Speakeasy forum

General discussion

Another reason for price increase of gas?

by JP Bill / May 3, 2007 12:12 AM PDT
U.S. activist takes on Syncrude

Syncrude Canada Ltd. has picked an unlikely David-and-Goliath-type battle with a feisty 85-year-old Colorado grandmother over a website she created that portrays the giant energy company in an unflattering light over the environmental costs of the tar sands.

The strange flap over the grandmother, Liz Moore, and her personal Internet protest against Syncrude got nasty in mid-April, when the company's legal department sent her a letter demanding that she immediately remove photographs she had posted showing how the company extracts oil from the tar sands and reclaims land afterward.

Ms. Moore took the photographs at Syncrude's sprawling operation in northern Alberta near Fort McMurray last summer during a company-organized tour of the oil sands. The company says it owns the images and won't allow their reproduction without permission.

She also included on her website images some might construe as negative about Alberta, such as a tourist promotion offering a gas-guzzling Hummer as a prize and a shot that shows a Fort McMurray street clogged with fuel-wasting pickup trucks.


Legal Fees?
Discussion is locked
You are posting a reply to: Another reason for price increase of gas?
The posting of advertisements, profanity, or personal attacks is prohibited. Please refer to our CNET Forums policies for details. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Track this discussion and email me when there are updates

If you're asking for technical help, please be sure to include all your system info, including operating system, model number, and any other specifics related to the problem. Also please exercise your best judgment when posting in the forums--revealing personal information such as your e-mail address, telephone number, and address is not recommended.

You are reporting the following post: Another reason for price increase of gas?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
Collapse -
(NT) ours went up another 4% last night=$5.7 a gal.
by jonah jones / May 3, 2007 12:24 PM PDT
Collapse -
The slide show
by Diana Forum moderator / May 3, 2007 10:09 PM PDT
Collapse -
The last time I got gas
by Dragon / May 5, 2007 9:06 AM PDT

It was at ********, the station found at Walmart, the gas was about 17cents less than elsewhere.

Collapse -
Did you use a WalMart gift card?
by Roger NC / May 5, 2007 9:19 AM PDT

Seems it's 3 cents less a gallon if you use a WalMart gift card to pay for it.

So you can charge a credit to your gift card while you're checking out at WalMart, then use it to pay less for gas than you would if you charged the gas on the same card.

Weird idea, huh?

Roger

Collapse -
No I didn't use their gas card
by Dragon / May 5, 2007 10:31 AM PDT

I didn't even think about that. I think I'll get one.

Collapse -
Not a gas card per se, just a WalMart gift card
by Roger NC / May 5, 2007 2:09 PM PDT

like you buy at the counter to give someone. Or at least that is what I did. Used one given to me at work for a safety reward program.

Their gas card may do the same thing, I don't know.

The gift cards are "rechargeable" so I guess I'll start adding $20 to an existing card every time I check out at WalMart, then go fill up when I leave the store (or put $20 in anyway, it's often $30 now to fill up).

Roger

Collapse -
I'll check it out
by Dragon / May 6, 2007 10:36 AM PDT

I think it is the prudent thing to do. One thing about this gas, It probably was not made in China...

Collapse -
In 1992 I moved to Canada for 8 years.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / May 5, 2007 11:42 PM PDT

The change from US freedom of the press was instantly observed. As the Internet took off, Canadian courts were caught unaware as stories and more that were not available became easy to find.

The most memorable was a Canadian mining stock that it's CEO and company was in some civil and federal cases but the Canadian stockholders were not aware of the cases due to the CEO and such going to court (Canadian) and getting the gag order. When the story was leaked on the internet the worry for the CEO was their stock play wouldn't work.

-> Fast forward to your post and you see this mentality is still the rule. Remember you are dealing with differing laws across countries. There is no freedom of the press in that country.

Bob

Collapse -
RE: freedom of the press
by JP Bill / May 6, 2007 12:08 AM PDT
Among the provisions on the one-page form is a requirement to have the company approve the publication of any pictures.

She knew what she was signing?

I've worked in oil refineries and they wouldn't allow cameras on site.

Her site is in America, won't the US let her show her pictures?
Collapse -
See the lawyers.
by R. Proffitt Forum moderator / May 6, 2007 3:34 AM PDT

See the lawyers make big bucks?

Collapse -
It's not the U.S. objecting...
by J. Vega / May 6, 2007 5:20 AM PDT

The story said "the company's legal department sent her a letter demanding that she immediately remove photographs she had posted". The U.S. isn't trying to interfere with her freedom of the press, the objection is coming from the Canadian company.

Collapse -
Me thinks she doth protest too much
by JP Bill / May 6, 2007 5:47 AM PDT

Yeah the complaint is coming from a Canadian Company,

A Canadian company that is providing oil to Americans.


Ms. Moore says that after the tour of the site, she was ?frankly appalled? by the huge impact of the oil sands, and she felt compelled to speak out to Americans. She estimated that Syncrude's annual greenhouse-gas releases of about 10 million tonnes equal the emissions of the coal-fired power plants supplying Chicago with electricity.

She is appalled but the output of the oil sands provides a lot more energy to a lot more people than the 10 million people in the Chicago area.

Is she complaining about the pollution from the coal fired plants that only provide electricity to about 10 million people?

