Evil Americans Still Ruin the World for Petrodollars

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Nope. I don't know about Quebec, but the First Nations have no chance at prospering alone. Luckily, First Nation nationalism doesn't involve secession from Canada. As for the proportion, an article in the Canadian Journal of Political Science claims that "... close to one quarter of Canada's population can be claimed as 'minority nations.'"

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent? Anyway, "nationalism" requires the ability to direct the nation's course; otherwise it's really just frustration. That was my point.

The First Nations are generally grouped together as Aboriginal. Canada's trinational view of Aboriginal, French, and English, if you'll see it that way.

Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.

If the reserve land was so useless, then I might ask why, throughout the 20th century, Canada repeatedly stole reserve land and made it illegal for the bands to use the law to defend themselves. Besides, if people don't want to live on the reserves, they don't need to. A bit less than half currently live in rural centers. You can't force the rest to leave, however beneficial you might imagine it might be for them; it's their land and they won't give it up.

Is it their land, or merely the land left to them after the unstoppable British Empire took all it wanted? Is there any reserve well known for it's wealth in minerals or agriculture? In any case, I'm not talking about forcing people to leave, simply about dissolving the reservations; a purely political issue, not a physical one.

You seem to be confusing a nation and a state. A nation is merely a group of people tied together by common ground, be it history, language, or ethnic origin. There can certainly be multiple nations within a state. If that were not so, then why would Canada and Quebec recognize the First Nations as nations?

the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.

In spite the claims of many states as being single nation-states, that is just not true; most states are multinational.

A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.

Language is a major issue to support Quebecois nationalism; something which is not the same with many Aboriginal people, as most speak English as their primary language anyways. Be that as it may, the adoption of French as an official language was only done to appease the Franco-Canadians and quiet down the call for national recognition within Quebec. It's a clever move that, in the long run, undermines Quebecois nationalism.

You're right, but you've ignored the fact of the supression of English in Quebec, which is as bad as supressing French in another Province.

Be that as it may, the situations are different. Neither Quebec nor the First Nations are united solely by hatred of the Anglo-Canadians. And in the case of the First Nations, language isn't even a factor in Aboriginal nationalism.

They may not be the same, but they are similar, and a major element of your ethnic identity is clearly a sense of injustice directed at the Canadian government. The basic psychology is clearly very similar, and to say otherwise is to do an injustice to the Welsh as well. Look up "Welsh knot".

Minority nationalism will never let this happen. You must understand that what you suggest is a practical impossibility.

Minority nationalism should probably grow up, then. Life is what it is.

Ugh. Learning French was such a pain the ***. Canada should never have adopted French as an official language, anyways; this can only serve to aggravate the various national and cultural minorities in the country who hate seeing one minority being placed above them (which is, btw, one of the major obstacles for minority nations in Canada).

There are more French speakers than any other linguistic minority, and they comprise the majority in at least one Province. Other minority languages are not statistically as significant. Also, French is a very useful language to have if history, philosophy, or literature interest you.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent?

78% speak English as their primary daily language. Visible minorities come in at about 15% of the population. Two territories are majority aboriginal, and Nunavut is considered "the aboriginal territory", though obviously they don't have a cross-section of all of the tribes. Canada itself is about 4% Native American. The French Canadian population is best determined by language, since the census reports that most people in Quebec identify as Canadian, whereas a plurality in the mostly English New Brunswick report themselves as French. All provinces have British, French, Canadian, or Native American ancestry reported as a plurality except for Saskatchewan, where a plurality identifies as German. Of course, most of the people who answer British, French, German, Irish, etc. are really Canadian.

http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-re.../index-eng.cfm

Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.

They do have a territory essentially to themselves, Nunavut. 85% of the population there is native.

the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.

The First Nations and Quebec have both been recognized as "distinct societies and nations within Canada" by various governments. Quebec was recognized as such only a couple of years ago by Prime Minister Harper, though of course they already had special status before that.

A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.

Canada almost did less than fifteen years ago, and it may well do so in the next hundred years.

You're right, but you've ignored the fact of the supression of English in Quebec, which is as bad as supressing French in another Province.

Not according to the PQ, sadly.

There are more French speakers than any other linguistic minority, and they comprise the majority in at least one Province. Other minority languages are not statistically as significant. Also, French is a very useful language to have if history, philosophy, or literature interest you.

