http://environment.independent.co.uk/article3239364.ece
2007-12-10 07:34:27 · 5 answers · asked by El Señor de la Noche 4 in Environment ➔ Global Warming
Canada should extract only enough oil for its own requirements leaving the rest in the ground for future generations. Developing the oil sands is a good idea, but the pace and scale should be geared to match Canadian domestic requirements. The BP project can wait for 40 years. The oil will be worth more in real terms in the future than now. Canada's economy does not need oil exports to maintain a current trade surplus.
2007-12-17 17:33:40 · answer #1 · answered by d/dx+d/dy+d/dz 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Gitxsan and the Tse Keh Nay peoples will fight it tooth and nail. Northgate Minerals Corporation lost a permit to expand the Kemess North copper and gold deposit because of the Gitxsan. BP plans to start a project that is 500 times larger. It will never happen.
2007-12-17 10:34:36 · answer #2 · answered by Knick Knox 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just once, I would like to see a piece of wilderness that isn't sacred or pristine or out of bounds. The countries of Canada and the United States would be third world if we didn't effectively utilize our natural resources. BP pretends to be green but in fact is just another oil company.
2007-12-10 07:43:50 · answer #3 · answered by JimZ 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Now that gas prices are starting to creep up, it makes economic sense for BP to extract oil from Canadian tar sands.
In order for them to do this, however, they will need to modify their refineries to handle this dirtier crude. Will sulfur dioxide emissions increase substantially in the U.S. due to these refinery changes?
If so, the people living around these U.S. refineries may be hardest hit.
2007-12-10 09:27:41 · answer #4 · answered by kusheng 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Great idea - Anything to make us independent of arab oil is good.
2007-12-10 08:08:12 · answer #5 · answered by Dr Jello 7 · 2⤊ 3⤋