← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · Walter Yannis
Thread ID: 14930 | Posts: 22 | Started: 2004-09-08
2004-09-08 12:49 | User Profile
[URL=http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=677&ncid=677&e=3&u=/usatoday/20040907/bs_usatoday/canadadripswithoilbutitstoughtogetat]Yahoo![/URL]
Canada drips with oil, but it's tough to get at
Tue Sep 7, 6:46 AM ET
By James Cox, USA TODAY
Any serious effort to ease America's addiction to Middle East oil starts near this Alberta boomtown cut out of Canada's great boreal forest. By conservative estimates, the underground deposits around Fort McMurray hold 1.6 trillion - with a "t" - barrels of oil, making them the largest lode of hydrocarbons on Earth. Up to 330 billion barrels of the crude here in Canada's oil sands region are recoverable, geologists say. Saudi Arabia, by contrast, possesses 262 billion barrels of proven reserves.
With oil prices bounding to nearly $50 a barrel this summer, both the Bush and Kerry campaigns have been talking up the Canadian option. Both extol a U.S. energy policy that draws more supply from friendly, familiar Canada and less from the volatile Middle East.
Despite the region's promise, not even the most giddy Canadian oil executive is ready to declare that the sands will break the USA's reliance on Middle East supplies anytime soon. Since 1967, the industry has spent $21 billion opening mines, drilling wells and constructing processing plants in the oil sands. Over the next decade, nearly two dozen companies plan to spend $24 billion more to expand existing operations or open new ones. Fresh investment could rise to as much as $40 billion by 2025, an amount equivalent to the combined spending of American companies in China over the past 25 years.
Yet even with all the money flowing in, oil from the sands "helps you on the margins. That's about it," says Allan Markin, chairman of Canadian Natural Resources, which is spending $6.4 billion on a project at the northern edge of the sands region.
Current production in the sands is about 1 million barrels a day, about half of which goes to the USA by pipeline. Production is forecast to rise to 2 million barrels a day by 2010 and 3 million a day by 2015. But the USA now guzzles more than 20 million barrels a day, about 60% of which is imported. Daily U.S. demand is projected to climb to 23 million barrels by 2010, even as domestic production falls.
Obstacles to development
So why not squeeze more from the oil sands? Tantalizing as the region is, it poses any number of obstacles. Technological, financial and environmental hurdles stand in the way of more aggressive exploitation.
Geologists joke that drawing a barrel of oil from the Saudi desert is as easy as poking a straw in the ground. The Saudis pump oil at a cost to them of $2 to $3 a barrel and comfortably make money even if global futures prices crash to $10 a barrel.
Not so in the molasses-like sands of Alberta. Here, costs range from $8.50 to $12 a barrel, and getting that barrel requires substantial manpower, technology and energy. After adding capital costs, shipping and depreciation, sands producers need per-barrel global prices above the $18-to-$23 level.
About 20% of the oil sands deposits can be surface mined. At its Steepbank and Millennium mines 20 miles north of Fort McMurray, Suncor uses bulldozers to scrape off the top layer of soil, silt, clay and rock. Three-story-high shovels gouge out buckets of oil sand and load them on gigantic trucks that can handle up to 400 tons apiece. The trucks, as big as generous suburban homes, shuttle 24 hours a day from the shovels to crushers, where they dump their loads. The rule of thumb is that two tons of sand yield one barrel of oil.
Eighty percent of the crude locked in the sands is too deep to surface mine.
So most new investment is aimed at extracting it by drilling wells to inject steam at high pressure, which separates and thins the tar-like bitumen so it can be pulled to the surface. It's a method that requires large quantities of water and natural gas.
In both cases, getting the bitumen is only the start. While it looks like thick oil, bitumen has a more complex molecular structure. It contains too much carbon and too little hydrogen, and must go through a costly upgrading process. The end product is so-called synthetic oil that can be moved through pipelines and refined into gasoline and other products.
The sands process is difficult and costly enough that industry reserve estimates vary wildly on Canada. Several authoritative guides refuse to include any oil from the sands in the country's reserve total. Others pare the recoverable figure from 300 billion barrels or more to 180 billion barrels or less.
A freak of geology
The region is a freak geologic formation created by the remnants of marine life left behind by an ancient inland sea that once covered much of Alberta. Venezuela has a similar oil sands region.
