It makes you wonder how many other voices that complain about tar sands impacts are being ignored? Fort Chipewyan's calls for independent health inquiry, the cancer concerns in Fort Saskatchewan are just two, both recently echoed by the Edmonton Journal's editorial board; the fact that some doctors may not comfortable treating oil-symptom patients is another.
With a drinking water source for seven million people at stake, this "tar sands name game" is one with high stakes indeed.
Three days after spilling crude oil into Lake Michigan, BP has doubled its spill estimate to between 470 and 1228 gallons. The leak happened at its refinery in Whiting, Ind. Although some of the oil has been cleaned up, it's unclear how much is left in the lake, a drinking water source for about seven million Chicagoans.
The "beer economy" employs more than 163,000 people. In fact 1 out of every 100 jobs in Canada is in beer. A report out late last year suggests that 44 cents of every dollar spent on beer goes to the government in taxes ($5.8 billion), making buying beer almost a civic duty.
The irony of it all: Jones may have drawn more attention to his testimony by not disclosing his ties than he would have by being transparent about them up-front, as required by the House.
Whether CNRL's problems at Primrose are specific to that site or will become a more generic issue for the industry remains to be seen. But with 80 percent of the massive expansion planned for the oil sands coming from in situ production, it's a question that investors in oil sands stocks will soon want answered.
Yesterday the creative folks at the Canadian Youth Climate Coalition launched a very innovative twitter campaign to help raise funds for Power Shift - a youth led convergence on climate change. Check out some of the #climatepickuplines hilarity.
I can't imagine how it would feel after I've seen my cattle die, my daughter almost fall down the stairs because of chronic headaches and dizziness, and my family get sick to the point we had to leave our farm and move into our parents basement. And then to be told that it's not the constant tar sands emissions that are the problem, but my attitude to the oil and gas industry.
Trudeau professes to be capable of both meaningfully combatting climate change and supporting oil sands expansion. Yet he recently went so far as to proclaim that "the opposition to the Keystone XL pipeline in the United States and elsewhere is not scientific." Leaving oil in the ground is precisely what must happen. The longer Trudeau loudly supports the oil industry without a similarly strong signal that he is committed to meaningful action on climate change, the harder it will be, should he win, to enact the bold policies the scientific community is actually calling for.
Many doubt that rail could ever replace pipeline as a viable marketing mechanism for Alberta's tar sands. But few could argue the fact that rail reigns supreme for bringing Bakken fracked oil to market.
"Alberta is very much a petrostate," says journalist and author Andrew Nikiforuk. "It gets about 30 per cent of its income from the oil and gas industry. So as a consequence, the government over time has tended more to represent this resource and the industry that produces it, than its citizens. This is very typical of a petrostate."
Whether or not one favors Mr. Obama's energy policy, there's one thing very clear about it: Canada's oil is not something that factors into Mr. Obama's calculations other than in the negative: it's not "American" energy, it's in the basket of "imported oil" that the U.S. wishes to curtail, and to Mr. Obama it's the wrong sort of energy.
One thing is clear as Secretary of State John Kerry and President Barack Obama head into decision-making time on Keystone XL's northern half: ERM has always been able to turn a blind eye to serious environmental impacts.
Debating the best way to do something we shouldn't be doing in the first place is a sure way to end up in the wrong place. The recent spate of rail accidents and pipeline leaks and spills doesn't provide arguments for one or the other; instead, it indicates that rapidly increasing oil and gas development and shipping ever greater amounts, by any method
To say that rock legend Neil Young has been making waves on his ACFN 'Honour the Treaties' tour would be an understatement. His comments about the horrors of the tar sands have made front-page headlines, set social media ablaze, and have brought out more than a few attacks mostly from stalwarts of the oil industry.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper needs to figure out that not everyone is going to agree with him and his government's policies -- and that's okay. Rock legend Neil Young is making his way across Canada this week on a high-profile concert series in support of First Nations who oppose further expansion of oil sands extraction into their lands. Harper, through his spokesperson, responded to Young's concerns with empty talking points, reiterating that the natural resource sector remains a "fundamental part of our country's economy."Okay. Thanks Captain Obvious. Why is it so hard for the Prime Minister to speak with people who disagree with him?