I do recall many students outside of Quebec being upset at being forced to learn French. Aside from equalization payments and politicians being forced to pander to Quebec to win a majority government, that is probably the main reason for the casual quasi-dislike of Quebec (or their governments) from the rest of Canada.

[Megas Methuselah]

So 75% of the population are.... what? White? Anglo-Saxon? Of British Descent?

I can see EMFM answered this point, yet I'd like to elaborate. As he said, despite much of the census answers involving English, Irish, German, etc. they are all largely Anglo-Canadian. Canadian nationalism is a strange new breed that heavily involves multiculturalism, and thus precludes any such nonsense of certain minorities, including Aboriginals and Quebecois, from declaring themselves to be anything more than a seperate culture/ethnicity (i.e. nations).

Which is very different to the "60-80" you quoted before, and actually politically managable. Perhaps all the "First Nations" should be grouped together under a single Province; though the term "aborigonal" is innacurate.

EMFM already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

The First Nations are semi-united by the Assembly of First Nations, in spite of the fact that they are scattered across the entire breadth of the country. This assembly, though, does not include Metis or Inuit.

Is it their land, or merely the land left to them after the unstoppable British Empire took all it wanted? Is there any reserve well known for it's wealth in minerals or agriculture?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Lake_Indian_Nation

the purpose of a "Nation" is to give a State an identity. While you are technically correct, you've missed the point. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nation. As to why the "First Nations" were recognised as Nations: to tie them to the land of the reservations of course.

We've been "tied" to these reserve lands far before recognition as nations.

A state can be multi-ethnic, but a multi-national state is doomed to collapse from internal disision.

If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.

Minority nationalism should probably grow up, then. Life is what it is.

Very convenient answer, euro. I'm sure you of all people realize how stubborn nationalism is.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can see EMFM answered this point, yet I'd like to elaborate. As he said, despite much of the census answers involving English, Irish, German, etc. they are all largely Anglo-Canadian. Canadian nationalism is a strange new breed that heavily involves multiculturalism, and thus precludes any such nonsense of certain minorities, including Aboriginals and Quebecois, from declaring themselves to be anything more than a seperate culture/ethnicity (i.e. nations).

If I may, Anglo-Canadian can only really refer to someone who is part Anglo-Saxon, functionally this has included Northumbrians and Danes (in England) since the Norman Conquest, and also now embraces naturalised immigrants to Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish) and Wales (Anglo-Welsh). It doesn't really include Scots, Catholic Irish or anyone else.

EMFM

already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than to the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

So Innuits are not "First Nation"? Don't you find that politically odd, as they must have been there as long as the rest of you?

The First Nations are semi-united by the Assembly of First Nations, in spite of the fact that they are scattered across the entire breadth of the country. This assembly, though, does not include Metis or Inuit.

It doesn't provide you with actual government though, does it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lubicon_Lake_Indian_Nation

So, basically they're still taking what they want and you still can't stop them; that's sad but it aptly proves my point.

We've been "tied" to these reserve lands far before recognition as nations.

Even before the coming of the Colonists?

If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.

From here it looks like decline is on-going.

Very convenient answer, euro. I'm sure you of all people realize how stubborn nationalism is.

I'm not a European.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EMFM already talked about Nunavut, but I'd like to add that it is NOT a province; it is a territory, and thus much more tightly-bound to the federal government than to the provinces. Besides, these people are Inuit, not First Nation nor Metis.

Yes, I originally wrote territory and then changed it for some reason.

Still, Nunavut is granted a fair amount of autonomy, and their MP is the current health minister.

If the Quebecois and Aboriginals end up becoming a permanently dissaffected group, you may well be right. At the moment, many Franco-Canadians and Aboriginals still say they're proud Canadians; its not too late.

The Quebecois are not oppressed in the slightest. They have little if any reason to complain.

If I may, Anglo-Canadian can only really refer to someone who is part Anglo-Saxon, functionally this has included Northumbrians and Danes (in England) since the Norman Conquest, and also now embraces naturalised immigrants to Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish) and Wales (Anglo-Welsh). It doesn't really include Scots, Catholic Irish or anyone else.

He should have used the term Anglophone, though Anglo or Anglo-Canadian is often used to refer to the English-speaking majority by others, especially the French.