In 1719, a Cree Indian presented a sample of bitumen to a white explorer with the Hudson Bay Company. But for the longest time, the tar-like goo that pooled along the banks of the Athabasca River didn't seem good for much. The Cree and Chipewyan used it to fill smudge pots and ward off mosquitoes, or warmed it into a gum to waterproof their birch bark canoes. But the engineers and fortune seekers who played with it - boiling, spinning and treating it with chemicals - succeeded mostly in blowing themselves up or going bankrupt, or both.
That changed in 1967 when Suncor began extracting the first commercially viable oil from the sands. Still, it wasn't until the early 1990s that early pioneers Suncor and Syncrude developed the technology that enabled them to make steady returns capturing, processing and shipping sands oil. Even then, they saw their costs spiral out of control: Syncrude's $3.5 billion three-stage project ultimately cost $7 billion.
Today, projects "are being built as fast as they can," says Randy Ollenberger, energy analyst at BMO Nesbitt Burns in Calgary.
Costs remain a huge concern. Fort McMurray is crisp and beautiful this time of year, but remote, harsh and unforgiving much of the rest of the calendar. Temperatures plunge to 40 degrees below zero. And many oil leases in the northern sands areas are beyond the reach of paved roads, some accessible by "winter" roads over tundra, some only by helicopter.
At the northern edge of the Athabasca region, Canadian Natural Resources has scrapped the idea of trying to hire scarce pipe fitters, welders and carpenters locally or even import them from other parts of Canada. Instead, it wants to build an airport at its plant site, flying workers into job camps on 200-seat 737s. Much of the labor could come from Venezuela, Turkey, India, China, the Philippines, Hungary and South Africa, the company says.
Environmental concerns
Sands developers are under pressure to find ways to use less water and natural gas. They also are encouraged by the federal government in Ottawa to hire more workers from local tribes - referred to by Canadians as First Nations - and to buy more supplies from tribal businesses.
In addition, the oil companies work under strict environmental guidelines requiring that they run relatively eco-friendly operations and reclaim land as they finish mining. At its mine sites, Suncor has planted 3 million trees and built greenways to accommodate the bears, wolves, moose, caribous, deer and beavers. The company periodically fires off explosive charges at collection ponds to keep birds from drinking or nesting there.
One concern is that the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) agreement, intended to lower global greenhouse-gas emissions, could hamper new development in the sands. "The question they have about Kyoto is, where does it end? Kyoto in and of itself isn't a big deal. It might mean another 25 cents a barrel in operating costs. But these investments are made on 40-year assumptions, vs. the standard industry investment horizon of three to five years. What does the offspring of Kyoto look like?" Ollenberger says.
Labor shortages and high costs are evident in Fort McMurray, a distant 18th-century trading post that has become a bustling town of 58,000. Thirty years ago, rough saloons like the Oil Can and the Peter Pond Pub drew far-from-home Newfoundlanders, who came to work in the sands and never left. Today, housing is in short supply, and median prices for single-family homes are close to $240,000, among the country's highest. Fast-food outlets such as Canada's ubiquitous coffee-and-doughnuts chain Tim Hortons have had trouble attracting and keeping workers.
Despite high costs and other problems, oil from the sands comes with little political risk. No Arab oil sheiks, no guerrilla insurgencies, no Russian autocrats, no African strongmen, no bribe-seeking bureaucrats.
"It's one of the few sources that's not in a ridiculously problematic zone," says Seth Kleinman, an energy markets specialist at PFC Energy, a Washington consulting firm.
The sands also have a different lifespan and payout than traditional oil wells. Sands companies expect a 15% to 18% annual return on projects that have a life of 35 to 40 years. A typical oil well delivers two or three times the returns, but production and returns peak in three years and drop sharply.
Suncor CEO Rick George says there's enough promising technology on the way to solve some of the environmental problems and lower costs. Natural gas use, for instance, will drop if companies can fuel their operations with the petroleum coke that is a byproduct of the bitumen-upgrading process. He's optimistic that total sands production can get to 5 million barrels a day in 15 years.
Oil prices haven't been above $40 a barrel long enough for Canadian sands companies to consider accelerating their expansion plans.
"They tend to be reasonably conservative players investing in long-term strategic projects" involving new technology, says Scott Mitchell, lead analyst for North America at Wood Mackenzie, an energy consultancy in Edinburgh, Scotland. "A lot of these companies are still feeling their way."
