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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Big Dog's Boom Boom Room -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Eric who wrote (164189)	2/20/2012 9:18:11 AM
From: tom pope	12 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206330

What's embarrassing about a country defending its economic interests? The unveiling of Canada's threats is the latest in a series of recent embarrassing revelations. But that's just the Guardian.

To: Eric who wrote (164189)	2/20/2012 10:21:03 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	27 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 206330

Pure politics. If the people behind this "science" would actually look at the density of oil-sands operations, which is the only reason they are so visible in the first place, they would find that oil sands oil is actually not any more "dirty" than conventional oil. All of the ~2 million barrels per day are concentrated in a very small area. Imagine the infrastructure required for 2 million barrels worth of conventional onshore oil production. Do these political scientists take into account the savings made due to reduced need for roadways, reduced cut-lines, no need for destructive seismic lines, reduced electric transmission lines, far fewer support vehicles, no pump-jacks, etc, etc, etc.? I doubt it. Tens of thousands of miles of new roads and cut-lines, through forests and farm land, are required to attain 2 million barrels of conventional oil production. I see no mention of this in any of these so called scientific "dirty oil" papers. The CDN oil sands footprint is tiny for the level of production. I, for one, recognize that you are not referencing hard science in your article. You are referencing political science. It is science with an agenda, funded by political animals. S&P

To: Eric who wrote (164189)	2/20/2012 10:26:44 AM
From: Salt'n'Peppa	23 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 206330

...and where did the Guardian drag up this loser from?! "His party colleague, Chris Davies MEP, who is the Lib Dem environment spokesman in the European parliament, said: "It is extraordinarily naive for ministers and officials to take the special pleading by Canada as though it were gospel truth, rather than what it is – an attempt to protect narrow financial interests." In 2009, Simon Hughes MP, and now deputy leader of the Lib Dems said: "World leaders must work towards a treaty that will outlaw tar sands extraction, in the same way they came together to ban land mines, blood diamonds and cluster bombs." Really? Oil sands oil lumped in with land mines and cluster bombs? Gimme a f'ing break!!! S&P