The impact on economy is hard to determine as the trade-offs differ from region to region. The ability to clean up I'm willing to wager would be more simple and economical than you suggest yet far more difficult and costly than they would like people to think. The real question after more than 4 decades of off shore drilling is, "How many rigs have leaked, spilled, or otherwise damaged the ecology of their environment?" I can't find a single record of a rig that has ever leaked/spilled. I found several articles on the reefs that have sprung up around the rigs creating environments for more sea life and causing the unnatural death of none. I won't debate the cost to tourism where a rig would be visible, it's obvious. I doubt that a phalanx of windmills would be any more attractive to tourists but my question is why not both drill for the oil and harness the wind. 20 years is very short term when you consider all of history but, it's much less short term when you consider it against the age of Canada as a nation and it's rather long term in the consideration of a human life. The reserves of oil which you speak of could supply 20 years worth of oil for Canada so that while people switch to hybrids and full electrics trains and trucks can still continue to run planes fly and ships traverse the seas, construction can still be done off the grid with generator power. Regardless of what we do now to convert to renewable resources we will still depend on oil for a few more decades and in some parts of the world probably until the end of the century. I understand your concerns but don't let your opinion stand in the way of reason anymore than you let the oil company's propaganda sway you to their side. The detriment to the scenic nature of the environment is really the only point that isn't mitigated by facts & records, along with it's contingent tourism impact. Certain types of fishing are impacted in the vicinity of the rig but over all the record is that there are more fishes in the regions surrounding rigs. The effects of a significant spill would be catastrophic but, I can't find a record of even one significant event at an off shore rig with many in use and a history of decades to pull data from. It seems that instead of fighting the drilling you may be better served to campaign for state of the art safety measures and placement in a location that would be least offensive to the beach goer's eye.

You make a great point. I've actually never looked at it from that perspective. But if you're suggesting we should say yes to offshore drilling so that Canada can more easily wean itself of its dependence to oil, then you obviously haven't considered the fact that all of the oil being extracted from Canada now (all mainly from Alberta) is being exported to the United States.

So... although it may supply the States with another 10-20 years worth of oil, Canada would still be importing from other countries, and only benefiting financially. And, I won't lie, that isn't all bad.

But you've brought up a new angle for me to consider, so thanks for that! :)

My pleasure, thanks for taking it in the light it was intended. With the extraordinary interdependence of the US and Canada the economic impact of higher than need be fuel prices/production costs from Mexico through the US to Canada will have broad impact on all 3 would be my reply to your concern for the destination of the oil. I wouldn't found a decision on it but it' might be a leg to a tripod of reason.