Whether they speed up or not, it's folly to view the sands as some kind of magic bullet that will eliminate America's dependence on OPEC (news - web sites) and the Middle East, says Mike Rodgers, senior director at PFC Energy.
"You hear a lot of talk about gaining independence from Middle East oil," Rodgers says. "That can't happen as long as demand keeps growing. The only way to truly gain independence from Middle East oil is for us to do something about demand growth and develop other energy sources."
Contributing: Kelly Barry
2004-09-08 21:22 | User Profile
Within the past two months or so the New York [I][B]Times[/B][/I] has run articles on these vast deposits of oil. Obviously the United States is being guided to seek our oil in Canada rather than the Middle East.
Another aspect of Alberta is the MacKenzie River that flows into the Arctic Ocean. All that good water is wasted and could be used on the American prairie. Canada and, most especially, Alberta are being set up for an American expansion to the North.
2004-09-09 04:42 | User Profile
[QUOTE=edward gibbon]Within the past two months or so the New York [I][B]Times[/B][/I] has run articles on these vast deposits of oil. Obviously the United States is being guided to seek our oil in Canada rather than the Middle East.
Yup, Canada is the perfect energy source. Close enough that for security reasons its as good as the U.S., but its Tar Sands are far enough away that the environmental problems aren't any problem for us. Unlike domestic oil and other energy resources.
Another aspect of Alberta is the MacKenzie River that flows into the Arctic Ocean. All that good water is wasted and could be used on the American prairie. Canada and, most especially, Alberta are being set up for an American expansion to the North.[/QUOTE] 30 years ago, when Trudeau talked about the Canadians needing Russian help to offset the threat of American dominance from an economic, cultural, and even military standpoint, conservatives saw it as proof of his underlying radical/Marxist roots. Give the neo cons credit for making oafs like Trudeau look like brilliant prophets of the future.
2004-09-09 05:45 | User Profile
There sure is a lot of oil there. Trillions of barrels.
I dunno, guys, this sounds like a good idea to me.
We need to get off Middle Eastern oil, that's for sure. And heck, it's just across the border.
All we really need to do is guarantee a bottom price of $20/barrel oil for twenty years from these oil sands, and the financing will be there. This, along with a few other wise things like drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, would go a long way toward removing us from the Middle East and by extension our perceived (albeit illogically) need to support Israel.
We can deal with the environmental issues - I agree this is important, but it must be balanced against our pressing need to withdraw from the empire.
What am I missing?
Walter
2004-09-09 05:59 | User Profile
I have no problem with U.S. expansion to the north; its not like the Canadian regime is any more deserving of our respect than the present "American" one. If Canadian oil can make the Middle East irrelevant to America, then who's going to care about our valiant, democratic ally on the Levant? It all becomes just so much historical trivia. I say we should go for it, and in a big way.
2004-09-09 12:58 | User Profile
One really wishes that Montgomery and Arnold had been successful in the attack on Quebec city back in 1775.
2004-09-09 13:13 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I have no problem with U.S. expansion to the north; its not like the Canadian regime is any more deserving of our respect than the present "American" one. If Canadian oil can make the Middle East irrelevant to America, then who's going to care about our valiant, democratic ally on the Levant? It all becomes just so much historical trivia. I say we should go for it, and in a big way.[/QUOTE]
[quote=Sertorius]One really wishes that Montgomery and Arnold had been successful in the attack on Quebec city back in 1775.
Sounds like both of you need to revisit A Republic, Not an Empire
2004-09-09 13:38 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]There sure is a lot of oil there. Trillions of barrels.
I dunno, guys, this sounds like a good idea to me.
We need to get off Middle Eastern oil, that's for sure. And heck, it's just across the border.
All we really need to do is guarantee a bottom price of $20/barrel oil for twenty years from these oil sands, and the financing will be there. This, along with a few other wise things like drilling in the Alaskan Arctic, would go a long way toward removing us from the Middle East and by extension our perceived (albeit illogically) need to support Israel.
We can deal with the environmental issues - I agree this is important, but it must be balanced against our pressing need to withdraw from the empire.
What am I missing?
