[MolsonExport]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080215/tarsands_enviroreport_080215/20080215?hub=TopStories&s_name=

What about this, eh?
Could this not become an election issue?

'Conspiracy of silence' on tarsands, group says
Updated Fri. Feb. 15 2008 9:14 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A new report accuses the federal government of allowing Alberta's tarsands to become "the most destructive project on earth".

The study was commissioned by Environmental Defence, a health organization, and features satellite imagery of the vast project.

Alberta's tarsands are second only to Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil reserve.

"The enormous toxics problems go hand-in-hand with massive global warming pollution and the impending destruction of a boreal forest the size of Florida," the report says in its introduction.

Group spokesperson Matt Price blames Ottawa for failing to enforce federal environmental laws.

"I think there's sort of a conspiracy of silence, especially on the part of the federal government, with regards to the tar sands," Price said, "because there's an agenda to expand it dramatically over the next 10 to 15 years."

The report says the federal government needs to address environmental concerns ranging from greenhouse gases and cancer levels, to polluted water.

It also estimates that greenhouse gas emissions from the tarsands are likely to grow enough by 2020 to completely offset Ontario's planned emissions cuts.

Effects the report says are already being noticed:

Toxic pollution from the tarsands has created what amounts to a slow motion oil spill in the region's river systems, and could be worse than the Exxon Valdez oil spill.
First Nations living downstream are already seeing deformed pickerel and walleye in Lake Athabasca.
Game animals are being found covered with tumours and mutations.
In humans, unusual cancers and autoimmune diseases have been cropping up in the community of Fort Chipewyan.
The report says that instead of properly managing the tarsands, government has "outsourced" monitoring to the industry, "creating a classic situation of the fox guarding the henhouse."

This isn't the first such report on the oilsands industry. In 2006, The World Wildlife Fund Canada's warned that the expansion of the industry was threatening Canadian freshwater reserves.

The report on water resources also warned that even a small amount of global warming could have a dire impact on flows in bodies such as the Great Lakes and Athabasca River.

[feepa]

Funny, I just read a similar article about the auto manafucturing business in Ontario...


'Conspiracy of silence' on auto manufactures,, group says
Updated Fri. Feb. 15 2008 9:14 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

A new report accuses the federal government of allowing Ontario's auto makers to continue to be "the most destructive project on earth".

The study was commissioned by Environmental Defence, a health organization, and features satellite imagery of the vast plants.

Ontario's auto plants are second only to Michigan as the world's largest auto manufactures.

"The enormous toxics problems go hand-in-hand with massive global warming pollution. The materials used to produce vehicles, and waste that is left over creates a huge toxic problem" the report says in its introduction.

Group spokesperson Matt Price blames Ottawa for failing to enforce federal environmental laws.

"I think there's sort of a conspiracy of silence, especially on the part of the federal government, with regards to the auto manafactures," Price said, "because these manafactures employ so many Canadians."

The report says the federal government needs to address environmental concerns ranging from greenhouse gases and cancer levels, to polluted water.

Effects the report says are already being noticed:

Toxic pollution from the Auto Manufactures has created what amounts to a slow motion oil spill in the region's river system and lakes, and has already killed many plants and spices in the Great Lakes.

First Nations living around there already seeing deformed pickerel and walleye in Lake Ontario, and other Great Lakes.

Game animals are being found covered with tumours and mutations.
In humans, unusual cancers and autoimmune diseases have been cropping up in the many communities in Southern Ontario.
The report says that instead of properly managing the Auto Manufactures, and the sub industry below them, the government has "outsourced" monitoring to the industry, "creating a classic situation of the fox guarding the henhouse."

This isn't the first such report on the auto industry. In 2006, The World Wildlife Fund Canada's warned that the expansion of the industry was threatening Canadian freshwater reserves.

The report on water resources also warned that even a small amount of global warming could have a dire impact on flows in bodies such as the Great Lakes and St Lawrence River.

[vid]

*hides*

[KrisYYC]

Obviously the environmental impact of tar sands extraction is a huge concern, but I just love how so many people in Ontario act like big bad Alberta is destroying the planet, while the perfect stewards of the environment commute from Hamilton to Toronto in a Ford Expedition :rolleyes:

[wild wild west]

This is not going to be pretty...ack. Should be entertaining though.

