. I wish people were a heck of a lot nicer to one another, but that’s not what I see in the secular world. You can live your life the way you want to. I have no problem with that. However, for example, I have problems with people that think eating meat is bad, therefore everyone shouldn’t eat meat or people that see guns as evil, therefore no one should have guns, etc…I don’t force my beliefs or desires onto others. Nor, do I use legislation, i.e. “policies”, as you have stated to make people change how they live. Last thing, you have brought up many times about too much consumption and materialism. If an item is over consumed, prices go way up (here’s the market working for you) and people have to find alternatives. But, when the supply is purposefully limited, i.e. not being allowed to drill and mine for our energy needs, and prices rise to non-market allowed prices, then that is forcing people to change because of an ideology. And, because some are not are “enlightened” the elected elite, we must enact legislation to show them errs of their ways. The alternative energy sources or renewable energy sources you state are out there are too expensive for the majority. Even if people cut back on what you call their obsessive consumption, they still wouldn’t be able to pay for them. Most people do live within their means. The last 4 and a half years have proven that and people have changed their purchasing habits, just look at the data. I know this for a fact because I’m in one of those “evil materialistic” industries you wish didn’t exist. People are struggling and they don’t have to. But, you or no one else has the right to tell me I cannot amass wealth or strive for that, especially if I’m a doing it in a moralistic, legally and hardworking way. Don’t judge me because you have no idea what I do with my income or whom I give it too. That’s what most Liberals don’t understand about amassing wealth, you think someone either cheated or inherited it (maybe, that’s how the liberals got their wealth), but the majority of people that have earned their wealth know that they own society and donate and contribute a lot of their wealth to their own causes. Live your life as an example to others and when they see you’re extremely happy and content and if they ask you how you do it, you can give them your thoughts and opinion. a comment... dcarr Fri, 19 Oct 2012 08:09:37 -0400 To promote tar sands you must be a climate science denier, so as soon as you 'conservatives' stop denying science and reality in preference for your selfish, short-sighted ideology then liberals will stop pointing out that is what you keep doing. Pretty much everything you wrote is false, misleading or irrelevant. You get it from your rightwing echo chamber where 'facts' are whatever Rupert Murdoch, the Kochs, etc. tell you they are. Renewable energy is growing at a massive rate globally because it works, because it mitigates CO2 and because it brings net economic benefit. Fossil fuels are destroying a liveable climate. You 'conservatives' claim to be economic geniuses and yet you can't work out which is the better investment. dcarr Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:57:13 -0400 To promote tar sands you must be a climate science denier, so as soon as you 'conservatives' stop denying science and reality in preference for your selfish, short-sighted ideology then liberals will stop pointing out that is what you keep doing. Pretty much everything you wrote is false, misleading or irrelevant. You get it from your rightwing echo chamber where 'facts' are whatever Rupert Murdoch, the Kochs, etc. tell you they are. * What The Press Is Getting Wrong About Solyndra. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> * Solyndra’s Loan Guarantee vs. Military Boondoggles. A little perspective. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> Renewable energy is growing at a massive rate globally because it works, because it mitigates CO2 and because it brings net economic benefit. dcarr Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:45:13 -0400 Can you please explain how destroying a liveable climate is an "economic benefit"? pb Fri, 19 Oct 2012 07:24:00 -0400 It's funny how he chose not to include any pictures showing the portions of the land AFTER the oil had been harvested and the land had been reconstructed and cleaned pretty much looks like they were never there. The fact that the author chose to tell only one side of the story proves he has no credibility at all and is simply pushing his own agenda here. Victor Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:33:09 -0400 Nightmares? I love these big engineering projects. A beauty of their own; and it is in the eye of the beholder. They eventually do restore it to the wild. Anyways, mankind needs the energy trapped in those shales. Food prices are very high at the moment; thanks to high oil prices. If we want to feed the world, and provide people with the energy to shape their dreams, we cannot possibly leave aside these enormous shale deposits (that are in very sparsely populated areas). Roger R. Hale Fri, 19 Oct 2012 04:21:53 -0400 Robert, Thanks for those pictures and the commentary. Really important for all of us to contemplate. Canada has lost its environmental compass, with the great help of the oil hungry US. What to do? Convinces me that we must be a breakthrough in technology, allowing us to forego oil, if we are to survive as a species. Again, thanks for the piece you did. I hope you expand it into a bigger project. A book, perhaps, or a documentary movie. RRH Colleen Brennan Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:24:29 -0400 So basically nature had a huge oil spill that polluted a huge section of Canada and saturated the sand with evil toxic oil and now the oil companies are paying the government of Canada to let them clean up this toxic waste left by Mother nature??? Sounds like a pretty good thing to me. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:15:27 -0400 Thank you for that comment. It is nice to know I'm not alone. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 23:14:00 -0400 I don't want the government telling you want to do either. I do want the government to provide a level playing field and to enforce laws uniformly. I too would like us to be energy independent but I would like to do this (to the extent practical) through conservation and innovation...not government subsidized innovation but free market driven innovation. I think the condition of the planet is everyone's business...most especially future generations who aren't here to defend their right to the same opportunities we've had. I believe austerity is painful but that it is the only honest way to deal with the hole we've dug. The difference between a $5/gallon gas tax (which by the way would go directly to pay down the debt) and subsidies which pick winners and losers is that no particular company benefits or is hurt by it. Everyone benefits or is hurt only to the extent that they allow the new playing field to effect their business or their net income. People and companies can and will adapt. Please tell me specifically what would be so wrong about us as a society returning to a standard of living and quality of life similar to what our grandparents had. I lived through the 50s and 60s and I honestly didn't see anything wrong with it. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:58:21 -0400 I want all sorts of things but I don't want to dictate any of them. There is a huge difference between motivating people to do things and forcing them to. Remember, we were supposed to be engaged in the kind of open debate you say you want. This is what that kind of debate looks like. The one thing I won't allow is for you to redefine what I say. I may be wrong but if I am it is up to me to figure that out. I truly believe that one day people will figure out that sustainable living is more important than amassing wealth. Until that day I will keep advocating for people to be responsible, frugal and most of all to conserve our precious resources no matter how vast they may seem at any given point in time. Thanks for the converstaion. Alex Ryan Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:55:32 -0400 Old article. Repeated again? Chuck Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:34:08 -0400 Is the argument a moral one or a business one? Obviously our US companies are obeying all the rules. Yes, it is US companies getting that oil for the US consumer. (Thankfully that means less oil from the Middle East.) If this is a moral argument than what is the basis of the argument? Is it pollution? If so then the argument fails. In fact, there is no coherent moral argument. This is nothing more than appeal to passions. Intelligent people will see through it. Chuck Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:30:18 -0400 Are you for real? What