-------------> http://www.radio-canada.ca/nouvelles/environnement/2011/10/01/001-ecolog... http://www.ledevoir.com/environnement/actualites-sur-l-environnement/332...
Support rabble | Advertise with us | Contact our staff | About rabble | Log-in or Register for a new account | Corrections | Privacy policy | Newsfeeds | Mailing lists
rabble: Features | Columnists | In Cahoots | Blogs | Books | Photos | What's Up | Polls
babble: Forum Topics | Active Topics
The rpn: Become a Podcaster | Find a Show
rabbleTV: Program Guide | Features | Indie Inside | Best of the net
Copyright © 2001-2012 the authors
Here they go with the expense for the public and the gain for the private.
I'm becoming sick of those wackos. The usa are slowly stopping the exploitation of shale gas and they want us to go forward.
Dam right-wing conservative nut case.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/26/us/26gas.html?pagewanted=all
The Economist weighs in: High-speed gas
excerpt:
While the existence of the deposits has been known for some time, it is only recently that new technologies have made the extraction of gas from shale commercially viable. The provincial government plans to issue regulations for the new industry next year. It has expedited the timetable for a public consultation. All this strikes some Quebeckers as too rushed. The Parti Québécois, the main opposition, has called for a moratorium.
Officials in Jean Charest's Liberal provincial government point out that Quebec imports oil and gas worth C$14 billion ($14 billion) a year, mostly from western Canada, and will benefit from having supplies closer to home. Use of natural gas emits less carbon than oil. Mr Charest's administration has been weakened by minor scandals and by revelations that some businessmen in the gas industry have ties to the Liberals. While these charges are unlikely to stop natural-gas development in the province, they may slow it down. Quebec's governments, including those of Mr Charest, have spent decades telling Quebeckers that they are greener than green. It seems many have believed them.
The name said it all, The economist only see the financial short terme view. In Quebec unless heavy subdize this industries is unlikely livable.
Personally i'm much more interrest in the technology from Enerkem and other company.
Still got the gas without the drilling.
http://www.enerkem.com
The business and industry analysts in that NY times article think that the shale gas boom in the US is a bill of goods, but that is very much the minority opinion. The majority opinion in the US would be that 'sure, we seem to have thought this was too easy, but shale gas is still the way to go.'
In no way are they backing off in the US. In fact, as someone working on halting the machine in the Maritimes- it gives us some breathing room that the industry has stepped back a bit to where anything goes. [Wyoming, BC, Pennsylvania, etc.]
Its a crime that they will do anything in Wyoming, but there is nothing I can do about that, directly. So as long as the industry is focusing on where the going is easy, it gives us some room.
The situation in Quebec is in between. You dont have the full juggernaut in motion to deal with- which gives somewhat more room to manouvre... but unfortunately, the big industry players with the deep pockets like the prospects of Quebec.
I got the impression that the Economist article in no way endorsed shale gas in Quebec, in fact linked these companies to Charest's party, that sounds like corruption to me.