Exxon Mobil launches 7.1 billion dollar tar sands project

I live in Alberta and I hate the fact that people don't allow us to develop our industries. Canada is a massive place with huge amounts of space. In order for us to populate places like Alberta with more people we need industry. People that say, well stop the oil sands and go back to your old job are just ignorant. There were no jobs in Alberta before the oil sands and oil patch.

A province of 3.5 million is spending more on carbon capture development than the entire United States. We are building nuclear power which reduces the carbon footprint by like 75% of the upgrading process. Soon it will be just as efficient as conventional crude oil.

Yes we are destroying forests in an area the size of Florida. Alberta is also 4 times as large as Florida.
I also live in a house powered by geothermal and take rapid transit wherever I need to go.

Since Albertan's also own 100% of the oilsands we also get revenue from them, that is why they will never go away.

The path chosen by businesses will always be that which generates the most money, which is the only actual goal of business. If anyone thinks that a company like Exxon will forgo profits for environmental concerns, you're sadly mistaken.

Business just doesn't work like that, for better or worse.

A long time ago, I heard someone say,"Canada will not be fought with in the future, but fought for." I think this was only partially correct...I think we won't be fought with but apparently, you won't have to fight for us either...we're giving it away!

Yes there is a reason. BURNING BITUMIN IS TOXIC.

oh how '90's.

*sniff* smell that? Obama! your ego is burning! Along with a big portion of Canada too it turns out. Way to go!.... not really :(

"Have we on the whole as humans really become so anesthesized to what really matters?"

Without a doubt, YES, absolutely, 95% at least.

I continue to be confused on this topic. The comments on the thread thus far seem to conclude that this is an "Either/Or" situation in the sense that EITHER this investment of $7.1 Billion is made in the tar sands OR it is made in alternative energy technology, R&D, etc. Is there some reason why BOTH investments can't be made? I am not saying that Exxon WOULD make both investments, I just didn't know if there was information I lacked on this point.

As to continuing to invest in fossil fuels, I am not aware of a single credible expert on the planet who thinks we will not be needing to use fossil fuels at close to current levels for at least the next 10 years -- regardless of how much is invested in alternative energy sources -- simply because of the magnitude of the numbers involved. Back in November of 2006, when oil prices were on the upswing, the Rand Corporation estimated that all alternative energy sources taken together COULD account for as much as 25% of U.S. energy usage...by the year 2025. An article in the June, 2009, issue of Discover magazine covers in some detail a plan by the American Wind Energy Association to try and attain 20% of U.S. energy usage using wind energy...by 2030.

I was the CEO of a trade association for 12 years and can assure you that when one is estimating the yield of the industry one is paid to promote...one rarely UNDERestimates that yield. I am not saying that 20% is unattainable, but I can just about guarantee that it is a "best case" figure.

I am completely supportive of the fastest possible transisition away from fossil fuel-based energy sources (so long as the chosen alternative is not nuclear, which I consider to be on the order of "out of the frying pan and into the fire."). But bashing every announcement of investment in fossil fuel development is actually counterproductive. It gives ammunition to our opponents, who argue that we are out of touch with reality and cannot be trusted in an honest debate on energy policy.

I mean, even if we could build enough electric cars in the next five years to replace all of the gas-powered ones (we can't -- we have never had that kind of production capacity, and the capacity we DO have has been declining significantly over the past few years) AND if we had the ability to obtain all of the electricity from alternative sources (we don't -- and could not POSSIBLY get there in five years no matter HOW much money we were to invest), only a small percentage of the U.S. population is in the financial position to go out and purchase an electric car anyway. We can't very well FORCE working class Americans to go out and buy electric cars -- even if we had a way to power them.

I know I will catch heat for this post, but I just think we do our own cause a disservice by shunting reality to the side in this debate.

Why is it so hard for these guys to wrap their heads around a new way of making money that has a longer future? Absolutely infuriating.

why not a 7.1 billion dollar alternative energy project??

profits higher than any company in the existence of business and they use it to continue to dig humanities grave.

thanks exxon, you rock.

Isn't the extraction of oil in the tar sands supposed to be industrially intensive, meaning that it potentially will cost more for production and refinement than the selling? Which will means that either they're getting money to do it or prices will be much higher for this type of oil. All that money and labor could go into alternative energy, right? Not to mention the production is far more environmentally destructive than other extraction and refinements... are these companies saying that they give up? Honestly I think they're only interested in making the most out of the oil that's left in the earth... leaving it there is like leaving gold there. When are we going to realize that interests of a company with share holders is never going to be aligned with the people... that is unless the people don't fight. I think we have forgotten how to work the system.

"end of excerpt, and the boreal forest."

Unfortunately, well put.