reality do you live in? When was the last time you had chicken? Just follow that chicken back and see if you will get sick. Do the same for your beef. How about your Big Mac? How about your GM corn? If you want to talk about sick then go and see how your drinking water is purified. Wake up at 3 am and see how much junk is spewed into the air. Do you drive a car? Why? Because it is less poisonous? You go through airport security and pretend that the radiation does not affect you? It does! Of course two wrongs don't make a right but wake up! This writer is mixing you up. He is making a moral issue from a business deal. They have nothing to do with each other. Nelson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:19:11 -0400 I'm not even trying to compete with your energy footprint and I don't want the government telling me what to do. You might see it as gluttony but I see it as nobody else's business. You don't seem to understand that a $5/gal tax on fuel is essentially a subsidy of other types of fuel and the government picking my pocket while picking winners and losers (or, as Romney said, just losers). This is EXACTLY what Obama and Chu want to see if they just didn't have to mess with this pesky democracy thing. They said as much in the past but our ignorant electorate has forgotten. They aren't saying it now because, with $4/gal gas already, people would vote them out of office so fast their heads would spin. There are plenty of videos of them saying that they want the price of conventional energy to rise so that their pet projects -- Solyndra, etc -- can compete. In the end, these things simply aren't competitive and need direct subsidies ala Solyndra or indirect via taxes to survive. I want us to gain energy independence (or at least N. American independence) so we can employ our own to develop these resources, quit sending money to hostile regimes in Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc, not have to fight wars to protect our access to the oil that forms the lifeblood of our economy and not have to borrow from China to do so all of it. Our economy could not afford to conserve its way to independence and the notion of going back to living like our grandparents is naive at best. I think your heart is in the right place, but you can't have it both ways. God bless Chuck Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:18:53 -0400 This is all true, factual, but it did not stop Robert from printing his nonsense, again. He has an agenda but we have not figure out what it is. I used to think it was to support more drilling in the Gulf or in Zion National Park but I am starting to think that is not the case. Considering how Robert loves the military, maybe it is all about the Middle East oil. Maybe Robert really wants more of our soldiers over there for the sake of Middle East oil. Less oil from Canada means more soldiers in the Middle East. Robert, if you have kids, think about it. I do. Chuck Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:14:27 -0400 Hey, it is a slow news day and Robert wants to do his bit to destroy another US industry. You see, most of those companies in the Alberta oil fields just happen to be US companies. Sure, the Canadians get the tax benefits but the companies extracting that oil are US companies. But, maybe Robert wants more Gulf oil or more exploration in Zion National Park. Chuck Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:10:56 -0400 Of course it is not biased. What happened is that Robert asked one of the Koch brothers for a favor but it was refused. So, this is his way of revenge. Obviously Robert knows that those companies up there are US companies. Maybe Robert does not like US companies making money. Chuck Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:08:43 -0400 You must be an ignorant Canadian since the oil sands only represent 2% of your total green house emissions. Perhaps you would prefer that we have another accident in the Gulf? Or, maybe you would like us to explore for oil in Zion National Park? Only the ignorant speak before thinking through the consequences. Maybe the writer was rebuffed by Koch brothers. Chuck Thu, 18 Oct 2012 22:04:36 -0400 It must be a slow news day. Johnson is pretending that he is an investigative journalist. Maybe he can give an accurate picture next time. Does he know how big this place is in comparison to Alberta? Is he aware that in terms of green house gases, this place represents less than 2% in the Great White North (Canada)? I can go on but obviously Johnson has an agenda. Maybe he was spurned by Koch brothers or maybe he does not like giving our folks all those pipeline jobs. Or, maybe he just likes the idea of another explosion in the Gulf. Whatever the reason, this is a sad excuse for journalism. joe scamolla Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:54:07 -0400 More global warming BS. Robert is just a hack repeating the lines handed down by his superiors. For better or worse, unless you are willing to live in an unheated cave without food production, we NEED petroleum to power our economy. The notion that doubling or tripling energy costs will somehow create new alternative energies has failed thus far. Everyone knows we need alternatives, but in the meantime we need to survive. Michael Silva Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:38:48 -0400 So much for this being a civilized debate. No need to yell. Here is a quote from you: "You may be striving in your personal life to create the very same future I want for this planet but it isn't enough for you and I to do this...we need policies that motivate our fellow citizens to do the same. Here is my argument regarding global warming." What am I missing? You've stated you want policies and people to live a certain way. The only way to do that is to dictate to them how they must live All of your arguments have been that people should live a certain way. You might be right, but you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make them drink. We are going to have to just agree to disagree. I like your passion. Peace Greg Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:31:58 -0400 Maybe get your facts straight frist before writing and showing. Remember Canada does this so that America can continue to drive there autos on cheap gas!!!!!! Whatever Thu, 18 Oct 2012 21:11:36 -0400 This is all thanks to Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada, who hails from Alberta. He is as corrupt as GW was in relation to corporations. I loathe him, and so do most Canadians. rick is not asleep Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:46:13 -0400 Great article. When I saw the first couple of pics I thought... is this what the addiction has gotten to? The coke, crack,lighter could not have been more spot on. Romney wants to send this stuff through our entire midwest. No thank you. No im not obama loving democrat. Im U.S.A. loveing American. I would much rather be poor thanforcing someone in the midwest tolive,breath,sleep? In that stuff. Thank you Robert for the eyeopening sadness . But at least I know what the truth is. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:27:57 -0400 I am NOT in favor of subsidized energy of ANY kind. This only leads to boondoggles and misallocation of capital. I don't want to make this argument personal but trust me you would have a very difficult time competing with my energy footprint. My "manifesto" can be distilled down to a simple principle...just live like your grandparents did who built this country. Use the least amount of credit possible. Leave the planet in as least as good a condition as you found it. Work hard, spend time with your family and friends and realize we don't have much time here. I doubt a single person, on their deathbed, will lament the fact they didn't buy enough electronic gadgets or burn enough fossil fuels. It's hard to believe anyone would try to defend gluttony but then again I guess they would try to redefine it. To: Robert Johnson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:12:55 -0400 braniff stated -- "Wow! can you ever tell this was done by a lobbyist for oil." THAT IS A 100% FALSE ACCUSATION -- obviously, whatever b.s. pops out of that skull of mush of yours comes out your keyboard. Might you be the lost soul of Harding Lawrence? DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:09:28 -0400 I was going to let it go but I'm afraid it needs to be addressed. You accuse me of not reading your comments (with no evidence by the way) and then go on to write that I say 'God helps he who helps himself' is in the bible. Could you please point out where I suggest this since you read my comments so much more comprehensively than I read yours. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 19:04:18 -0400 We are already on a "ruinous path". I am suggesting a way to get off the ruinous path and back to a sustainable way of living. Yes, it will involve pain. Poverty isn't bad. It is an essential element of capitalism. What is bad is not giving the people the opportunity to work their way OUT of poverty. Our society and economy need to be restructured. We either do it the long, slow painful way in which reality is thrust upon us or we do it by design in a painful but hopefully more constructive and efficacious way. Just because I reject the nonsense about this credit-based, optimized economy doesn't mean I don't understand it. There is only one reason people don't see austerity as the solution to this crisis and that is self interest. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:54:34 -0400 I have repeatedly said I DON'T WANT TO DICTATE TO ANYONE. What part of this don't you understand? Ethics Int'l Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:28:34 -0400 Why is everybody here so uptight ? Pro or con, we all have been screwed by the Big Oil Boys already & in a Very Big Way. If we are to finish up this planet we might as well share the spoils equally, eh? Blind leading the blind....... Richard L. Kent Esq. Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:25:01 -0400 You show us these pictures like they were a bad thing. Nelson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:19:39 -0400 I don't think that we are as far apart on everything as I originally imagined and please know that I'm not against conservation per se. What I said is that your solution of a $5/gal tax on gas would torpedo the economy, etc..... It would. Any legitimate economist will tell you so and many talk about how a decrease in the cost of gasoline would help struggling families pay bills and put more disposable income into the economy. More than doubling the price of gasoline would have an absolutely devastating impact. While you may want people to do with less, please know that many already are. It's because they don't have JOBS!!!! Why would you want to do something that takes away an individual's ability to provide for themselves and their families and increase the national debt that you so deride? Part of the reason that per capita energy consumption has gone up so dramatically is because of the iPhones and iPads and computers, etc, etc, etc that we all seem to think are a necessity in the developed world. These are tools that do enrich our lives and make us more productive but I would agree that they don't provide real happiness. I find it laughable that so many protesting this or that ill in American society have their Chinese-made devices at the ready. If you are sincere about conservation and lament that Americans consume so much energy, smash your computer and your cell phone and other modern conveniences that you "enjoy". I don't really have the time to respond more fully to your manifesto and explain economics but I work in the finance industry and can assure you that I have a solid grasp on credit and the troubles facing our economy and our nation. Killing the economy by dramatically forcing up the cost of energy would balloon the deficit and result in hyperinflation as we were forced to devalue to pay off our trillions in debt using cheaper dollars or we would default. Spain was one of the countries that subsidized "alternative" energy the most. It helped to kill their economy and cost them jobs. Germany is another country that have invested billions in solar and wind but they have also been forced to curtail their subsidies because the numbers just don't work, the wind doesn't blow and the sun doesn't shine enough and they will soon turn to coal (since they are also going to shut down nuclear following Fukushima) <a href="" target="_blank"></a>. Why should we follow this ruinous path? Em Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:10:58 -0400 I hear ya. Look around you, what do you see? Snookie, Kardsians, Housewives of who the heck cares, basketball wifes - I could go on. Consumption is the current key to our economy. For many it takes a few years to find the real values in life, and unfortunately many never do. mjay Thu, 18 Oct 2012 18:10:21 -0400 So beautiful. Tonight I will be able to watch Honey Boo Boo without fear of interruption because of this. *sniff*! Michael Silva Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:23:32 -0400 Maybe it's because you don't read everything I put in there and want to convince me to live a certain way that goes against every fiber in my body and soul. You’re comparing materialism to consumption. The two are completely different animals. But, it still goes back to the fundamental right do you or any government have to tell me what and how much I consume or make? You don’t. That’s called communism and the outcome is not equality and Utopia, but equality of misery. You cannot force anyone to live a certain way, it goes against our human nature. Which, as you stated, is, unfortunately, a very selfish, looking out for me, and type of nature? That’s why you will never understand why people won’t just give in and follow the laws so we all live in happiness. Hasn’t happened from Adam and Eve, to now and will not ever happen. Just the same way you can’t force someone to believe in God or that Jesus was His Son. Or, how you can’t force someone to love you, people what to want, you feel it deep down in their hearts that they want to love you or believe in something greater than them. That is one of the problems with society today. We’ve educated ourselves to the point that we think we know everything and there can possible be anything greater than us, i.e. God. You’re reference to the bible and quoting “God helps those that help themselves” is one of the most quoted phrases that are NOT in the bible. It’s from Ben Franklin Poor Richards’s Almanac. You have great questions that have been asked for years. How much is enough for one person? That, unfortunately, is not up to you, me or any government to decide. All of our actions have consequences. If I chose to eat way too much, gain a lot of weight and die of a heart attack at 55, then, I and my family loses out. And, I could site many more examples, but I think you get my point. This is about morality, which the government has been taking out of our society for years. I’m dating myself, but I remember when you used to be able to sing Christmas songs and pray in school. Can’t have that now, even if the Supreme Court chose to ignore the constitution that states the government will enact no law to establish a religion-like the one enacted by England that everyone had to belong to the Church of England that broke off from Mother Church. You can’t legislate morality, it’s not the government’s role, that’s God’s and Jesus’s role. Man will always try to manipulate things to make it as easy as it can be for him. That is the cold hard fact. You want people to change their lives and be better stewards of the planet, well so do I. But I don’t force them; they will only resent you and the government that is making them do it. Show them by example, pray for them and lead a life that they would envy you and the how happy you’re in life. You might say my home is above what I need, and some days, I would agree with you. But, I see it as a gift from God and take care of everything, mow the lawns, tend the fruit trees, tend the grape vines, pull the weeds, take care of 80 trees my wife planted, etc., please, I’m not trying to brag my wife drives a car that is 12 years old with over 200k miles on it. I know that my family was blessed. However, I see all of my neighbors with the latest cars, pools or whatever and they don’t seem happy. The only thing you can do is pray for them. It may sound simple and old school, but it works. You can’t make them do anything they don’t want to do, just ask my 16 year old son that is the complete opposite of his mother, brother and I. But, I don’t stop praying for him every day. It helps me and helps them. Not everyone thinks like Gandhi, Buddha, Jesus, Mother Theresa, Pope John Paul II, etc., there are evil people in this world and many take the wrong paths in life. I understand what you wish to achieve for people, but, it will never happen in this world, and yes, this world will end someday. When that day is, no one knows, not even Jesus knew. So, all you can do is prepare for your life’s next journey. I hope to be taking the elevator up, not down. Now, I’m no saint or Mother Theresa but I look at it this way. I’d rather be cleaning toilets in heaven than in hell. Peace. MJS MrCyamtics Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:21:57 -0400 OMG......! Who is in charge on this Planet..........? Stop drinking the Kool Aid and learn how the Earths temperatures are controlled in the Book "Pyramid Gravity Force" available on Amazon, find out how mans penitration in Cheops the great pyramid of Giza, disabled the great pyramid of Giza which controlled the Hawaiian Island vocanic activity. Yes the