[Megas Methuselah]

Still, Nunavut is granted a fair amount of autonomy, and their MP is the current health minister.

Amazing, isn't it? I was far too young to realize the significance of its seperation from the North-West Territories back in 1999.

The Quebecois are not oppressed in the slightest. They have little if any reason to complain.

Haha, yeah, I know.

Quebec was recognized as such only a couple of years ago by Prime Minister Harper, though of course they already had special status before that.

Was it recognized only as a distinct society, or actually as a nation? I'm not sure myself, but I do know that many politicians are scared to even mention "nation" and "Quebec" in one sentence due to the controversy sorrounding the issue.

If I may, Anglo-Canadian can only really refer to someone who is part Anglo-Saxon, functionally this has included Northumbrians and Danes (in England) since the Norman Conquest, and also now embraces naturalised immigrants to Northern Ireland (Anglo-Irish) and Wales (Anglo-Welsh). It doesn't really include Scots, Catholic Irish or anyone else.

He should have used the term Anglophone, though Anglo or Anglo-Canadian is often used to refer to the English-speaking majority by others, especially the French.

Yeah, I meant English-speaking Canadians who, though they may be culturally diverse, still identify Canada as their nation (i.e. not some minority nation within Canada's borders).

So Innuits are not "First Nation"? Don't you find that politically odd, as they must have been there as long as the rest of you?

The First Nation, Inuit, and Metis together form the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Admittedly, it is a bit odd that the Inuit aren't grouped under First Nations, but I guess it's due to their different historical relationship with Canada. They have still been recognized as "Indians," though, and thus, First Peoples.

It doesn't provide you with actual government though, does it?

Nah. It represents the interests of the First Nations and lobbies the federal government. In my eyes, though, it has a lot of potential. The Inuit and Metis have their own counterparts, btw.

So, basically they're still taking what they want and you still can't stop them; that's sad but it aptly proves my point.

Uhm... It was supposed to prove my point that reserve lands aren't all useless pieces of rocks, but if you're arguing that there's still an on-going process of colonialism where the federal government takes whatever the hell it wants, reserve land or not, then you're partly correct. But, as EMFM pointed out earlier, some natives are actually working together with the oil companies. In other theatres, aboriginals have resorted to violence to succesfully drive off these "imperial" encroachments.

Even before the coming of the Colonists?

All other things being equal, yeah. However, it was much more land than the small plots of today's reserves.* It was only with the numbered treaties when the reserves in my province came into existence that the First Nations became bound to these particular areas (they surrendered the rest of their land in exchange for certain benefits in a changing world).

I'm not a European.

Are you white?




* Take the Ojibway, for example. They were quite hesitant to surrender their rights to much of their land to the USA; as their western lands have been acquired through conquest, they felt the land was enriched by the "blood and bones" of their ancestors who died in battle to attain what their descendants could enjoy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Was it recognized only as a distinct society, or actually as a nation? I'm not sure myself, but I do know that many politicians are scared to even mention "nation" and "Quebec" in one sentence due to the controversy sorrounding the issue.

I don't believe I've heard the word "Nation" with reference to Quebec, but I don't know tha answer to that one.

Yeah, I meant English-speaking Canadians who, though they may be culturally diverse, still identify Canada as their nation (i.e. not some minority nation within Canada's borders).

Except that those Canadians are almost as cultural diverse from each other as from the French-Canadians.

The First Nation, Inuit, and Metis together form the Aboriginal peoples of Canada. Admittedly, it is a bit odd that the Inuit aren't grouped under First Nations, but I guess it's due to their different historical relationship with Canada. They have still been recognized as "Indians," though, and thus, First Peoples.

Nah. It represents the interests of the First Nations and lobbies the federal government. In my eyes, though, it has a lot of potential. The Inuit and Metis have their own counterparts, btw.

If it's a Lobby group it's probably a bad thing, Lobbyists thrive only so long as thier "cause" remains unanswered. I would be surprised if you directly elect its members (wow, I'm becoming cynical).

Uhm... It was supposed to prove my point that reserve lands aren't all useless pieces of rocks, but if you're arguing that there's still an on-going process of colonialism where the federal government takes whatever the hell it wants, reserve land or not, then you're partly correct. But, as EMFM pointed out earlier, some natives are actually working together with the oil companies. In other theatres, aboriginals have resorted to violence to succesfully drive off these "imperial" encroachments.

