Unfortunately there are no miners anymore.

Pay oilsands wages and Im sure you would find some.


Its irrelevant. The big picture is not energy source reserves, its global CO2 emissions and the environmental repercussions.

"Acid Rain" type pollution from sulphurous fuels, or the environmental scarring from mining fuel resources are red herrings in this discussion. Yes, its bad for the local ecosystems, but its not the same global threat that simply converting the fuel into energy is.

The only practical proven technology that can meet energy demands right NOW without CO2 emissions is Nuclear, and although the waste is a serious issue, its more of a long term problem that can be resolved a ways down the road. Global warming and the burgeoning energy demands of the developing nations need a solution in the very near future. Waiting for renewable energy technology to rise to the challenge is just fiddling while Rome (and the rest of the world) burns in my opinion.

I am not trying to make excuses for the industry because I am very much opposed to the current pace of development.

But it is not as if the industry is doing nothing.

As for Obama I have always suspected he was more flash than substance, we'll see I guess.

Where is he going to get the 1.4 million barrels per day and growing to replace this "dirty oil" he no longer wants?

How is he going tell whether or not it's dirty or clean oil? Or is he just going to refuse to buy oil from Alberta?

Saskatchewan also has tar sands deposits they are talking of developing, is he going to refuse their oil too?

Discuss.

Bush will end the moratorium on off shore drilling and the US will get its oil from Malibu.

One would hope its by implementing programs to encourage reducing consumption...but of course he will never get elected if he comes out and says that...

Its the old adage of in like a firework a like a damp squib.

Of course he is trying to get as many on side using the arguement that he is against 'dirty' oil.

Then he will get elected, and then..........

"insert excuse as to why they need it, but will continue to lobby for ways to make it more environmentally friendly to extract / refine"

To

"Insert excuse as to why it is too expensive in todays economic climes to change the way things are - and the countries economy is our top priority right now"

Ending with

"f**k it lets go to war with someone"

Good point about wages.

I agree with the rest of your post as well. Until a few years ago I was dead against nuclear, but despite the problems "down the road", I now believe that we will need one (but only one) new generation of nuclear while we wean ourselves off an energy intensive economy / lifestyle.

And I thought that I was the cynic around here.

Did anyone see this on "The National" last night.

http://www.cbc.ca/mrl3/23745/thenati...out-062508.wmv

But nobody WANTS to wean themselves off our energy intensive economy. For gods sake, a 1.8l powered car is considered "economy" here. Fuel consumption overall has got worse in the last 5 years for economy cars!

If people wanted an energy frugal lifestyle here then they could be out living in tents, weaving hemp into bicycles already...but I dont see much of that.

So given we need energy, and global warming is happening now, and places like India and China, with gigantic populations, are clamouring to catch up with western ideals, not only will we need more Nuclear capability to replace the current fossil fuel powered stations and our own future demand, so to will the developing nations, and quickly, and on a larger scale.

Then the question of security and policing the waste and refining side of the operation in these terrorist paranoid times also becomes of crucial importance.

Did you look at Steve's link yet? It's not a matter of wanting it one way or t'ther. It's what we're going to have.

I was under the impression that the move back to coal was well underway.

Scrubbing technology seems pretty good these days.

I think it was Bill Clinton who caved into industry pressure and abolished the requirement for the auto industry to improve fuel economy figures by 5% a year. This was as they were trying their damndest to flog SUVs and huge trucks to commuters.

The North American aviation industry will also hopefully have to take a long, hard look at itself soon. The best thing the US and Canada could do is encourage investment in a continental rail network. It's been done before, and it could be done again if the will is there.

I don't think the Chinese and Irish immigrants are as poor as they used to be.

Here you go, you can have your say with the industry involved.

http://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/