View Single Post
Old 01-12-2013, 09:27 PM   #270
alcanrider's Avatar
Joined: Aug 2012
Location: Back in Superior, Colorado!
Oddometer: 113
Originally Posted by Crooked Creek View Post
Agreed. I don't think anyone was "bagging" though, just celebrating a good decision by Shell, the BC government, and the Tahltan. In the article, the president of Shell makes the point that every petroleum plant, coal mine etc is not the same in the sense that the potential economic benefits are not always worth the collateral costs. So, for cost efficiency, infrastructure, environmental, and (no doubt) public relations reasons it makes more sense for to concentrate their efforts in Northeastern BC at this time.

Were it not for natural resources development (and war) there would be no roads in Northern BC at all, but not all projects are worth the environmental and cultural costs.
Funny similar thoughts are had regarding coal mines, mostly strip mining. I personally have no problem with any resource developement as long as the environment can be returned to its somewhat original state. I do realize that after removing coal, the hills in West Virginia might not be as high, but the benefits outweigh the risks. No reason we should sit in the dark because some dont like dirty fossil fuels. Grew up in WV and listened to the mostly out of state environmentalist groups cause lots of problems for the residents, who mostly worked in coal. I personally like gas way under 3 dollars a galllon and dont care if the crude oil comes from underwater wells or the sands in Canada, just make the wilderness areas wilderness areas once again after resource developement. Awesome RR
alcanrider is offline   Reply With Quote