Giza pyramid was the Earths thermostat until crazy humans broke it, read how the Earth has missed a few crucial mini ice ages and how we have a chance of saving the planet by getting the Giza pyramids back on line. Ancient Geo Engineering is real......And we still have a chance to save planet earth from the massive tectonic plate movements that are coming to blast us all back into the stone age. Regardless of why the temperature rises on planet Earth, The pyramids are here to cool the planet down. We can't afford to do stupid anymore..............!This technology is written in all the ancient text.........Hello is anyone out there..............? braniff Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:13:40 -0400 How on earth do you surmise that oil left in the ground is like an oil spill. So is a car driving the same as one driving through your living room? or a loaded gun like having your head blown off in a moving theatre? very bizzarre, Dia Lucrii braniff Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:10:37 -0400 Wow! can you ever tell this was done by a lobbyist for oil. Nice job muppet braniff Thu, 18 Oct 2012 17:08:14 -0400 Add a comment... DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:55:09 -0400 One more thing...the reason conservation is always good (when it doesn't lead to extreme hardship or deprivation) is precisely because we can't predict when a shortage will occur or what will cause it. It is called erring on the side of caution or saving for a rainy day. You would think someone who sees themselves as a conservative would understand this. When it comes to taking from this planet we should continually ask ourselves how much we really need. True fisherman don't try to catch every fish in the lake because they know it will destroy fishing. You say that you are not living for this world, but the next then why all the focus on consumption. How does consumption ensure the nature of your life in the next world? I am really trying to understand your point of view but it is very confusing to me. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 16:41:44 -0400 I feel like we are talking past each other. You write that "consumption is good" because "we were designed for it". How do you know this? Because humans are innately greedy? Don't we have aspects to our character that we should fight to constrain? Are you really arguing against moderation? I have plenty or resources and I could have even more if I wanted to use credit. I don't eat as much as I could. I don't own as big a house as i could. I don't drive as expensive a car as I could. In sum, I live well within my means and i believe I have a better quality of life for of it. I don't want to dictate to anyone else. We are just having a debate here. I see a lot of unhappy people (many in debt) who have a lot of stuff. I guess what I'm saying is that I would like people to look at their lives and ask whether the pursuit of things (at the potential expense of the planet and future generations) is worth the cost. I have never heard a convincing argument for materialism...certainly not a moral one. To say that the ultimate destruction of the planet is in God's hands is in opposition to what the bible says we are here for. It is a test of our free will and how we use it. It is said that God helps he who helps himself. How are we helping ourselves and our offspring by such a cavalier attitude toward the potential harm to our home? Do you understand the difference between standard of living and quality of life? What does it profit a man to gain the whole world but lose his own soul? When faced with two paths, one which offers the greatest personal enrichment now but perhaps misery and hardship for those who follow or another which offers some hardship and sacrifice now but helps ensure the path will at least be as easy to travel for others I will always encourage people to choose the latter. I don't claim to have any special knowledge. I wouldn't try to lead you into paradise even if I could because If I could lead you in someone else could come along and lead you right back out again. What I'm trying to do is to get people to think for themselves instead of letting the media convince you that the key to happiness is the next shiny product they wave in front of you. HJB Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:53:24 -0400 Great article. One of the most concise and informative I've read on the oil sands and I'm Canadian. Michael Silva Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:46:45 -0400 Here are some points to consider. Conservation, in areas where it is called for, i.e. lack of water supply due to a dry year, requires all individuals to conserve water. But, when there is an abundance of a supply, why must we conserve? Also, when is enough conservation enough? It sounds like to me that you can never conserve enough to satisfy the Utopia that you want. Utopia, by its definition is something that isn’t attainable but is “an impractical, idealistic scheme for social and political reform”. Gas mileage standards have increased, but not necessarily gone higher. For example, a 1988 Honda Civic got better gas mileage than the 2012 Civic and lasted for years. The amount of technology required to make these vehicles “cleaner” cause cost to increase, same thing with the all the airbags on vehicles now. There was a NTSA survey that showed air bags, when used with seat belts, only increase the chance of survival by 1%. Energy conservation, by its nature, causes prices to rise. Just look at California, where I have to live (my wife doesn’t want to move away from her sister-her husband’s a farmer and you really can’t move a farm). We have every know conservation, regulation, rule, law, standard, etc... And gas is almost $5.00 a gallon. Our state is huge and we have to have cars to get to work. California has enacted the regulations and policies to “better” everyone’s life and all it has done is create hardships. Your desire for increased policies to make people change their consumption ways will never happen. You cannot regulate morality nor should any government be the source of morality. That is a major area you and I probably disagree with. I believe this earth was created by someone or something greater than all of us combined. Something that can’t be seen, but I have faith that He does exist. The world has too much order to it, i.e. sun rising in the east, rotation of the earth. So, we probably won’t see eye to eye on that. However, my faith does teach us to be good stewards of what we are given and to care for our brothers and sisters. So, if you are looking for something to guide you on and be in communion with other like thinkers, let me know. Your concerns that what if all of the alleged global warming is caused by us and in 100-200 years, it was found to be our fault. Can’t help you there but I still go back to the data that the alleged global warming isn’t happening, weather cannot be predicted nor can the future be predicted. What, if in 50 years, someone invents the solution to our problems? What if it requires using more fossil fuels? That’s just as much of a probability as using more windmills and riding horses again. Think about this, without global warming, we would never have the ice melt and create parks like Yosemite or all of the fertile land we use for growing crops. Man and women, have been advancing their lots in lives since the beginning of time. We have improved our lives and life expectancies through technology and the advancement of a free market system. And, that touches on your consumption issue. Consumption has increase for everyone as their lives and their children’s lives grow. What my grandparents had is not what my parents had and what I have. Each generation has done better. Not just financially, but in education and our living standards. You can’t just say all of a sudden, ok, you have enough, so you have to stop. You and no government have the right to do or say that. But what you forget is that consumption is not an ever increasing factor or situation. Eventually, I would like to retire and my consumption will go down, just like with my parents that finally decide to retire in their late 70’s. Consumption is good and when there are more people in the market for those goods, there are more people producing those goods and you have competition, i.e. prices go down. I can understand your fears, but, no one knows what’s going to happen in the future. That’s where my faith guides and comforts me. I’m not living for this world, but the next. That may sound corny and old fashion, so be it. But, if more people lived that way and didn’t expect the government to regulate every aspect of our lives, this would be a better world, maybe even the world you hope for. Like I’ve said before, I don’t know how old you are, but I’ve seen enough to know that whenever someone claims to have the keys to a perfect world and all you have to do is give everything you have over to them, their generally selling something and it’s usually not a good thing. So, yes, consumption is good because it’s what we were designed for. How much one should consume, that’s not up to you or a government to decide. But, eventually, everyone’s consumption decreases, it is human nature. Conservation is only needed when there is a lack of resources, like water. Hope this helps, I like writing to you. Peace and I do hope you have peace in your life. t2t Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:30:41 -0400 This is sickening, all for the love of money. We essentially live on an island and what we do or don't do will destroy our home. jak mail Thu, 18 Oct 2012 15:28:32 -0400 There will be a special place in hell specially reserved for those in that industry that promote falsehoods to gullible masses. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:41:46 -0400 Thanks for the response. Here is my counter-argument. Conservation is not a destination, it's a NEVERENDING process. It is good that we have increased gas mileage in cars but make the case for not continuing this process. I don't see why surrounding the driver/passenger in air bags is a bad thing. Everything is about balance but in my opinion the scales have gone completely out of whack in the direction of consumption. Another thing we need to establish is that my argument isn't personal. You may be striving in your personal life to create the very same future I want for this planet but it isn't enough for you and I to do this...we need policies that motivate our fellow citizens to do the same. Here is my argument regarding global warming. I don't know for certain what is causing it. I am reliably certain that temperatures on the planet have been rising. So, just for the sake of argument, let's say increased use of fossil fuels are contributing and we cut back on their use and it turns out 100 or 200 years from now we discover we were wrong. What's been lost? Increased economic activity? A higher standard of living? As I said, I believe our standard of living has already risen to a level where it is having a negative impact on our quality of life. Okay, so let's look at what happens if we continue to increase our reliance on fossil fuels and 100 or 200 years from now we discover that we did indeed contribute to making huge areas of the earth uninhabitable by humans and caused a wide variety of animals to go extinct AND it is irreversible. Putting greed and self-interest aside, what does the risk/reward for each scenario tell YOU we should do? Lastly, my initial question remains unanswered. Tell me why energy conservation is bad and a life devoted to ever-increasing consumption is good. I can tell you are old enough to have figured out (in your personal life) that 'stuff' and consumption of 'stuff' is not how you want to define your life. Wouldn't you feel better about yourself if you died knowing you had done everything in your power to leave your kids and grandkids (and mine) the best possible planet...not just in your personal life but in the policies you advocated? If the balance ever swings in the other direction and hard working people are forced into hunger and deprivation I will gladly throw my support behind opening up our standards regarding pollution...but as I stated i think we are a LONG way from that point today. Michael Silva Thu, 18 Oct 2012 14:07:05 -0400 Okay, DMG, I like that. Now, I may not be as old as you, but I've been hearing about conservation of energy since the 1970. We have vehicles that burn fewer emissions than ever and get great gas mileage. But, that wasn't good enough for some, i.e. environmentalist or liberal democrats because they saw the market meet those challenges and produce a product that they wanted and demanded under federal regulations. I’ve been in this industry for over 22 years and have seen the major changes in emissions output and how technology has improved emissions and gas mileage. But to reach those standards, the cars are smaller/lighter and not as safe in a collision. That’s why manufactures have to basically surround the driver/passenger in air bags. Notice how the CAFÉ standards keep going up and the reason is always dependency on foreign oil. We have all the oil reserves we need in our country. Only problem is that the government purchased millions of acres of unusable land and will not let oil exploration happen, even though oil drilling technology is safer than it’s ever been. Sure, you will have spills, but only if we are forced to do deep sea drilling. When was the last time you heard of a non-deep sea drilling rig have a problem? Ever increasing consumption has to do with global population growth and increased life expectancy. This is a great thing. You assume everyone has that life style. We don’t. We want to be able live your lives properly. You can’t believe everything that is said about conservatives-we don’t want pollution, dirty drinking water, etc… In fact, you might not believe the amount of recycling and reusing of goods my family does. We recycle everything, reuse chippings as mulch and chip all the wood for ground covering. Isn’t always funny how the ones telling us we need to use less and tighten our belts, don’t do that themselves (Al Gore flying around on a private plane and living in a non-green house that hast 5 a/c systems, or Pelosi flying family and friends around on government planes, Obama telling us not to travel so much but has used Air Force One more than any president) The fear of hot house or greenhouse emissions because of the increase use of carbon based fuels is not based in any science that has been proven to be true or come to a complete consensus in the scientific community. Think about it, trees and plants absorb the carbon and use it to grow. Check out the research about the decrease of carbon in the atmosphere and see were plant growth goes, down. You can choose to do all of these things, but what happens? We use energy efficient bulbs and appliances and we should see our bills go down, right? No, they go up because there is less usage and the bills at the Utility Company still have to be paid. The world has been around a lot longer than humans have and been through ice ages, earthquakes, flooding, etc... And still is spinning and thriving. The earth was designed that way. In fact, carbon emissions were higher in the 1930’s then they are now and temperatures having been lowering for years. Volcanoes put out more carbon emissions than we do. Come to think about it, people are probably emitting more carbon when we exhale. Only reason you don’t see that is because then don’t include all of the weather sites, like Russia, were temperatures have been decreasing. Even if the earth/globe temperature was increasing, do you really think that anything man could do or had done could cure it? I remember the big ozone scare that turned out to be false. Remember, Al Gore and the UN has been pushing this global warming since the late 70’s. When Al started this global warming back in 1980’s, he said we only had ten years until a complete collapse of the eco-system. Guess what, he was wrong. Global warming is all about control people’s lives and creating new forms of taxes (carbon tax ring a bell). Well, hope I didn’t bore you and would love to hear from you. Peace. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:51:31 -0400 There IS an alternative Em, it's just that there is no profit in it and so no one wants to talk about it. It's called 'conservation' and moderation and it would solve most of mankind's problems. If we just went back to the level of energy consumption (per person) of the 50s and 60s we would not need to destroy the planet OR import one drop of oil. People will try to tell you that doing this will make life intolerable but I lived through this period and in many ways the quality of life (NOT the standard of living) was better than it is today.. Sure there were problems of racism and sexism but I'm not sure what that has to do with energy consumption. I guarantee you that people who spend their liives conserving will feel better about themselves than people who spend their lives consuming and destroying. We were sold a bill of goods by people whose only interest was in making more money. I am asking people to reexamine the purpose of their lives. Some people believe the person who dies with the most toys 'wins' but they never define what winning means. From my personal experience 'stuff' never provides fulfillment. It is like drugs...the more stuff you have the more stuff you want in a neverending cycle until (if you are 'successful' enough) it all ends in depravity and death. To: Robert Johnson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:40:40 -0400 Mining Projects and Post Mining Reclamation Robert -- Thank you for including at least one photo