[Boris2k7]

:lockd: :lockd: :lockd:

[Rico Rommheim]

I nominate this as the Canadian Thread of the Month!

[feepa]

Obviously the environmental impact of tar sands extraction is a huge concern, but I just love how so many people in Ontario act like big bad Alberta is destroying the planet, while the perfect stewards of the environment commute from Hamilton to Toronto in a Ford Expedition :rolleyes:

this bares repeating a million times.

[someone123]

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

[theman23]

this bares repeating a million times.
Okay, so both the Ontario auto industry and Alberta tar sands are bad for the environment. Happy?

Obviously the environmental impact of tar sands extraction is a huge concern, but I just love how so many people in Ontario act like big bad Alberta is destroying the planet, while the perfect stewards of the environment commute from Hamilton to Toronto in a Ford Expedition
If you think the same people concerned about the environment are the ones driving those Ford explorers 90 minutes each way on a daily commute, I don't know what to say to you.

[401_King]

while the perfect stewards of the environment commute from Hamilton to Toronto in a Ford Expedition :rolleyes:

how about the ones that dont drive?

[feepa]

how about the ones that dont drive?

keep up the good work!

[Rico Rommheim]

All this batering between the Albertans and Ontarioans has got to stop now! When yuou analyse and dissect history you realize that we are ALL Quebecers so lets put our feelings aside and dance some riggodon!

[401_King]

i aint no god damn quebecker. im not even white. what an insult..

[feepa]

I may have some french in my blood, but god damn, my family has NEVER lived in Quebec. Thankfully.

[Boris2k7]

Oooook? (Family is 1/3 French with relatives in Quebec...)

[theman23]

I may have some french in my blood, but god damn, my family has NEVER lived in Quebec. Thankfully.

Are you type à, á, or ô?

[feepa]

je ne cest pas

[1ajs]

Obviously the environmental impact of tar sands extraction is a huge concern, but I just love how so many people in Ontario act like big bad Alberta is destroying the planet, while the perfect stewards of the environment commute from Hamilton to Toronto in a Ford Expedition :rolleyes:

http://www.rigzone.com/images/news/library/maps/5/2411.jpg


wait till the mining is done what are we going to do with the tailings ponds?

[feepa]

Well, I get it. Alberta creates new lakes to polluted which eventually drains in to rivers after being cleaned up as much as, and Ontario just mucks up existing ones, with little re-course to where that shit goes. I see the difference now!

Man, from that picture, it would seem all that area in black is just one big mine!

[feepa]

Why is it the we only focus on Oil mining? Because Oil is the hot button issue du jour?
What about the forestry industries? The coal and gold? How about those massive diamond mines up in NWT? The hydro dams in Quebec, and Nuclear power in Ontario.

As much as I agree with the sentiment that Oil Sands are killing the environment, WE CAN NOT IGNORE ALL THE OTHER STUFF in Canada either, that's harmful to the environment. Why single out oil sands? They are no worse, or better then the other thousands of open pit mines from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, and all points north of there.

[SHOFEAR]

Why is it the we only focus on Oil mining? Because Oil is the hot button issue du jour?
What about the forestry industries? The coal and gold? How about those massive diamond mines up in NWT? The hydro dams in Quebec, and Nuclear power in Ontario.

Because it's so much easier to deflect all the blame onto something that's specific to one province.

[Rico Rommheim]

I may have some french in my blood, but god damn, my family has NEVER lived in Quebec. Thankfully.

You sound exactly like those separatist hicks from lac saint-jean. :)

[feepa]

Because it's so much easier to deflect all the blame onto something that's specific to one province.

I heard Saskatchewan is gearing up to get into the Oil Sands game, and they may in fact have more Oil then Alberta.

:shrug: Maybe I'm wrong about that.

[noodlenoodle]

The rest of Canada may not like Alberta's handling of the oil sands, but they sure like the money we pay in transfer payments.

[WhipperSnapper]

Not sure why Ontario was immediately brought into the mix ... because the Canadian chapter of environmental defense is based in Toronto? Pretty infantile if you ask me.


