What do Americans think about Canada s Oilsands?

Just wondering seeing as Leonardo Di Caprio has now come to visit the oil sands and film yet another negative documentary about he effects of the oil sands on the environment etc. Now bear in mind that the oil sands are the biggest provider of oil to the United States and has totally lessened the dependence of America on Saudi oil. Also consider that America has a friendly neighbor that reduces the risk of Geo-political strife and that exportation of bitumen from the oil sands has provided America with jobs to upgrade the facilities to receive and refine Alberta bitumen into an exportable commodity for the oil companies in the States. Over to you.

Leonardo Di Caprios a wanker

I think you'll find that Americans are highly divided about this topic. On the one hand, as you correctly point out, Canada is a friendly and reliable trading partner. The oil sands help to feed our dependence/appetite/reliance/addiction/need/desire (whatever you want to call it) on fossil fuel energy. On the other hand, there are clearly downsides involved in the production, transport and use of the oil. Remember also that economic growth in the U.S. still depends on the availability of oil and oil products.

Where people come down on this issue will depend on their relative concerns about these positives and negatives. It is a highly charged issue here, as are most issues relating to energy and/or the environment.

I live in Calgary, so I'm a little biased when I say it pisses me off when people bad mouth the oil sands.

we have a small group of crazies that love the environment but have no concept of economics. If anything we should be building the new pipeline and getting more oil from Canada, sure we need to reduce our use and reliance on oil, but it wont happen overnight. But all in all we like canada, never gives us any problems, safe, reliable, etc....

I live in North Dakota and we are in the midst of a huge oil boom here. I have no issue with the oil sands in Canada and none with the way we drill for oil where I live. North Dakota has built a new refinery in my town that is specially made to handle oil from the oil sands and the keystone pipeline is another project that will start in Canada oil sands and then come south through the Bakken oil field in North Dakota and down to Oklahoma to be then processed and sent out to other states. I'm not sure on the progress of this pipeline on the Canada side since it has hit a few political snags but this is all good for us in America. My state has no unemployment issue and we also we're not affected during the recession. This is all because of oil and the thousands of jobs it had provided. People from all over the US have come to North Dakota and found work and have rebuilt their lives from oil. I welcome the jobs and economic benefit that the oil from here and Canada has given us and will continue to support it. And yes please remember that without the oil from Canada and now from North Dakota we would have to go back to being dependant on foreign oil.

It's mainly a question of whether you consider the long term (environment issue) or short/medium term implications (good for the economy).
And people are very often biased towards considering the later one, especially if it affects their life directly and in a positive way.
With the same argument though, we could say that war is good because it provides jobs and boost the economy...

I'm of the opinion that I don't give a fuck about the economic costs if the alternative is a partially uninhabitable planet in a few decades. (That, of course, is not to blame the tar sands individually, but the mass consumption of fossil fuels in general)

What they said

So Obama has again vetoed the Keystone pipeline pandering to the environmental lobby. His own committees have said that carbon emissions would be 42% higher without it now that it all has to be transported by rail. One of his advisers, Warren Buffet has come out in favor of the pipeline so what is up with that? Jobs, and oil products to export and a major boost to the American economy. Sorry, I just don't understand Obama's logic on this one.

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen_Bradley

So Obama has again vetoed the Keystone pipeline pandering to the environmental lobby. His own committees have said that carbon emissions would be 42% higher without it now that it all has to be transported by rail. One of his advisers, Warren Buffet has come out in favor of the pipeline so what is up with that? Jobs, and oil products to export and a major boost to the American economy. Sorry, I just don't understand Obama's logic on this one.

The oil is still being brought into the US without the pipeline how is it getting here

Warren Buffet is not an advisor to Obama he is one of his major donors and Obama is a puppet, Buffet owns the rail company that transports the oil

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen Bradley

So Obama has again vetoed the Keystone pipeline pandering to the environmental lobby.

Is it "pandering" or is it actually something he believes in?

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen Bradley

His own committees have said that carbon emissions would be 42% higher without it now that it all has to be transported by rail.

Also:

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen Bradley

One of his advisers, Warren Buffet has come out in favor of the pipeline so what is up with that?

Did you ever personally disagree with someone who you trust when it comes to certain topics? It's sort of like that.

Quote:

Originally posted by Allen Bradley

Jobs, and oil products to export and a major boost to the American economy. Sorry, I just don't understand Obama's logic on this one.

It's this:

1. There are already many pipelines carrying oil from Canada to the US.
2. The continued consumption of fossil fuels may very well make the planet we live on uninhabitable for some huge number of people and species, and so he may think making the consumption of those fuels a little more difficult is more important than a few jobs or half a GDP point or whatever.

I guess I'll walk to work tommorow with 200lbs of tools in lil red wagon down the 405 freeway

IIRC the oil to be exported through the Keystone pipeline was to be processed in Texas and then exported. Correct or not ?
If correct, aren't the arguments for an additional supply to the US market then moot ?

...the whole thing is crap. That Canadian oil is the dirtiest on the planet. There is already a pipeline taking it from Canada to Texas/Louisiana. The KeystoneXL pipeline is just a SECOND pipeline to get more there faster. It's being pumped all over the States anyway. All of it will be shipped to China.

It will create a whopping 2000 jobs to build it...for two years. Then 35 "permanent jobs" will be left. It's nothing more than a political thing here. The GOP call it a "jobs creator." Very part-time job creator.

The biggest deal is it will go right through the largest underground aquifer in the country. What could go wrong?

The whole argument about "being oil independent" it TOTAL CRAP. All oil is sold on the world market no matter where it comes from. The USA currently is the #1 oil producer in the world. We've run out of places to store it (this is true). The KeystoneXL oil will be 100% exported.

The Democrats called the GOP's bluff. They wanted all that oil to stay in America (GOP said, "nope" Then they wanted the steel for the pipes to come from the USA. The GOP said, "nope. The steel will all come from China"

It's nothing more than a way for oil companies to make money while ending any chance the world can get any control over greenhouse emissions.

In other words, "game over."

haven't seen his documentary; no comment!

I only give a shit when things affect me directly, I've got enough in my life to keep me happy without having to think about things I can't change. There's enough do Golders in the world and enough greedy bastards to keep the debate going.

americans dont think about anything or anyone

Quote:

Originally posted by EuellG

americans dont think about anything or anyone

Well that's painting with a broad brush don't you think? Here's something a bit narrower: You make broad generalizations about things you know little about.