You're half right, the reserves will ultimately be useless pieces of rock, and the natural resources now being contested were, I suspect, unkown at the time the current treaties were signed.

All other things being equal, yeah. However, it was much more land than the small plots of today's reserves.* It was only with the numbered treaties when the reserves in my province came into existence that the First Nations became bound to these particular areas (they surrendered the rest of their land in exchange for certain benefits in a changing world).

So, do you think your ancestors would have kept better, perhaps more fertile, land given a choice.

Are you white?

Yes, but so are Northern Iranians and Tartars, and some Turks; arguably Southern Europeans, especially some Greeks are not "white". The colour of my skin is no more relevant than the colour of my hair or eyes, and it's a useless identifier because I share it with about a billion people with whom I have nothing in common but a few strands of DNA.

At the end of the day, your people lost a series of wars, and ypu now have to rub along with the people who are descended from those who beat your ancestors. Life's like that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Was it recognized only as a distinct society, or actually as a nation? I'm not sure myself, but I do know that many politicians are scared to even mention "nation" and "Quebec" in one sentence due to the controversy sorrounding the issue.

Link

[Megas Methuselah]

Link

Well, this is neat. I've always thought it was nothing more than the recognition of Quebec as a "distinct society."

Except that those Canadians are almost as cultural diverse from each other as from the French-Canadians.

I don't think you understand. The Anglo-Canadians may be culturally diverse, yet they view Canada as their nation. The Franco-Canadians in Quebec, on the other hand, view Quebec as theirs. This is what mainly sets them apart: nationalism & national identity.

If it's a Lobby group it's probably a bad thing, Lobbyists thrive only so long as thier "cause" remains unanswered. I would be surprised if you directly elect its members (wow, I'm becoming cynical).

I have my vote in my own band's chief and council. The assembly is an organization of chiefs who themselves vote for the national chief.

You're half right, the reserves will ultimately be useless pieces of rock, and the natural resources now being contested were, I suspect, unkown at the time the current treaties were signed.

Are you ignoring my posts? There have been plenty of times when Canadian aggression has been halted or when the natives joined in with the federal/provincial governments on the resource-pickings.

So, do you think your ancestors would have kept better, perhaps more fertile, land given a choice.

... They were largely given a choice in choosing reserve lands. The only issue was, in my area anyways, they weren't large-scale farmers or oil miners, understand? Their definition of good, fertile land wasn't the same as ours.

Yes, but so are Northern Iranians and Tartars, and some Turks; arguably Southern Europeans, especially some Greeks are not "white". The colour of my skin is no more relevant than the colour of my hair or eyes, and it's a useless identifier because I share it with about a billion people with whom I have nothing in common but a few strands of DNA.

Ok, very good job shifting the whole mess into another direction. Jesus...

At the end of the day, your people lost a series of wars, and ypu now have to rub along with the people who are descended from those who beat your ancestors. Life's like that

Yeah, my Metis ancestors lost a series of wars against Canada. My Cree and Ojibway ancestors did not; but what the hell does this have to do with anything? Sure, I deal with non-Aboriginals all the time. It's not like I spit on my friends or curse them for being white every time we go drinking.

I'm not even sure how to answer this statement.

[Strike For The South]

Aren't the metis a mix? I was always under the imperssion they were Canadas mestizos.....

And for the record. I may be "white" but it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm a European

[Megas Methuselah]

Aren't the metis a mix? I was always under the imperssion they were Canadas mestizos.....

There's a bit of a dispute here. The old Metis were the offspring of the employees/employers of the fur trading companies and their aboriginal wives. They were given land lots by the companies in retirement to settle and raise their families, whereupon their children would be employed by the companies. They were used as fur traders and as private armies in the company wars between the HBC and NWC. Over time, they developed a distinct culture with unique languages in their settlements, isolated from the western world, far before Canada became a dominion and lustily gazed upon the vast lands on their western borders.

Membership in today's Metis nation requires proof of descent from those old Metis. However, many people of mixed aboriginal and european heritage call themselves metis, even if they do not have ancestry in the old historical Metis and are not members of the Metis nation.