The rest of Canada may not like Alberta's handling of the oil sands, but they sure like the money we pay in transfer payments.

whether it's right or wrong, that is probably why it is on the top of most environmental agencies list ... greed tends to create a blind eye

[vid]

je ne cest pas

:rolleyes:

[1ajs]

alberta is leeding its self to an inviromental mess its going to be left with to clean up.. as a legacy and when the province is back to being a have not whos going to clean this up when theres no oil companys to pay for it?

all mining is messy.. manitoba has its fair share of inviromental disasters waiting to happen just look up lynn lake half the town is tailings and nothings being done to treat the tailings and its leaking out into the lynn river
http://www.google.ca/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=56.849723,-101.03611&spn=0.038487,0.115013&t=h&z=13

then theres this mine 20-30 miles west of town that was a coper mine
http://www.google.ca/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=56.621204,-101.637783&spn=0.038722,0.115013&t=h&z=13

then theres thompson
http://www.google.ca/maps?ie=UTF8&ll=55.720729,-97.837715&spn=0.079281,0.230026&t=h&z=12




sask bc nw onterior will have their fare share aswell... thats just 2 examples theres a bunch more out there

[Laurent]

Though it's interesting to compare projects & industries in different areas of the country, I don't think that comparisons will allow anyone to come to a conclusion as to what should be done.

Every single decision we make, big or small, involves costs & benefits. Generally, big projects involve big benefits and big costs. If, by looking at the tar sands industry in Alberta (or any other industry in the world), Albertans find that, with current methods of production, the costs (all costs) outweigh the benefits, then I guess it would be in their best interest to change their methods or rate of production. Same goes for the auto industry in Ontario or mining operations & dams elsewhere, etc. The question is simple. It's the thorough analysis, listing, and summing up of all costs and benefits that's hard (and often subjective).

In sum, I think these questions are extremely complex and require thorough (i.e. like 500-page . . or at least 2-page) analysis before informed opinions can be made. That's my opinion, anyway.

Very interesting to bring up the topic, though. If we can't rely on elected authorities or business interest groups or NGOs to list all costs & benefits of large industries/projects in a rigorous or honest/unbiased manner, then we on web forums can serve as a relatively unbiased counterweight to the highly biased reports produced by pretty much all interest groups (whichever side they may be on).

[Doug]

What jurisdiction does the Federal government have over oil sands development? The answer is next to none, so this is just posturing. Global warming and attacking tar sands development are the Activist flavor of the day. Hydro Quebec has flooded areas similar in size to those being development for oil sands. Most communities east of Ontario and west of Alberta lack anything more than rudimentary sewage treatment. The list goes on forever.

The claim that the oil sands are polluting the Athabasca is misleading. First of all, oil plumes are naturally occuring in northern ALberta. I've been canoeing on the Peace and rafting on the Clearwater. The watersheds of both cut through unexploited oil sands deposits. In many places, you can see the deposits in the valley walls and pools of oil in the eddies. I've also seen natural gas vents in the Peace. Are the high rates of cancer in downstream First Nations communities due to oil sands development, natually occuring oil licks or (most likely) high rates of tobacco and fatty food consumption.

The biggesth threat to the Athabasca is a Suncor tailings bond that occupies a former meander in the river. Suncor is acutally working on a plan to clean up and restore the pond. Other tailings ponds are far better contained and less likely to leach into the river. Regardless, dealing with the ponds is a challenge that is only now being addressed. The good news is that all producers have been working on solving the problem for a while and are coming up with good ideas. Better yet, this is happening whithout the heavy hand of government.

[KrisYYC]

Why is it the we only focus on Oil mining? Because Oil is the hot button issue du jour?
What about the forestry industries? The coal and gold? How about those massive diamond mines up in NWT? The hydro dams in Quebec, and Nuclear power in Ontario.

As much as I agree with the sentiment that Oil Sands are killing the environment, WE CAN NOT IGNORE ALL THE OTHER STUFF in Canada either, that's harmful to the environment. Why single out oil sands? They are no worse, or better then the other thousands of open pit mines from Nova Scotia to British Columbia, and all points north of there.

Not only that, but who consumes much of that oil? It's not only Americans. Canadians consume a lot of it too.

It's like a meth addict criticizing the meth lab for being dirty.

[HAMRetrofit]

Sorry to see that this thread degraded to the point of pure ignorance by the second post.

[KrisYYC]

Not sure why Ontario was immediately brought into the mix ... because the Canadian chapter of environmental defense is based in Toronto? Pretty infantile if you ask me.


I brought Ontario into it because the vast majority of criticism that I've heard about oil sands development has originated in Southern Ontario. This could be just because of the population base living there though.

