Alberta under attack in new ad campaign

[WhipperSnapper]

Oil Sands are an easy target for these groups to get their point across. It's big money so it's well known. It's totally unfair but taking a defensive position by pointing out the less than stellar records of others is pointless. Informing those of the steps being taking to continually improve environmental related issues to the development is key. I see very little of that posted here and the previous ten threads.

[vid]

I bet the Ring of Fire project in Northern Ontario will be even more environmentally destructive than the oil sands.

Everyone knows about that, right?

[blacktrojan3921]

I'm all for it with the environment and alternative fuel sources, but there is a difference between that and this video made by hippy pricks

[ue]

If these Americans really cared, they wouldn't be buying the majority of our oil. Nope, just a fear mongering tactic to make themselves feel better about whats going on in Louisiana.

[Yume-sama]

Facts aren't often... useful... in todays World. And, regardless of how factual (or insanely misleading) the video is, right now the opponents are winning the PR war. And really, that's all that matters in our media, propaganda driven, culture. I, however, would be SHOCKED if the tarsands over their lifespan cause even a fraction of the damage the BP Oil Spill has / will.

To show picturesque images of the Rocky Mountains, and then to suggest you should not visit cities like Edmonton, or Calgary, or towns like Banff because they have been ruined...

[Blue 24]

I Lived in Fort McMurray for 9 years and i have been to two of the oil plants
Suncor and CNRL. My Dad worked at both those places, Yes they are big and yes they release GHG but if you didnt know you would think it was a big coal or dimond mind.

and correct me if i am wrong not a 100% but isnt the oil sands responsible for 5% of canada's emissions, and Canada is resposiblr for 1.98 or 2% of the worlds polution?

Just dont forget Canada supplies alot of many provincial buggets.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

Oil Sands are an easy target for these groups to get their point across. It's big money so it's well known. It's totally unfair but taking a defensive position by pointing out the less than stellar records of others is pointless. Informing those of the steps being taking to continually improve environmental related issues to the development is key. I see very little of that posted here and the previous ten threads.

Mr Snapper, I respectfully disagree with your assertion (as shown in bold).

In previous threads talking about the Tar Sands, a very clear description was provided on rehabilitation or existing mined land and the minimal need for future open pit mining (link and link) yet people generally think an area the size of Florida/Great Britian will be left as a huge scar on the land. Info was provided on technology advances such as SAGD (link and link) yet many think that Northern Alberta will soon become one big tailing pond. Radium City was explained (link) yet it is the Sands that are responsible for a possible increase in cancer rates in Fort Chip.

And seeing as these links are only from the past 2 threads about the Sands, I think a significant effort has been made to dispell the mistruths on this forum. That said, I don't think anything said on this forum (or any other on the Internets) has ever changed anyone's opinion, so really it is all for naught. People have their agenda and will stay "on message" no matter how wrong they are shown to be - because the other side has an agenda too!

Anyway, to those that love Gia beyond all else, remember that the only way you can be a true environmentalist and be totally in harmony with nature, is to be dead.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by vid

I bet the Ring of Fire project in Northern Ontario will be even more environmentally destructive than the oil sands.

Everyone knows about that, right?

No, please explain.

[O-tacular]

Originally Posted by francely57

That was a leak from Alberta... Our smog too comes from there.

Ahahaha! If it had been a giant bowl of poutine though it would be another story.

[bulliver]

Originally Posted by O-tacular

No, please explain.

I thought he was talking about forest fires...but I guess it is a massive mining project including a new rail line...

http://www.republicofmining.com/2010/06/...-of-fire-railroad-%E2%80%93-by-ian-ross/

http://www.republicofmining.com/2010/06/04/ring-of-fire-ring-of-fire-by-david-robinson/

[vid]

They found a giant deposit of chromite and other valuable metals northeast of Lake Nipigon a couple years ago. The mineral wealth could rival that of the Sudbury Basin in terms of value and economic development. If realized to its full potential, the mines could directly and indirectly employ tens of thousands of people for about 100 years. The most optimistic visions have cities like Thunder Bay and Timmins booming like Fort MacMurray (though considering Thunder Bay and Timmins are equidistant to the mines, while Sudbury has more mining experience, it is likely that any growth will be spread among all of the north's cities). It will involve numerous open pit mines, a new railway line between Schreiber and Nakina, and numerous large industrial refining operations from Atikokan to North Bay. If realized to its full potential, calling it "huge" is an understatement. Basically, Northern Ontario is poised to be the next Alberta. They're currently looking at a 2013 start date for resource extraction.