And for the record. I may be "white" but it'll be a cold day in hell before I'm a European

[Strike For The South]

There's a bit of a dispute here. The old Metis were the offspring of the employees/employers of the fur trading companies and their aboriginal wives. They were given land lots by the companies in retirement to settle and raise their families, whereupon their children would be employed by the companies. They were used as fur traders and as private armies in the company wars between the HBC and NWC. Over time, they developed a distinct culture with unique languages in their settlements, isolated from the western world, far before Canada became a dominion and lustily gazed upon the vast lands on their western borders.

Membership in today's Metis nation requires proof of descent from those old Metis. However, many people of mixed aboriginal and european heritage call themselves metis, even if they do not have ancestry in the old historical Metis and are not members of the Metis nation.

So really the Metis are proof that you two can live together. Intresting.

It's not funny, my family has either been defending themselves against Europeans or giving there lives so Ze Germans wouldn't take jolly old or gay Pairee.

For years the United States was sold out by an Anglo uppercrust simply because they felt some kinship with thier "cousins".

Kinship with people who kicked you out? That's funny

[Megas Methuselah]

So really the Metis are proof that you two can live together. Intresting.

Yeah, mane. The Metis are the cement that binds the three founding pillars together.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think you understand. The Anglo-Canadians may be culturally diverse, yet they view Canada as their nation. The Franco-Canadians in Quebec, on the other hand, view Quebec as theirs. This is what mainly sets them apart: nationalism & national identity.

Yes, but why is that? French Canada was conquered, as was "Native" Canada, "Anglo" Canada as you might term it was not. To me, the lumping together of "Anglo-Canadians" seems like the construction of an "other" which is not really there. The Irish, or Scots, or Germans, are not bothered by being "ruled" by "Anglos", not enough to get political about it anyway. The only conclusion I can come to is that the French-Canadians really want their own country (which some obviously do) and feel oppressed because they do not have a seperate determinable destiny from other Canadians.

I have my vote in my own band's chief and council. The assembly is an organization of chiefs who themselves vote for the national chief.

That is better than I might have expected, but it is still not a distinct legislative body.

Are you ignoring my posts? There have been plenty of times when Canadian aggression has been halted or when the natives joined in with the federal/provincial governments on the resource-pickings.

Overall though, most of your ancestral land is now owned and held by others, and you lack the resources to defend against an actual armed incursion.

... They were largely given a choice in choosing reserve lands. The only issue was, in my area anyways, they weren't large-scale farmers or oil miners, understand? Their definition of good, fertile land wasn't the same as ours.

"we're taking most of your land, but you can choose a bit to keep", that's rather like a highwayman letting you keep your mother's broach, but taking all your gold. I presume their definition of "good" land would be large hunting ranges, with good water sources and plentiful game reserves. Generally speaking, reserves were cut up to make this kind of lifestyle increasingly difficult (the famous example being the partitioning of the Great Soiux Reservation, which got Sitting Bull killed).

Ok, very good job shifting the whole mess into another direction. Jesus...

You chose to define me by my skin colour, it is both innacurate and racist; it is also totally irrelevant. You construct me as a "European" in order to denigrate me and my opinions (you know I have seen prrof of this). I was merely demonstrating that your point was unsound.

Yeah, my Metis ancestors lost a series of wars against Canada. My Cree and Ojibway ancestors did not; but what the hell does this have to do with anything? Sure, I deal with non-Aboriginals all the time. It's not like I spit on my friends or curse them for being white every time we go drinking.

I'm not even sure how to answer this statement.

You've completely missed my point, which is illustrative. My Ancestors lost a number of wars, one specifically, but I don't clamour for recognition of Wessex as an independant "nation" with a capital in Winchester. This does not, however, prevent me from knowing my personal family history or being proud of my decent.

[Furunculus]

more on those teh eeeviL canadians at copenhagen:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...at-copenhagen/

[lars573]

I dissagree. On the one hand, Quebec agitated for minority ethnic representation (being French, they wanted Canadian government documents to be bi-lingual), then refused to produce Quebec government documents/signage etc. in English. Let's not be so crude as to equate ethnicity and skin colour; the shade of your skin is no more relevant than that of your hair or eyes.

From Meth's posts and what I know of the situation and the legality, Natives are still very much segregated.