[ErickMontreal]

Hydro Quebec has flooded areas similar in size to those being development for oil sands.

Right. However, HQ does not produce any greenhouse gases. Hydro-electricity is a renewable source of energy, produces no waste, and does not produce carbon dioxide which contributes to greenhouse gases. Furthermore, Hydroelectric plants tend to have longer economic lives than fuel-fired generation and nuclear stations as well.

[kitchener-lrt]

Obviously the environmental impact of tar sands extraction is a huge concern, but I just love how so many people in Ontario act like big bad Alberta is destroying the planet, while the perfect stewards of the environment commute from Hamilton to Toronto in a Ford Expedition :rolleyes:
Or in a GO train/bus:rolleyes:

Okay, so both the Ontario auto industry and Alberta tar sands are bad for the environment. Happy?

Actually, I don't think anyone's happy about this:rolleyes: .

Are you type à, á, or ô?

:haha:

[Architype]

Why not just sell the tarsands to the Americans, then it will be their problem, and they are good at solving big problems...

[jawagord]

Right. However, HQ does not produce any greenhouse gases. Hydro-electricity is a renewable source of energy, produces no waste, and does not produce carbon dioxide which contributes to greenhouse gases. Furthermore, Hydroelectric plants tend to have longer economic lives than fuel-fired generation and nuclear stations as well.

Not Really, dams flooding large areas of vegetation is known to release GHG, mercury etc, etc. Hydro Quebec had huge battles with enviromentalist and native groups when building James Bay projects in the 70's. The Tar Sands are just the current development, when HQ goes to develop more of James Bay you will see the same groups out fighting it.

http://internationalrivers.org/en/climate-change/reservoir-emissions/fizzy-science-big-hydro’s-role-global-warming

"When a big dam is built, its reservoir floods vast amounts of carbon in vegetation and soils. This organic matter rots underwater, creating carbon dioxide, methane and, in at least some cases, the extremely potent warming gas, nitrous oxide. While emissions are particularly high in the first few years after a reservoir is filled, they can remain significant for many decades. This is because the river that feeds the reservoir, and the plants and plankton that grow in it, will continue to provide more organic matter to fuel greenhouse gas production.

Canadian and Brazilian hydro interests dominate funding for reservoir emission science, and have tried hard to control the interpretation of the results. In Canada, industry giant Hydro-Quebec has cut funding to scientists whose work was leading to conclusions the utility considered inconvenient. Hydro-Quebec also tried, unsuccessfully, to pressure a scientific journal (Lakes and Reservoirs Management) into not publishing an article by these scientists."

[noodlenoodle]

Why not just sell the tarsands to the Americans, then it will be their problem, and they are good at solving big problems...

Because we're too busy selling them to the Chinese.

[rapid_business]

Why not just sell the tarsands to the Americans, then it will be their problem, and they are good at solving big problems...

Don't worry. I'm sure the Americans will find the need to get rid of the terrorists in Norhtern Alberta, and bring democracy to the natives up there.:haha:

[francely57]

Don't worry. I'm sure the Americans will find the need to get rid of the terrorists in Norhtern Alberta, and bring democracy to the natives up there.:haha:

To avoid that situation, we could do what Architype suggested and sell them the tarsands... like 1 trillion CAD (1,000,000,000,000.00 $)?

[PhilippeMtl]

I may have some french in my blood, but god damn, my family has NEVER lived in Quebec. Thankfully.

Thankfully for us, yes.:D

[MolsonExport]

The rest of Canada may not like Alberta's handling of the oil sands, but they sure like the money we pay in transfer payments.

We? Who is we? Rich people pay more taxes, wherever they live in Canada. Do you personally earn that much? Do you feel that your wallet is supporting me, just because I happen to live outside of Alberta?

[MolsonExport]

I may have some french in my blood, but god damn, my family has NEVER lived in Quebec. Thankfully.

Your loss, and Quebec's gain.

[feepa]

Sorry to see that this thread degraded to the point of pure ignorance by the second post.

because the first post/article was complete true and not full of any BS?

get over yourself

[tkoe]

I wish some of my fellow Albertans didn't make us all look so bad :(

[feepa]

We? Who is we? Rich people pay more taxes, wherever they live in Canada. Do you personally earn that much? Do you feel that your wallet is supporting me, just because I happen to live outside of Alberta?
Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing have long supported the weaker provinces. This is not new news. Where do you think Alberta generates the money for the Equalization and Territorial Formula Financing from?

