[Econ101]

If the tar in the oil-sands are a contaminant – they have a lot more crude in an acre than the Exxon Valdiez carried – the normal procedure for cleaning contaminated soil is to mine it, remove the contaminates and replace the soil as close to natural contour as possible. From there restore native vegitation. Its a very good process if you are concerned about contaminated soil and environmental reclamation.

[Quinny]

Methinks the original poster in this thread was absolutely correct in his choice of title.

[dbruning]

On the plus side, we now rank #1 in Google for the prestigious keyword phrase: Mayan Imaginary Flaming Death Balls

So it's not a total waste.

[Econ101]

I can tell you this: I'll be one very happy long term environmentalist when they do get those filthy, contaminated tar sands cleaned up. It actually should be a super fund site its so contaminated with oil and it's derivatives. The government should be paying to have that stuff cleaned up, its right close to the surface. You can find it with a shovel. It causes cancer and must be cleaned up and the land restored dont you think? We can sell the useful by-products to pay for it.

[dbruning]

I can't tell if your being serious or not

The tar sands are a hideous thing environmentally. Anything that requires cannons to keep birds from lands in "death lakes" can't be good.

Will they be stopped? A lot of money is being extracted by cooking those sands.

I guess the real question is, will greed or restraint win out?

I don't really like which winner I think is likely.

[Keith_McClary]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('dbruning', 'I') can't tell if your being serious or not

The tar sands are a hideous thing environmentally. Anything that requires cannons to keep birds from lands in "death lakes" can't be good.

Will they be stopped? A lot of money is being extracted by cooking those sands.

I guess the real question is, will greed or restraint win out?

I don't really like which winner I think is likely.