On youtube I am subbed to a man that does commentary on various things, mostly precious metals, but also other topics like the Keystone pipeline debate, that is raging in the environmental media down south at the moment...I haven't been commenting much lately, unless it is just a "well done" or some other positive support I can make. I haven't been causing fights on Youtube is what I am trying to say. I don't agree with this mans point of view, but I am glad we could have a conversation. Below are the comments back and forth between the two of us.
No offence intended but it sounds as though you have bought into the latest Hollywood funded environmental scare of the day....you know something for the really wealthy like Elaine from Seinfeld to really get behind and support, because she is oh so concerned about the environment unless it is her ox being gored of course (you know her dad is one of THE largest refiners in the US right?) So the Keystone is horrible, I get it. What if we changed the name to something else? Like I don't know..."Enviro-protect line". Would that suffice? Because as I am sure you are aware, there are 55,000 miles of trunk crude oil lines and another 40,000 miles of feeder lines in North America (not too mention an equal or greater number of natural gas lines) ...funny nobody seems to know the names of all those lines. Not that I have heard anyway. I take exception to your assertion that the Athabasca Oil SANDS is the largest environmental disaster...Fukishima and Chernobyl have no place in that standing? What about New York City? Paved over and visible from space it is an abomination to me. The source for your assertion is I am sure the environmental groups published lie that The OIL SANDS are larger than Florida or Great Britain...yes and? Of course they never elaborate that that is the size of the deposit and not the mineable area...Most of the deposit is too deep for surface mining and they must use other methods. I don't know where you got the idea that this product is only good for car diesels. When it gets to your refineries it is refined into any petro chemical product you can imagine. Damn it must suck to be an American with all those nasty refineries visible from space providing jobs and products that produce other jobs much in excess of the 800 you stated...I wouldn't mind having a few more of those refineries in Canada...sadly the NIMBY's got here first. Again no offence intended...I don't like MY ox being gored.
15 hours ago
a good deal of my information about the tar sand comes from employees. Yes I understand that a lot of this is gotten from underground. But they require chemicals and water and heat to extract it and that is where most of the pollution comes from. Untill we realize that there is about 30 years supply known, what then.Well of course lets use up every drop and destroy more territory and then only find that we are then going to go to renewable sources. No not not a follower of whoever you think. I can produce articles I wrote in 1970 about our necessity to get off of fossil fuels. And yes I'm aware of gas and petroleum pipelines crisscrossing America and of some of their failures. Why not climb on the back of British Columbia. they don't want it and neither do I.
2 hours ago
+rocky315w Look into it a bit farther Rocky. British Columbia isn't the utopia some believe, I know because I live there. BC isn't against pipelines, a line called the "Gateway" will be built for natural gas export to China or whoever wants to buy it. And no they aren't against an oil sands line, the stalemate is that they want a % of the royalties from the product flowing through the line and Alberta told them to get fucked. So why is the Gateway line going to be built? Because North Eastern BC, where I am from,has some of the largest untapped or barely tapped natural gas reserves in the world. It is huge. We support the rest of this wreck of a liberal fantasyland called British Columbia. So is the extraction of natural gas any less of an environmental risk than the Oil Sands? Land area used? I can tell you the answer is probably not. Those chemicals ect used to lighten up the oilsands to make diluent...some of them come from BC...they are mainly higher fractions in the hydro-carbon chain like condensate. and they don't get spilled out of the pipeline at jouneys end and wasted, they are refined and sent back or made into other products like maybe those packing peanuts in the unboxing videos or even the keys on your keyboard. So who is the evil doer? The consumer or the producer? Like it or not the oil industry is one of the last industries that pay a good wage and drives the GDP of both of our countries.
1 hour ago
if your a resident of Alaska you get a check every year because of the pipeline. Why wouldn't BC want a cut of the pie, its their streams etc that will be effected if something happens. Same for every state the keystone goes through they should all get their cut.