Walter[/QUOTE]A whole lot. It's "just across" the border, but it is across the border. Which means it isn't our oil, its Canada's, minus Sert's and Kevin's debatable suggestions. Without their suggestions, its really no more significant than say a another big oil find in Mexico or Venezuala. Significant in temporarily alleviating the worst of the world-wide oil crunch, but not much more.
There never has really been a shortage of energy anyway. What there has been is a shortage of cheap, politically available (environmentaly and strategically) energy. And to alleviate this shortage, the establishment (i.e. liberals and neocons) have funneled us into areas that will enslave us to their political ends in one way or another.
The consequences of dependency in the Middle East are obvious now - practically now we are stuck there militarily if we want to have ay assurances of continuing oil from that area. (Whoever we may have argued it in the past, neocons have assurred we've now burned our bridges to any other course of action). What does the liberal establishment see in the Tar Sands that they don't see elsewhere in America (like Oil Shale, Nuclear, Arctic, expanded Coal, etc?).
Seems straightforward to me. By spreading out to the Americas they see us becoming dependent on a new, expanded NAFTA for the region, one that will effectively dissolve borders and tie us in with Mexico's disasterous social and Canada's disasterous political correctness policies.
Like we all know - if it comes from the NYT political establishment it must be terrible, and its our duty to oppose it. Looking for an exception is like looking for virtue and truth in the Weekly Standard.
2004-09-09 14:43 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Like we all know - if it comes from the NYT political establishment it must be terrible, and its our duty to oppose it. Looking for an exception is like looking for virtue and truth in the Weekly Standard.[/QUOTE]
Well, that's a good point.
It is rather odd that our Elder Brothers in Faith would like anything that distracts our attention from the Middle East.
Your theory that it at least enmeshes us further in NAFTA is well taken.
Still, I mean, it's, like, Canada.
Eh?
We've had a de facto open border with them for a coon's age, and so long as we were all white and English speaking, nobody took much notice of it.
2004-09-09 16:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]Still, I mean, it's, like, Canada.
Eh?
We've had a de facto open border with them for a coon's age, and so long as we were all white and English speaking, nobody took much notice of it.[/QUOTE]Yeah. But like the add says - "that was then, this is now". Now neither of us is dominantly white and english speaking anymore, and everyday both of us are getting less so.
There are just so many things that make me suspicious of this new talk about the tar sands. Another thing that we haven't even mentioned is the CO2 emissions business, which while involved in all hydrocarbon usage issues, is especially involved in high CO2 sources like coal and tar sands.
Coming from a Democratic paper like the NYT, I strongly suspect there's an international Tooko accord - NAFTA/GATT/UN/NWO angle there too, although I'm not sure exactly what it is.
I woudn't be surprised if it eventually come down to some emission trading for population trading with the third world. You know the first world has too many CO2 emitters, the third world too much population. What is "obviously" needed is some sort of "switch". The third world agrees to voluntarily limit its per capita CO2 emissions below 1st world standards, in return for the 1st world agreeing to allowing vast 3rd world immigration.
I'm not sure what to make of all this talk actually coming from New York on energy policy, except that whatever it amounts to must be no good.
2004-09-10 08:15 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Sounds like both of you need to revisit A Republic, Not an Empire[/QUOTE]
I'm not talking aboot the military conquest of Canada (and I don't think anyone was), but rather simply having more thoroughly integrated relations, you might say (in the spirit of NAFTA, which didn't become a bad idea until they wanted to let Mexico join). Buchanan himself, the author of A Republic, Not An Empire, is also the author of a 1990 (or '91?) column on how after Quebec becomes an independent country, America should seek to peacably annex not only Anglo-Canada, but Greenland as well, so I'm on relatively firm paleo-con ground here, arguably.
2004-09-10 08:26 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]A whole lot. It's "just across" the border, but it is across the border. Which means it isn't our oil, its Canada's, minus Sert's and Kevin's debatable suggestions.
I wasn't suggesting we not pay them for what is indisputably their oil (unless, of course, Aberta wanted to join the United States; many right-wingers in western Canada, especially Alberta, used to want to do just that, but the idea has probably fallen by the wayside post-9/11 and such; who wants to join a police state in an endless series of imperialist misadventures?). I am suggesting, however, that an agreement between America and Canada, one that makes the exploitation of those oil reseverves a goal for both our governments, makes a lot of sense. We'd both benefit, so we should both start doing something about it. As the world's only superpower, we are arguably in a better position to get things done than the Canadians are, in so far as they grant us permission to get the ball rolling more forcibly than they have so far undertaken on their own.