Interestingly, I have heard that Quebec is beginning to suffer from it's own racist approach to Anglo-Saxons.

Your actually misunderstanding a few things. The Federal government is billingual. But each province has the right to set their own offical language. Quebec's is French, in 8 other provinces it's English (but most will have French as a courtesey). There is in fact only 1 billigual province, New Brunswick. Public signage in Quebec is in French, in New Scotland it's in English, in New Brunswick it's both.

[Megas Methuselah]

I will get back at this when I have the time after my next final exam for a long post.

[Furunculus]

more on the canada tar-sands:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...doesnt-add-up/

Kicking BP and Shell over the economics of Canada's tar sands doesn't add up

By Rowena Mason Energy Last updated: March 11th, 2010

The group of investors vociferously trying to persuade BP and Shell to re-evaluate their potential investments in the Canada tar sands has now enlisted a group of MPs in Britain to propose an early day motion questioning the project’s financial viability.

The move is part of a pretty well-coordinated campaign mobilised by FairPensions (members: ActionAid, WWF and a number of trade unions). This year, the rebels have managed to get enough shareholder support to submit motions to the oil companies’ annual meetings against the Alberta prospects, which environmentalists argue will be responsible for high levels of carbon dioxide emissions.

Shareholders obviously have a perfect right to kick up a fuss about investments they’re not keen on. Around 25pc of the FTSE-100’s dividends are paid out each year by BP and Shell, so the importance of these two companies’ decisions to UK pensions cannot be under-estimated.

However, it does seem slightly disingenuous that FairPensions is trying to claim that a big reason for their concern is the economics of the projects. They question the margins that will be made by the oil companies and warn of possible high legal fees from environmental challenges, plus the rising costs of climate change legislation.

But if they were so concerned about the right economic decisions being made by companies like BP, they would be having a look at its portfolio of renewables and “other” unit, which made a stonking $2.3bn loss in 2009. Yet there seems to be no issue with wind, solar and biofuels: all eco-friendly, low-carbon projects that are undertaken to improve the company’s green image and prepare for a future of heavier regulation of emissions/higher financial penalties, rather than turn an immediate profit.

What’s more, if you look at an investment like BP’s Project Sunrise, it represents a low proportion of the company’s overall capital expenditure. It is currently planning to spend $1.25bn on the venture over the next few years out of a total $20bn yearly budget on exploration and new projects. If given the go-ahead, BP’s oil sands will only be pumping out 60,000 barrels out of 4m barrels per day by 2014 – around 1.5pc of overall output.

I’m not taking sides on the environmental controversy of this debate. BP claims the extra carbon dioxide emissions of Project Sunrise – from well to wheel – will only be an additional 5-15pc. The campaigners put this figure at a much higher 12-40pc.

It’s just that all the talk about the oil sands’ profitability seems to obscure this real purpose of this argument – do the tar sands pose an unacceptable environmental risk and how much do we care about it? Obviously the economics of the project are borderline unless oil stays in the $80-100 per barrel range, confirmed by the fact that Shell’s Peter Voser has decided to slow the pace of investment at the moment to concentrate on conventional reserves.

But it is highly unlikely that BP and Shell would have been examining these prospects if there were not a probability that they could make some money and they will be subject to the same financial feasibility tests as every other investment – there would be little point in them wasting all this time and money just to spite the environmentalists. And I somehow doubt that the campaigners would be putting all this effort into an anti-tar sand campaign if the projects were the cleanest form of crude extraction in the world.

[gaelic cowboy]

It's terribly destructive though I am uncomfortable with such large scale digging

[Furunculus]

It's terribly destructive though I am uncomfortable with such large scale digging

given that their population desnity is nearly 100 tens less than britains, i'm not too concerned.

[The Wizard]

Shell making good money ruining Canada... the Dutch empire strikes back

[Furunculus]

Shell making good money ruining Canada... the Dutch empire strikes back

hey! don't do us down, Britain has still i believe got a 40% stake in Shell. :p

[The Wizard]

Wait... it's the Europeans who are ruining the world, not the Americans? I thought our 19th century glory was behind us

[Furunculus]

Wait... it's the Europeans who are ruining the world, not the Americans? I thought our 19th century glory was behind us

europe has three of the six oil super-majors, america has the other three.

france has one
uk has one and a half
and the netherlands has got the other half