of a reclaimed post-mining area which shows a project after completion of mining operations, as I requested in comments after your previous articles on this project. The majority of the public are unaware of mining projects in general and especially of the actual details of how a mining project begins and ends, as well as the close attention to environmental issues before, during and after mining operations. No mining operation in Canada or the U.S. can do any mining without an approved plan for start-up, operation phases and reclamation (simplified explanation) and are required to go through a thorough lengthy vetting and permit approval process which can take years. Mining is a heavily regulated industry. Robert did you have the opportunity to visit the appropriate Canadian Provincial department(s) and review any of the paperwork and plans on file -- including the reclamation plan? Also, government mining regulators can provide locations of mining operations that have ceased production and their respective reclamation plans and geographic locations so you can see and photograph the post-mining results for yourself. POST MINING RECLAMATION -- Before a mechanized bucket breaks the ground – there is a plan in place that details exactly what the area will look like and be utilized for (recreation, farming, wild-lands, lakes, etc) and what that area will actually look like after any mining operations conclude. Also, a bond may be required to insure completion of the reclamation plan. Thanks again Robert, you put out some good work and sincerely enjoy reading and seeing the photos of your "'round-the-world adventures". Michael Silva Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:37:57 -0400 Solyndra was not funded under Bush. Geez, is everything his fault and none of it Obama's? The Solyndra loan started under the Bush Administration, but they didn't fund it because they saw problems and told Solyndra that they would have to show why they should get the funding. It was the Obama Administration that decided not to go with the Bush Administrations suggestion and not fund Solyndra, but went ahead and funded it. Had to pay back those campaign contributions. Get your facts straight and stop yelling. V. Lar Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:29:42 -0400 You sound suspiciously like an oil man. Trader, wildcatter, driller or deliveryman, but none-the-less an oil man. OIL WILL RUN OUT. Frugal, dependable sources such as wind power, tidal power, yes even unicorn fart power must be investigated now. The sooner the better. Buying oil from Canada (while more agreeable than the USA's mid East partners) does not bring one iota of economic progression to the workers of this Country. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:28:13 -0400 Correction: my comments are above. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:26:33 -0400 I would LOVE "an open debate". Let's start with why energy conservation is bad and a life devoted to ever-increasing consumption is good. I've laid out my opening statement below. I believe it is now your turn sir. V. La Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:20:23 -0400 Oil will run out! Accept this as fact and let's go about searching for renewable (and environmentally cleaner) sources of energy. The sooner the better. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 13:15:58 -0400 Argument by proclamation...YOU are truly the "champ". But just to throw a few facts into the know, just for yucks... We already have 'optimized' this credit-based economy to within an inch of its life. All you are apparently advocating is more of the same. How's that working for you or, more importantly (to some of us anyway) how's that working for the country? We have plent of production in this country and we already consume way too much. How do I know this? Well, the top killers of people in this country are heart disease, diabetes and obesity...all diseases of gluttony. How about our level of happiness and fulfillment. Well record sales of anti-depressants wouldn't seem to support a very good argument there. How about unemployment? Well, again using the 50s/60s paradigm perhaps if we went back to sustainable marriages and a one parent bread winner society ther would be PLENTY of employment. But, but we can't do that because it's a 'NEW WORLD". Yes, but is it a BETTER WORLD? As for poverty, there isnt a single American under the age of 40 who even has a clue what real poverty is unless they are addicted to drugs/alcohol or they are homeless and mentally ill. People in poverty don't own cell phones and iPads, they don't have cable TV and they certainly don't live in subsidized housing with all the amenities. The national debt keeps growing because we have been sold snake oil by both political parties, banks and the media. Cutting taxes for people already sitting of trillions of dollars does NOT create sustainable jobs and neither does borrowing and spending by government. Having the banks provide cheaper credit (also known as DEBT) only results in misallocation of capital. The media proclaiming in every ad (not to mention every TV show) that the path to happiness and fulfillment is through increased conspicuous consumption would be laughable if so many people weren't already brainwashed and addicted. So go ahead, keep disrespecting your parents and grandparents who saved, sacrificed and deprived themselves to build this country, keep stealing from future generations and keep buying into the self-serving delusion that behaving like spoiled trust fund babies isn't and accurate description of life in America circa 2012. God forbid YOU were asked to do ANYTHING you didn't personally benefit from. Kennedy once implored this country to ask not what their country could do for them but rather what they could do for their country. If he were alive today and gave the same speech he would be assassinated all over again. So, for all those people who think this country is on the right path but we just need to continue to try to optimize the economy with more currency manipulation, tax cuts, deficit spending and consumption YOU Nelson are indeed the "champ". Steve W Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:54:56 -0400 Get back to work, if you have any, if not, keep playing XBox. end the wars Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:52:29 -0400 Agree and over in iraq the u.s. used depleted uranium tipped shells and have turned the major cities into a radio active waste land where birth defects and cancer and other health problems related to the use of depleted uranium shells , the soil is radio active in some areas, and yet these same eites who pushed the war on iraq are the same ones who push the global warming scam. If interested in sites that report on the depleted uranium health problems for both the people of iraq and u.s. vets, go to and veterans, and by the way as you know the u.s. turned much of vietnam into a waste land by spraying agent orange over the jungles, and even to this day the people of vietnam who were exposed to agent orange and the u.s. vets who were exposed are having health problems related to this. DavidS Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:51:33 -0400 OK, now I get it. To reduce oil imports from the deserts of the Middle East, we have to make North America look like the deserts of the Middle East. Michael Silva Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:45:56 -0400 I know how you feel. I just wanted to let you know that not all of the readers here walk into buildings when the walk (i.e. they lean to the left). I get the same angry responses from the so called “open minded” individuals who don’t want to have an open debate about anything. Keep on keeping on. Peace. Nelson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:41:46 -0400 Your "solution" of a $5/gal tax on gasoline would torpedo the economy and result in the US defaulting on its debt and throwing millions more into poverty. Way to go champ. Nelson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:38:42 -0400 Thank you. I was clearly attempting to be sarcastic in my reply as this joker was off-base in calling others stupid. I tire of liberals who scream and cuss at you and haven't done their homework. Regrettably they go out and vote their heart without the benefit of a mind. P.S. I find it amusing that you got a "thumbs-down" simply for agreeing with my post. DMG Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:33:28 -0400 Perhaps you could explain to me how conservation doesn't work. Oh, I forgot, we need to 'optimize' the economy and it is a God given right for people to squander energy and destroy the planet. Put a $5/gallon tax on gas and watch innovation and the transition to other forms of energy explode. A little discussed fact is that if we just went back to the level of per capita energy consumption of the 50s and 