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]What does the liberal establishment see in the Tar Sands that they don't see elsewhere in America (like Oil Shale, Nuclear, Arctic, expanded Coal, etc?).
A heck of a lot MORE oil than anything in Alaska, for starters. Nuclear and coal could be done properly, I have little doubt, but many others have big doubts, so there's the rub. Three Mile Island hasn't been forgotten (neither has Chernobyl, nor the filthy smoke stack of a largely earlier era).
2004-09-10 08:32 | User Profile
How much oil could we get from the North Slope?
How much of a dent would that put in oil imports?
I'm asking because I really don't know.
Also, I note that natural gas prices didn't rise nearly as much as oil, which I suppose points to greater domestic production. What's the deal on that? How much NG do we produce domestically, or at least buy from more controllable sources like Canada and Mexico?
W
2004-09-10 11:00 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Sounds like both of you need to revisit A Republic, Not an Empire[/QUOTE]
Okie,
Very funny. If this is the case then so does George Washington and Congress. They are the ones who approved the plan to invade in the first place. I'm sorry they didn't succeed back then. James Madison as well in 1812 fame. I was making a historical observation and not advocating a course of action.
Speaking of Pat I recall that he made a statement that if certain western Canadian provinces decided to leave Ottawa's heavy hand and join the U.S. they should be allowed to do so. I concur.
2004-09-10 11:37 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]A heck of a lot MORE oil than anything in Alaska, for starters. Well there is a lot of conventional oil that could be obtained if all the areas that are closed to conventional drilling, generally federal land in Alaskaand the western states, were opened to drilling. But your right, its no new Saudi like the Tar Sands.
There is a Tar Sands equivalent in the US though - Oil Shale. If we can't stand the environmental impact from conventional drilling - no way for Oil Shale. Conventional drilling has a tiny impact compared to oil shale - or the tar sands.
Nuclear and coal could be done properly, I have little doubt, but many others have big doubts, so there's the rub. Three Mile Island hasn't been forgotten (neither has Chernobyl, nor the filthy smoke stack of a largely earlier era).[/QUOTE]What gets me is why they're willing to forget these impacts in the case of the Tar Sands, which is every bit as impacting, if not more so, than coal or nuclear are.
Is it because its up in northern Canada out of sight, out of mind, (except for a few frozen Canucks)? So that effectively Canada is willing to serve as environmental waste dump for the problems we can't address ourselves?
Something is fishy here.
2004-09-10 11:47 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Walter Yannis]How much oil could we get from the North Slope?
How much of a dent would that put in oil imports?
I'm asking because I really don't know.
See my answer to Kevin.
Also, I note that natural gas prices didn't rise nearly as much as oil, which I suppose points to greater domestic production. What's the deal on that? You must not have followed them closely. NG has over the last 4-5 years shot up at least as much as oil, from less than $2/MCF to $6/MCF now. Its just that oil has shot up a little later.
How much NG do we produce domestically, or at least buy from more controllable sources like Canada and Mexico? W[/QUOTE]Basically all of it for now. But that's coming to an end, as we really are rapidly running out. That's why Greenspan called for a massive increase in NG imports.
The only reason we don't import much NG is that its much more difficult and expensive to transport NG in a ship than it is oil. (You have to chill it to close the temperature of liquid Nitrogen).
It is some intersting questions you have here. It does make me wonder what Freepers are saying about this. If we're even hinting at drifting that way here, God Help Us, (and Canada, if they can find him).
2004-09-10 19:28 | User Profile
I think that nowadays idea of invading Canada by US. is not quite sane idea. first it would create an international outrage unseen today, remember US is an debtor nation which cannot sustain itself. And fianlly Canda is binded to UK whit personal union, and one cannot guarantee if UK is not ready to defend its Canadian ally even with nuclear weapons if they ask so. And UK has enough nuclear capacity to ruin nearly all US if needed.
That is in nowadays political climate extremely hypothetical scenario, I think that whoever is president of US. he has enough comon sense to not do things leading to this scenario.
And after all usually you Americans have been in dong good things, for example US did not start war against my country in WW2 even while we fought with germans against Sovuet Union. UK did.