Of course, there is also a chance that nothing will happen. They're trying not to hype it too much, though everyone who is anyone in the mining sector already knows about it, and our local news has covered it quite extensively. Traffic at Thunder Bay and Timmins airports is up over 20% because of prospectors alone. It's kind of exciting.

[bob1954]

Folks, I would'nt worry to much about that add comming from SF. Remember people in San Fran. would'nt be caught in LA which if any of you guys have have ever been there you'd know the entire LA basin is far more polluted (Air) than I would think the entire tar sands area combined! SF has long been a city that is extremely far, far left! Most people I know in US don't even know anything about "Oil Sands". But crap like this can really stir the pot and gets everybody worked up!!

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by bob1954

... SF has long been a city that is extremely far, far left! ...

By what standard? left of Dallas maybe, but not "far far left". Where would you place Cuba on this scale?

[bob1954]

Comparing Cuba to SF give me a break! Cuba's communist, SF isn't and you know better! Dallas is by (US standards), far more conservative than SF in many ways, socially, environmentally, economies are different, ect. It also depends on what your views and opinions are.

[AB Born]

Funny...Reading through the YouTube comments on the video, someone posted the office and cell phone numbers of Michael Marx, Executive Director of Corporate Ethics International.

[freeweed]

Originally Posted by WhipperSnapper

taking a defensive position by pointing out the less than stellar records of others is pointless.

I have to disagree a bit on this one (yeah, big surprise coming from me )

Firstly, it's a well-known tactic of folks doing wrong things to point to someone else and try to shift attention. I could easily see major non-oilsands polluters (waves to Ontario industry and government) trying to get away with major environmental violations by focusing the public's (and regulators) attention on the oilsands. Not that I'm saying this is happening... yet.

Secondly, everything in this world is relative and about context. If you don't have that context, EVERYONE looks like a horrible planet-hating polluter. Should we imprison grandma because she dropped a piece of litter once? Of course not, because what she's doing is peanuts in comparison to others. If you don't understand the overall picture, how do you actually know if the oilsands are bad polluters or not?

Does any of this excuse the oilsands for what pollution they cause? Of course not. But we sure as shit don't need to get out the pitchforks if it turns out they're better pointed elsewhere.

Sometimes it's important to understand the larger view of things, or we can waste our lives worrying about the little things. Forest for the trees, etc.

[socialisthorde]

Originally Posted by bob1954

Comparing Cuba to SF give me a break! Cuba's communist, SF isn't and you know better! Dallas is by (US standards), far more conservative than SF in many ways, socially, environmentally, economies are different, ect. It also depends on what your views and opinions are.

Exactly my point. If you place SF on the "far far left" , you don't have much room for socialism and communism. (ie. would Cuba be the far far far far left, and Dallas in the centre?) I am saying that you are at best using unnecessary hyperbole and at worst being ridiculous in labelling SF "far far left" to imply that views coming from there are extreme. I realize that political opinions are relative, but labelling each other to imply extremism does not in any way advance an argument. Unfortunatley, it has become all to common in political disourse.

My username is meant in irony by the way.

[MolsonExport]

Such an ad will likely:
be completely ineffectual at accomplishing changes in the management of
-the oil sands, while
-having a negative impact on tourism.

double jeopardy. today's daily double.

[Doug]

Originally Posted by PhilippeMtl

You are all false, water is (partially) cleaned before dumped in St Lawrence! Please check your facts before posting anything...

"Partially" means straining out large solids, except during big rainstorms. Outside AB and SK, Canada has almost third world standards for waste water treatment.

[Bigtime]

There is only one man that can take care of this situation for us...



He's the Jack Bauer of Alberta politics.