At least the oil companies are making an attempt to reclaim the land.

Keep complaining and we'll sell the oil to China or India.

Collapse -
So...
by J. Vega / May 6, 2007 6:01 AM PDT

So what's your point? She had an opinion about something and stated it. The U.S. didn't take action to censor her doing that, that was done by a Canadian company. Some people in the U.S. have complained about the way that some Chinese companies produce their goods. Objections like there are also made about the goods produced in other countries.
Those people have the right to put forth their opinions. Many people in the U.S object to many things. We call it free speech. We're even able to voice our opinions about Canadian companies. The U.S. laws do not favor censorship.

Collapse -
She is speaking to Americans
by JP Bill / May 6, 2007 6:15 AM PDT
In reply to: So...

now that you know,

Complain about Canada, complain about China, complain about everyone but Americans and what happens

You keep buying, Go figure.

what are you (as an American) going to do?

Americans use more energy than any other country and only have 330 million people.

She talks about oil companies giving away hummers, American are willing to pay for them.

Would you rather get a freebee?

No I'll pay thank you very much.

Collapse -
I don't intend...
by J. Vega / May 6, 2007 6:36 AM PDT

The subject is about a grandmother's complaining about some Canadian company. I don't intend to give her actions much thought, she can complain about whatever she pleases.
It seems to cause you some sort of a problem, but that's your concern. It seems to fire off the "what are you going to do" routine looking for a line of attack. I never cared much for fishing, so you go ahead and tell us your opinions about what you think others should do.

Collapse -
The U.S. laws do not favor censorship.
by JP Bill / May 6, 2007 6:26 AM PDT
In reply to: So...

when she signed her release, she gave up the right to publish.

She can take the pictures show them to her friend OR/AND enemies , she can't publish.

she is an intelligent women, she knew what she was signing.

IF she didn't sign, things would have been much different.

As an old newsman you know people sign releases.

Is that censorship?

Collapse -
As amn old newsman...
by J. Vega / May 6, 2007 6:46 AM PDT

As an old "newsman", I know the definition of censorship. Two words, prior restraint. You must do it first, then something may or may not happen. The U.S. laws do not favor "prior" restraint. Understand it now?
Nevada law forbids the taking of pictures in a casino. If I do so anyway and say that I will publish them, nothing can be done until I actually do it. For the government to forbid my publishing them, that would call for censorship - that is, prior restraint.

Collapse -
RE: The U.S. laws do not favor "prior" restraint.
by JP Bill / May 6, 2007 10:07 AM PDT
In reply to: As amn old newsman...

You call it "prior restraint" someone in the US (someone with more knowledge of the law) doesn't, since the pictures were removed.

I guess you weren't the judge.

Collapse -
PS you said
by JP Bill / May 6, 2007 10:53 AM PDT
nothing can be done until I actually do it.

She did put the pictures up, THEN the company had them removed.
Collapse -
And that would
by duckman / May 6, 2007 11:03 AM PDT
In reply to: PS you said
NOT be prior restraint.
Collapse -
Now ya' got it
by JP Bill / May 6, 2007 12:04 PM PDT
In reply to: And that would

Finally something we agree on.

It Wasn't prior restraint that had her remove the pictures.

J Vega said it was.

They made her remove the pictures AFTER they were posted.

Collapse -
Not correct...
by J. Vega / May 7, 2007 1:37 AM PDT
In reply to: Now ya' got it

Not correct, I said that the laws of the U.S. government did not favor prior restraint. In this case, after she published them the Canadian company threatened to take legal action and she removed them. The company threatened legal action based on a copyright issue and she removed them, a civil case (or threat of one) rather than a government case.
This was a threat of a civil suit by the company, not a matter of any action by the U.S. government. Even if the company complained to the U.S. government before the publication, the view of the U.S. government on prior restraint would have entered the picture, or should I say not have entered due to the law on prior restraint.

Collapse -
RE:Not Correct
by JP Bill / May 7, 2007 2:06 AM PDT
In reply to: Now ya' got it

According to you it's everything

your statements in bold

The U.S. didn't take action to censor her doing that, that was done by a Canadian company.

As an old "newsman", I know the definition of censorship. Two words, prior restraint. You must do it first, then something may or may not happen.

The company threatened legal action based on a copyright issue and she removed them, a civil case (or threat of one) rather than a government case.


I see censorship, Canada, prior restraint, and copyright

Now you say its a copyright issue

It wasn't prior restraint it was a copyright issue

She signed a paper giving Syncrude copyright

Cover all possibilities?

Popular Forums
icon
Computer Newbies 10,686 discussions
icon
Computer Help 54,365 discussions
icon
Laptops 21,181 discussions
icon
Networking & Wireless 16,313 discussions
icon
Phones 17,137 discussions
icon
Security 31,287 discussions
icon
TVs & Home Theaters 22,101 discussions
icon
Windows 7 8,164 discussions
icon
Windows 10 2,657 discussions

CNET FORUMS TOP DISCUSSION

Help, my PC with Windows 10 won't shut down properly

Since upgrading to Windows 10 my computer won't shut down properly. I use the menu button shutdown and the screen goes blank, but the system does not fully shut down. The only way to get it to shut down is to hold the physical power button down till it shuts down. Any suggestions?