60s the US would ALREADY be energy independent...but, but that is the STONE AGE!!!! As long as we continue to worship at the altar of greed and gluttony we will continue down the path to self destruction. It is my personal belief that if we lower our standard of living it will actually INCREASE our quality of life. This idea that we should all keep running as fast as we can from one boom/bust cycle to the next with no regard to conscience or sustainability just seems like another example of how the human species is doomed to repeat history and once again succumb to its worst qualities. You will not consume your way to fulfillment and a meaningful life but I guess you are powerless to stop trying. end the wars Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:22:04 -0400 There is no shortage of oil and gas and diesel for the elite neocon warmongers who control the u.s. gov , the wars make trillions for the elites who control for example british petroleum which is the major fuel supplier to u.s. forces in the mideast, and of course the wars seize the oil fields for the elites, the real reason gaddafi and saddam hussein were taken out was to seize their oil, and this is also the reason the warmongers in israel ie netanyahu and in the u.s. gov want to attack iran, iran sits on the biggest oil reserves in the mideast, and after the elections we are going to given another war , except this time , the gates of hell will be opened. By the way the u.s. gov is backing the al qaeda led rebels in syria , just as they did in libya, does anyone remember that the u.s. gov said al qaeda did 911, well 911 was a false flag and anyone who can walk and chew gum knows it. Susan Petersen Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:12:09 -0400 Perhaps Mr. Johnson could make his next field trip to the Middle East and instead of pictures of landscape and jeopardized birds, he could report on the "blood" and human rights violations that occur - all in the name of energy. 43 dead in Syria today - perhaps he should start there. Such a farce . Susan Petersen Thu, 18 Oct 2012 12:08:52 -0400 Add a comment... Michael Silva Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:59:27 -0400 You wrote a beautiful and well written reply. Too bad many won’t read it and consider the facts. Their lives depend upon them believing in something that just doesn’t exist. I loved the unicorn fart reference. GKMD Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:54:00 -0400 Here's a great article in today's National Post on "a welcome development that Alberta is releasing a report today – the result of a working group headed by former University of Lethbridge professor Howard Tennat – on setting up an environmental monitoring system that would be controlled independently (run by neither government, nor industry)." Now, this won't be of interest to those on the extreme margins of this debate but for those of you interested in reality - have at it! <a href="" target="_blank"></a> JMR Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:53:50 -0400 Thanks for reposting this. Most of your readers seem to not mind that thousands of acres of pristine forest is turned into a hellish wasteland in this process -- all for more oil. Eventually, with enough environmental disasters such as this we will make the planet uninhabitable for humans. Mother Nature doesn't care, once we tip the balance she will even things out again. Something will survive, something always does, it's just not going to be on our terms. docwho Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:41:50 -0400 Is it possible that the tar sands companies have received government subsidies, just as conventional oil companies have, as well as Solyndra and other alternative energy ventures? docwho Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:38:54 -0400 Yes, removing the oil and burning it does have a negative environmental impact. As well as a positive economic impact. Nelson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:29:44 -0400 While we conservatives tire of the ad hominem attacks and foul-mouthed invective of liberals on this site, before you call someone stupid, please know that you are the one who should do some more reading and educate yourself first. The Bush administration did NOT approve a single loan guarantee under the program you reference. With respect to Solyndra, the credit committee (you know, the guys that evaluate the merits of a loan and the ability to be repaid) held it up for further analysis. Obama and his crew rammed it thru and then subordinated the taxpayer's position to the Obama crony investors (talk about paid-for politicians!), probably in violation of federal law. Solyndra is one of several programs to go bk -- ALL of them were approved by the Obama regime, many involved an Obama political supporter and the bigger ones were invariably used as a photo op for this crew of losers to spew the Dem talking points that you use in your post. The oil sands are not "shale". They're sands. Note the difference in spelling. The oil sands, as referenced in this article, contain the equivalent of 2 TRILLION barrels of oil (slide 68). Apparently, 'drill baby drill' (or, in this case, 'mine baby mine') will, in fact allow North America to be energy independent using resources in friendly hands to our north rather than hostile regimes in the Middle East. We should see some savings in the defense budget to boot. There are additional untapped resources such as off the coast of California, ANWAR, etc that could create jobs, lower prices at the pump (a goal openly opposed by Obama's Energy Secretary, Chu), and bring about economic growth, peace and prosperity for many decades to come. What the hell "new technologies" are you talking about? I could debunk every liberal energy talking point one-by-one (algae, switch grass, ethanol, solar, wind, etc) but it would take too much time. We have been chasing the liberal dream of a world powered by windmills, sunshine, rainbows and unicorn farts for decades -- accelerated after the Oil Embargo of the 70s. Literally hundreds of billions have been spent on R&D to find the elusive magic power source. Conservatives would like to see it too but are more practical and realize that driving up the cost of fuel/power will bankrupt a country that is already on the brink due to trillions in deficit spending that BOTH parties are responsible for. I'm sure that you still won't agree with me, but people who are more rational and less blinded by liberal fairy tales might see that there is a way to end our reliance on oil found in hostile lands just as Romney is proposing. Miyka-El Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:20:00 -0400 1. The oil has been naturally seeping out of the ground there for eons AND into the Athabasca river. Did you know that? Probably not. 2. We're at the tail end of the "dirty" industrial revolution. There is no immediate replacement for oil in the world - except natural gas & nuclear. Until extreme technologies show up that will displace oil, the oilsands are necessary - which are also moving to an in ground extraction process (INSITU/SAGD). 3. "Big" oil CAN'T stop the technology train. Something distruptive will show up but remember oil supports MILLIONS of families worldwide AND supports the economy of the world. 4. You would rather get your oil from countries that oppress & torture their own citizens? 5. So how did the world's largest freshwater lakes get polluted again? Oh yeah, it was American companies that destroyed the great lakes ;) smoke and mirrors Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:17:14 -0400 Also reco going to see the movie , atlas shrugged part two, evidently ayn rand was well aware of the technology that nikola tesla had developed, as in the movie part of the plot revolves around the developement of fusion energy. When tesla died in new york in 1942 the u.s. gov seized all of his research papers , for anyone who is not familiar with nikola tesla he was the greatest scientist in history and developed the alternating current that all power systems in the world run on and he developed lasers, etc. etc. , if interested to a search on him. The movie atlas schrugged part two, is also timely for the political statement it makes about what is coming ie what was coming when she wrote the book and what she forcast , is here , right now today and should be a wake up call to all americans who value what little freedom we have left. tw Thu, 18 Oct 2012 11:08:34 -0400 I enjoyed these pictures. Living here (Canada) it is tough to get up and see these in person, so thanks. But the real reason for the repost? Well I guess BI is hedging their bets on the election. That is, they don't want Romney to win, but if he does there is a pipeline coming. So a couple of points to comsider. First, there are loads of Amercans involved in these projects for technical expertise or as