Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zeta1961 who wrote (101733)	9/16/2011 4:55:50 PM
From: Bread Upon The Water	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 149317

Before the Alaska pipeline was put in (it travels from a point on the Arctic Ocean to an Alaskan port on the Pacific across 800 miles of wilderness) there were the same arguments made. It would 'destroy' the fragile Alaskan Tundra, it would interfere with the Caribou herd's migration, it devastate the landscape etc. etc. None of that has happened and the Caribou herd is 4 times as big as it was in 1972. The other main point the anit-Keystone people are making is that the extraction of the "tar" from the "sand" is very energy intensive inasmuch a lot of extraction methods require the heating of the sand, and, additionally, this will destroy vast areas of Forest land; and that both activities will add to the global carbon footprint. But as I said earlier, since Canada is determined to sell it's tar sand oil to someone (by building a pipeline to the Canadian East and West Coasts instead of to the American Mid-West if we turn it down) --the above activities will go on regardless of whether we buy the oil or someone else does.