Cat Fight!

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 01:44

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Albe...4/1668105.html

Gore full of hot air: Klein
Gore bashes oil sands development

By FRANK LANDRY, Staff Writer

Former U.S. vice-president Al Gore is full of hot air for comparing oil sands backers to junkies seeking their next fix, charges Premier Ralph Klein.

“The United States needs our oil. I don’t know what he proposes the world run on, maybe hot air?” Klein snapped.

In an interview to be published next week in Rolling Stone magazine, Gore bashes oil sands development, and says the reliance of fossil fuels is “dysfunctional.”

“Take the tar sands of western Canada. For every barrel of oil they extract there, they have to use enough natural gas to heat a family's home for four days,” Gore is quoted as saying.

“And they have to tear up four tons of landscape, all for one barrel of oil. It is truly nuts.

“But you know, junkies find veins in their toes. It seems reasonable, to them, because they've lost sight of the rest of their lives.”

Gore is promoting An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary on his campaign to fight global warming.

But Klein suggested the comments – which he hadn’t read himself – are nothing more than left-wing rhetoric.

“I’ve heard about the statement,” Klein said.

“I don’t watch movies much, and I don’t listen to Al Gore, in particular, because he’s a Democrat, and not only that, he’s as far left as you can go.”

Klein said he doesn’t believe Gore’s statements will hurt Alberta or the oil industry.

Marlo Raynolds, executive director with the Pembina Institute, said the former vice-president’s figures are pretty close to being bang on.

He said Gore is right to question our reliance on oil.

“It needs to be a real wake up call for all of us,” Raynolds said. “What does our long-term energy outlook look like?”

But Fort McMurray Mayor Melissa Blake said comparing oil sands development to a junkie seeking his next fix is going overboard.

And she noted there are already tight environmental regulations that govern how the reserves can be tapped.

“I think we are doing it as responsibly as we can,” Blake said.

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 01:45

Democrats are going to win an election in the US sometime, about 50 years from now, or more...

Proteus_MST · July 5, 2006, 01:55

The next 50 years will probably see a decline in the oil reserves and therefore rising fuel prices.

The more money USA (and other countries) put into research for non fossil fuels (like fuel cells or hydrogen) the better

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 01:57

Yes, very good bet.

And in the meantime...

TEAR IT UP! PUMP IT OUT! GET THE CASH WHILE THE GETTIN'S GOOD!

If we burn too much natural gas for extraction... BUILD 5 NUCLEAR REACTORS! NOW!

It is rather wasteful to burn nat gas to get the oil. WE COULD SELL THAT ****!

FrostyBoy · July 5, 2006, 01:59

Just curious, does the land become unstable when you remove all the oil out from underneath it?

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 02:00

Not to mention we could sell the energy once the land has been totally raped, can give us no more, and we are sated.

Plus we could have cheap electricity.

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 02:01

Originally posted by Sn00py
Just curious, does the land become unstable when you remove all the oil out from underneath it?

Seriously?

No.

The programme is they dig it up for the bitumen and then they have to close it over again and restore it to natural state.

We're talking about digging up an area on the same scale as the size of Texas (some exaggeration involved, but not much).

That's one of the reasons Gore is totally out to lunch on the issue.

He is perfectly correct that we should not burn nat gas to get it out. That's why we need nuclear plants, pronto, to supply the power needed for extraction.

FrostyBoy · July 5, 2006, 02:05

close it with what? sand? where do they get that from?

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 02:06

No, the same ground they wrang the oil out of.

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 02:09

You dig it up. You crush it. You steam it at high pressure to get the oil out.

You put it back and cover it with topsoil and then reforest it.

What Gore is ignoring is that the area of the oil sands is mostly uninhabited muskeg (northern swamp land). It isn't downtown Calgary.

Proteus_MST · July 5, 2006, 02:15

Similar to our surface mining of lignite I suppose.

First the giant excavators tear the whole landscape up (even destroying whole (sometimes historical) villages in their way)

And then, when the excavators are gone the whole landscape gets recultivated

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 02:19

Yes, it's like that, except it's of an area larger than some industrialised countries.

Dig it up. Get the loot. Bury it over.

Rinse and repeat.

Except there are no historical villages there. This is land so remote and inhospitable that the Amerinds don't like to live on much of it.

Like I said, northern swamp.

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 02:28

People who go hunting in this area sometimes don't come back.

Sometimes they step in a bog, and no one is around to bail them out. They become tomorrows oil.