investors. There are many American made products likely used in these projects, like giant Cat trucks. This supply is part of the substantial energy matrix that helps determine world prices. I see no mention of the extensive testing of the cruise missile in Cold Lake in years past which is used to create tremendous non productive destruction in other parts of the world (not for or against, but demonstrates a contradiction). Why not be a bit more balanced. For example, what about those vast tracts of shuttered factories in some parts of the US as a contrast? What about the Gulf refinery area as a comparison? Or the oil infrastructure in Bakerfield....fracking operations in the Dakotas? ..... Now those would have been an informative set of comparisons......but inconvenient to your cause. smoke and mirrors Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:58:44 -0400 This destruction of the eco system in alberta does not have to be done, the shadow ie real behind the scenes u.s. gov has technology that can actually eliminate most of human dependence on oil,. this technology is from nikola tesla and from u.s. gov reverse engineering of power propulsions on crashed UFOs and as a result the shadow gov and DARPA have propulsion systems that power space vehicles at the speed of light, believe it or not , it is a fact. For the doubters and I know you all probably are calling B.S. on this, do this , go to you tube and enter these names and watch the videos,,,,,,, john lear, laura eisenhower, andrew basiago, preston nichols, al bielek, duncan cameron, philip schneider, william cooper, stewart swerdlow, nikola tesla, etc. etc., and go to and get these books, the hunt for zero point by nick cook,, the day after roswell by col. phillip j. corso,,, behold a pale horse by william cooper, and you will find that the u.s. gov has been to the moon and mars years ago, and before calling bullshit on this open your eyes and open your mind, everything I have mentioned here is a fact. snookasnoo Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:57:09 -0400 I understand you are stupid so a few facts. Anwar drilling is opposed by many groups including some considered conservative. Solyndra was funded under a Bush program. But Faux news won't tell you that will they? Do some reading. The pipeline will take shale oil to ports for sale all over the world to the highest bidder. Most of it will go to China. There are not anywhere near enough known oil deposits in North America to cover our needs. The oil companies know this and they know that 'drill baby drill" is propaganda for idiots like you. I bet you believed Romney's lie that he will make us energy independent with North American oil in 8 years. He knows this isn't possible. As long as we chase fossil fuels we are doomed. We have the ability to break out of this with new technologies but the status quo of oil companies and their paid for politicians is preventing this from happening. Or do you have so little confidence in US R&D abilities that we have to continue using fuels that are fintite, The cause of pollution and global strife and despoiling of the earth? snookasnoo Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:50:27 -0400 I think you mean "biased" ignorant wingnut. Romeo Cuervo Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:46:37 -0400 Now if we can just build the pipeline to get all the oil to the US, we'll be all set. It's a wilderness. Who cares what happens there? It's like being worried about that Wildlife Refuge thing in Alaska during the last election. These places are like the moon; barren, frozen and not fit for man nor beast. Ian, Russ Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:37:41 -0400 I saw this post like a month ago. Why is it on the front page again? pongidiae rex Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:33:47 -0400 All the machinery that is used to mine and refine the oil shale runs on ... oil. Dip a billiard ball in water, then shake it. The water that clings to the ball is an accurate scale model of the earth's atmosphere. The chemical composition of the atmosphere determines the temperature and global climate of the earth. Burn enough carbon and the earth will become uninhabitable. How much carbon? No one knows. Any questions? GetAbike Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:32:25 -0400 Wasn't this originally published 9 to 12 months ago on this very website? Em Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:24:55 -0400 There's no question these photo's depict an ugly industry and process. But what is the alternative at this moment in time? I think everyone supports alternative options as long as "we" can afford it. This is not that time. Fuel costs for travel/commuting, food, heating, electricity, etc are all having staggering impact on commerce, this country's only apparent form of an economy, again, at this time. And now due to the Iran sanctions, the prospect of gas going up another 50 cents per gallon, will eliminate more cash from the economy? There's a part of me that believes companies like Solyndra should be able to suceed on their own if there was demand, just like these sands oil companies. It seems the experiment to change the focus of economy during a downturn has failed and any changes should be attempted when we are on stronger financial footing. <a href="" target="_blank"></a> And gas prices could rise another 50 cents a gallon or more, analysts say, if the diplomatic and economic standoff over Iran’s nuclear ambitions escalates into military conflict or there is some other major supply disruption badbob Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:15:02 -0400 GEE, guess we better get busy sucking all the oil from 2 miles down as well. We can't have that oil "polluting" the middle of the earth. You are really a piece of work, my friend. Industrious Beaver Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:11:27 -0400 Oils sands area strip mined to-date: 600 km^2 [square kilometres - it's in Canada] Total area of oil sands that can be strip mined: 2,800 km^2 (2% of 140,000 km^2 total - the rest requires in situ extraction) Area of Los Angeles: 1,301.970 km^2 Researching the environmental impact of the oil sands extraction a bit more one finds: "Using data from a NASA satellite, researchers have found that the emission of pollutants from oil sands mining operations in Canada's Alberta Province are comparable to the emissions from a large power plant or a moderately sized city. The emissions from the energy-intensive mining effort come from excavators, dump trucks, extraction pumps and wells, and refining facilities where the oil sands are processed." Conclusion: more BS from BI. badbob Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:10:39 -0400 So, unless it's a shiny propaganda piece for the oil companies you consider it biased? Bear Force One Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:09:02 -0400 Dude, are you dumb or what? You think leaving the environment alone and not extracting this oil from the sands is bad for the environment? Henrythehyp Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:01:58 -0400 Robert, these pictures don't give me nightmares, but reading your dribble does. Alternate View Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:00:58 -0400 Well, this certainly seems to be far better environmentally than drilling a minute percentage of ANWAR. No wonder liberals are so interested in preserving a few acres of Alaskan primordial muck. I know, lets dump more federal dollars into Solyndra and A123. That will work. Hypocrites Thu, 18 Oct 2012 10:00:35 -0400 Welcome to the future of fossil fuels. There will be a special place in hell specially reserved for those in that industry that promote falsehoods to gullible masses. Robert Johnson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:51:45 -0400 SAGD is profiled at the end of the slides in another presentation. Robert Johnson Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:51:22 -0400 Thanks Rory. Dia Lucrii Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:48:22 -0400 So, oil left in sand (similar to an oil spill) is ok, but removing it as an economic activity is a harm to the environment. Doesn't sound like "journalism" to me. RoryBellows Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:47:52 -0400 Great stuff Robert. Q Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:45:07 -0400 Why does BI keep recycling this garbage? I got a $100 bill that says we read this story 3 or 4 months ago. Mike H Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:44:48 -0400 "This is how the oil sands have been harvested since 1967" Good report except for this portion - a good deal of oil production in Canada comes from its SAGD fields which doesn't involve open pit mining. Devin Thu, 18 Oct 2012 09:40:50 -0400 This article isn't bias at all Robert! Is this an article or a blog?