Seven provinces to receive over $12.7 billion in Equalization payments in 2007-08

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/images/eqpe_01e.gif

[theman23]

Maybe I've completely misunderstood what equalization is, but a rich person in Newfoundland will be supporting a poor person in Alberta just as much as he will be supporting a poor person in Newfoundland. And vice-versa. Its just the way our progressive income tax structure works. Anyone making above a certain amount is putting money into equalization, and has nothing to thank Albertans for. Alberta big-business, maybe.

[rapid_business]

Equalization is the Government of Canada’s transfer program for addressing fiscal disparities among provinces. Equalization payments enable less prosperous provincial governments to provide their residents with public services that are reasonably comparable to those in other provinces, at reasonably comparable levels of taxation.

http://www.fin.gc.ca/FEDPROV/eqpe.html

Essentially, Provinces with surpluses write checks to provinces with deficits. It has nothing to do with taxation rates. No money flows from NL to AB. It's the haves balancing the system for the have-nots so the 'quality of services', etc. is equal in all provinces.

From a democratic perspective, there is some merit to this. There is no reason that because Alberta lucked out with oil, some provinces in the country should be eating crumbs off the floor. But the real answer is addressing the root cause of the economic disparity in these regions (focus on a dead industry, lack of diversification, etc.) and not the handouts.

[theman23]

Wait, I misunderstood. nvm. Ignore post.

[wild wild west]

Re: equalization - the concept certainly holds merit, and as a nation I think most Canadians accept the need to help regions in times of need, however in practice it has failed to help the "have-nots" improve their situation, effectively resulting in perpetual dependency as opposed to helping them by addressing the causes of their economic difficulties. The provinces receiving equalization have had the highest unemployment, most dept and highest taxes for decades.

[Architype]

Without equalization, what kind of a country do you think we would have, some provinces with the standards of Africa, and others living like Kuwait. No one really knows how things might shift in the future either, the mighty have fallen before.

[feepa]

Without equalization, what kind of a country do you think we would have, some provinces with the standards of Africa, and others living like Kuwait. No one really knows how things might shift in the future either, the mighty have fallen before.

I often like to think its the glue that keeps Canada together. Not the equalization payments in itself, but how each province needs each other, at some point or another. Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba all needed people, money, resources from the east to get started, to invest, to protect, to build the rail lines. Now some of that return on investment is coming back?

Maybe I'm way off. Won't be the first or last.

[someone123]

Alberta was constructed by Eastern Canada and most of Alberta's current population exists either due to migration from Eastern Canada or due to immigration facilitated by Eastern Canada. The whole existence of the province and the idea that oil and gas royalties should be paid to the province instead of federal government are arbitrary. At the end of the day it all just comes down to political entities bargaining for whatever is in their best interests. I've never heard a decent argument (or any argument?) explaining why resources royalties in Alberta should be considered so sacred in the first place while equalization payments are supposedly more or less equivalent to highway robbery. Of course, I'm not implying that that's what everybody who has posted in this thread thinks but it's something I hear a lot. It's particularly puzzling when combined with all of the simultaneous boasting.

[AndrewJ3D]

Actually Ontario is in the process of trying to fix mistakes of the past, while Alberta and the Feds seem to be doing whatever they want" in the name of money. I don't get this Since this East fucked things up so should we be allowed to." attitude on this forum?

[Doug]

How did Eastern Canada build Alberta beyong passing an act to create the province as a legal entity? Homesteaders (mainly from Eastern Europe and the Northern States) built the agricultural economy and American capital built the energy industry. Eastern Canadians had plenty of opportunity to homestead and it invest in the energy industry, but in large part chose not to. Alberta developed in spite of Eastern Canada's protectionism, risk aversion and socialist bent, not because of it.

Equalization is a wealth transfer from Alberta even if no cheques are written directly to other provinces. Federal spending is higher per capita in other provinces, meaning that in Alberta the provincial government picks up the slack. At the same time, federal revenues collected in Alberta are higher as its individuals and corporations are more productive.

The flaw with equalization is that it rewards bad government policy. Provinces east of Ontario are poor in part due to terrible mismangement by provincial governments that borrowed billions of dollars with little tangible to show for it, and high taxes required to support massive debt and bloated public sectors.