Muskeg is treacherous. It is water logged earth, like swamp.

It's no sort of place to build a village or a life. It is a great place to strip mine for oil.

Proteus_MST · July 5, 2006, 02:44

Originally posted by notyoueither

Sometimes they step in a bog, and no one is around to bail them out. They become tomorrows oil.

Only if you let them lie there undisturbed for several 1000 years

btw. as you m,ention that it´s swamp-like.

Hope it doesn´t contain a unique ecosystem.

That´s the problem in europe, as many swamps get dried up or used for peat cutting (especially in germany and the netherlands), a lot of unique ecosystems (with for example carnivorous plants) get destroyed.
(in contrast to lignite mining which consumes a landscape that isn´t different from the rest of the country)

Asher · July 5, 2006, 02:48

Gore is just jealous that the world's largest trucks are in Alberta.

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 02:52

Originally posted by Proteus_MST

Only if you let them lie there undisturbed for several 1000 years

btw. as you m,ention that it´s swamp-like.

Hope it doesn´t contain a unique ecosystem.

That´s the problem in europe, as many swamps get dried up or used for peat cutting (especially in germany and the netherlands), a lot of unique ecosystems (with for example carnivorous plants) get destroyed.
(in contrast to lignite mining which consumes a landscape that isn´t different from the rest of the country)

I don't give **** about a unique eco-system.

The freaking stuff is $70 a barrel, and I don't care that it takes 4 tons of Earth and 4 days of heating for a home to get it out.

A: We should build nuke plants to stop burning nat gas for the extraction process, and even then 4 days of nat gas for a home is didley squat.

B: The province requires that land strip mined (all of it) be reclaimed.

C: There is a lot of that eco-system that will never get torn up. We are speaking about tens of thousands of square kms.

Victor Galis · July 5, 2006, 07:25

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
The next 50 years will probably see a decline in the oil reserves and therefore rising fuel prices.

The more money USA (and other countries) put into research for non fossil fuels (like fuel cells or hydrogen) the better

Apparently, they're going to turn to liquifying coal, which actually pollutes twice as much

Ecthy · July 5, 2006, 07:31

How ridiculous are Saudi Arabia's official numbers for oil deposits then?

Spiffor · July 5, 2006, 08:48

[Al Gore]’s as far left as you can go.

kittenOFchaos · July 5, 2006, 09:15

Originally posted by Asher
Gore is just jealous that the world's largest trucks are in Alberta.

Trucks and steaks.

chequita guevara · July 5, 2006, 22:52

[Al Gore]’s as far left as you can go.

What about me????

Sprayber · July 5, 2006, 23:09

I wonder what Gore uses to get around in to all those events and news conferences he does to plug is documentry? Actually i'm sort of curious if all the books he wrote was published on recycled paper? He talks a good talk to be sure but is he a practicing enviromentalist.

GePap · July 5, 2006, 23:10

Klein's jealous that his own movie bombed.

notyoueither · July 5, 2006, 23:50

Originally posted by chegitz guevara

[Al Gore]’s as far left as you can go.

What about me????

Don't worry.

The real Ralph Klein had a stroke and died years ago, when faced with a homeless person who told him he sucked.

This Ralph Klein is a pale imitation of the original, and wouldn't recognise a commie if the commie threw pie in his face.

Terra Nullius · July 6, 2006, 19:15

Originally posted by notyoueither
It isn't downtown Calgary.

Et pourtant,..

Muskeg is treacherous. It is water logged earth, like swamp.

It's no sort of place to build a village or a life.

Il's sont fous...

Terra Nullius · July 6, 2006, 19:17

... and still no pictures.

Bloody false advertising.

JimmyCracksCorn · July 6, 2006, 19:33

..."I don’t listen to Al Gore, in particular, because he’s a Democrat..."

Thats a weird remark coming from a Canadian Premier. Does he consider himself a Republican or something?

loinburger · July 6, 2006, 19:53

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
Hope it doesn´t contain a unique ecosystem.

A unique swamp is still a swamp.

notyoueither · July 6, 2006, 22:43

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn

Thats a weird remark coming from a Canadian Premier. Does he consider himself a Republican or something?

He's made a whole lot less sense since he stopped drinking.

See homeless guy incident above.

notyoueither · July 6, 2006, 22:45

Also, it's usually Democrats at the forefront of things like softwood tarrifs (boo) and stupid comments about the largest foreign source of oil for the US in the world.

Democrats should be popular up here, but they do and say so many stupid things.