2004-09-11 05:35 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Suomi Finland Perkele]I think that nowadays idea of invading Canada by US. is not quite sane idea. first it would create an international outrage unseen today, remember US is an debtor nation which cannot sustain itself. And fianlly Canda is binded to UK whit personal union, and one cannot guarantee if UK is not ready to defend its Canadian ally even with nuclear weapons if they ask so. And UK has enough nuclear capacity to ruin nearly all US if needed. Well the idea of Britain, a country about the size of my state Oklahoma, militarily rescuing Canada sounds quite humorous to me. But it has enough remote plausibility to maybe make someone think a few seconds, which is all that is needed I'd think for anyone to consider the absurbity of the idea of invading Canada. I think most Americans have never even thought though about Canada. Half of American school kids in a poll in fact were unable to identify Canada on a map (although just slightly more could identify the U.S.). Most Americans also fail the question "Which country shares our Northern border"?
So it doesn't surprise me that even a few paleo's are a little confused on what exactly to do here.
That is in nowadays political climate extremely hypothetical scenario, I think that whoever is president of US. he has enough comon sense to not do things leading to this scenario.
And after all usually you Americans have been in dong good things, for example US did not start war against my country in WW2 even while we fought with germans against Sovuet Union. UK did.[/QUOTE] Hate to say it Suomi, but we probably would have declared war on Finland if any of our politicians could have found it on a map. :lol:
Speaking of the war, I find it intriguing that on analysis a desire to protect Finland played a big part in the political dynamics leading up to Hitler's decision to invade the Soviet Union. It strikes me as one of the few unassailably and genuinely virtuous undertakings Hitler did, for whatever reason.
2004-09-11 07:05 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]What gets me is why they're willing to forget these impacts in the case of the Tar Sands, which is every bit as impacting, if not more so, than coal or nuclear are.
Is it because its up in northern Canada out of sight, out of mind, (except for a few frozen Canucks)? So that effectively Canada is willing to serve as environmental waste dump for the problems we can't address ourselves?[/QUOTE]
I think its safe to say that even among committed (albeit sane) environmentalists, there is a tendency to care less about potential environmental despoilation of places like the Canadian tundra, or the Arabian deserts, which don't have a great deal to do with Earth's bioshpere....
2004-09-11 13:45 | User Profile
[QUOTE]You must not have followed them closely. NG has over the last 4-5 years shot up at least as much as oil, from less than $2/MCF to $6/MCF now. Its just that oil has shot up a little later. [/QUOTE]
I meant in the shorter term. That is, NG doesn't seem to be [URL=http://futures.tradingcharts.com/menu.html]nearly as sensitive [/URL] to Middle East concerns as oil.
It has been remarkably stable this year compared to crude oil, at least that's what I'm seeing on the charts.
2004-09-11 17:06 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Kevin_O'Keeffe]I think its safe to say that even among committed (albeit sane) environmentalists, there is a tendency to care less about potential environmental despoilation of places like the Canadian tundra, or the Arabian deserts, which don't have a great deal to do with Earth's bioshpere....[/QUOTE]Firstly, nothing is safe to say about environmentalist's tendencies IMO, perhaps because "sane environmentalist", at least in a politically active sense, is basically an oxymoron. And obviously you have never heard of the controversy about the Arctic wildlife refuge.
The one common thread though I do see in environmentalist seems to be an unspoken NIMBY (not in my backyard) attitude politically speaking. That is they see it as their duty to oppose projects in areas under their political control such as Alaska, while apparently perfectly accepting far bigger environmental footprints in other places, such the tar sands in Canada or other mining or industrial projects in the 3rd world.
Which is probably understandable of course since modern environmentalism is philosophical product of postmodernism. A bright analyst like Kevin MacDonald could thus undoubtedy discern the same contradictions that permeate other postmodern derived doctrines such as multiculturaism.
2004-09-12 02:18 | User Profile
[QUOTE=Okiereddust]Firstly, nothing is safe to say about environmentalist's tendencies IMO, perhaps because "sane environmentalist", at least in a politically active sense, is basically an oxymoron. And obviously you have never heard of the controversy about the Arctic wildlife refuge.[/QUOTE]
Those aren't environmentalists; those are partisan Democrats demagouging the environmental issue in order to obtain the irrational, New Age hippie vote. Not quite the same thing.