[ScottFromCalgary]

I heard Saskatchewan is gearing up to get into the Oil Sands game, and they may in fact have more Oil then Alberta.

:shrug: Maybe I'm wrong about that.

You are absolutely wrong about that. Saskatchewan has some oil sands deposits in the northwest part of the province, but these are a long ways away from being economical. Billions of dollars of infrastructure has been put into the ground to get Fort McMurray off the ground. The real story in Saskatchewan is the Bakken play in the southeast. Crescent Point Energy Trust is one of the dominant players there and they are describing the play as the second largest conventional oil deposit ever found in Western Canada. Much more attractive economics than just about anything in Alberta right now. Doesn't mean that they "have more oil than Alberta".

alberta is leeding its self to an inviromental mess its going to be left with to clean up.. as a legacy and when the province is back to being a have not whos going to clean this up when theres no oil companys to pay for it?

Energy companies are legally required to clean up their shit when they are done. Check out Suncor's balance sheet and you will notice an "Asset Retirement Obligation" liability that runs in the billions of dollars. True they won't actually have that cash sitting in a bank account waiting, but its a safe bet that the companies will clean up what is directly attributable to them. Indirectly on the other hand...

Because we're too busy selling them to the Chinese.

Chinese investment in the oilsands is still very small, especially when compared to the Americans. Let's see, for companies with oilsands projects the US has Exxon/Imperial, ConocoPhilips, and Devon. China has what? A 50% stake in Synenco's shit project? They have publicly stated before that they do not want to invest in Canada's oilsands because of the hostile public reaction that they always get. When you don't have to worry about ethical investing, you will find that there are projects with far better economics in third world countries.

How did Eastern Canada build Alberta beyong passing an act to create the province as a legal entity? Homesteaders (mainly from Eastern Europe and the Northern States) built the agricultural economy and American capital built the energy industry. Eastern Canadians had plenty of opportunity to homestead and it invest in the energy industry, but in large part chose not to. Alberta developed in spite of Eastern Canada's protectionism, risk aversion and socialist bent, not because of it.

Equalization is a wealth transfer from Alberta even if no cheques are written directly to other provinces. Federal spending is higher per capita in other provinces, meaning that in Alberta the provincial government picks up the slack. At the same time, federal revenues collected in Alberta are higher as its individuals and corporations are more productive.

The flaw with equalization is that it rewards bad government policy. Provinces east of Ontario are poor in part due to terrible mismangement by provincial governments that borrowed billions of dollars with little tangible to show for it, and high taxes required to support massive debt and bloated public sectors.

Preach!

[skyscraper_1]

I believe many people have this weird confused view of Canada divided by a line. On one side the "haves" , provinces who have low unemployment, lovely business climate, low taxes, an economy that supports efficiency/innovation and balanced books. On the other, the "have-not" provinces characterized by high-unemployment, stifling taxes and business climate, as well as large spending deficits and a people and government grabbing on to old dieing industries.

Of course Canada is nothing like this, for example many Atlantic Canadian urban centers have unemployment lower then 5%. Manitoba also has a low unemployment rate. Nova Scotia has had surpluses for the past 6 years. New Brunswick is positioning itself as an energy leader and Nova Scotia has many new and growing industries such as aerospace, IT, financial services, oil & gas, petrochemicals and shipping. Newfoundland is for the first time will be a have province(approx 2009) I am sure there are many more examples in other provinces I am less familiar with....so I don't buy the whole...equalization means perpetual dependency.

On the "other side" Ontario has the highest effective corporate tax rate in Canada and one of the highest in the world and no so long ago it recorded a deficit of $5.5 billion. Alberta's oil sands also received federal and provincial subsidies. Did it pay off...sure! In a big way, but there was never any guaranty of that. Same with the subsidization of Ontario's auto and manufacturing sectors.

My point is not to rag or boost any particular part of the country, but to show that Canada far more complex then just "have" and "have-not".

[Daver]

Alberta was constructed by Eastern Canada and most of Alberta's current population exists either due to migration from Eastern Canada or due to immigration facilitated by Eastern Canada. The whole existence of the province and the idea that oil and gas royalties should be paid to the province instead of federal government are arbitrary. At the end of the day it all just comes down to political entities bargaining for whatever is in their best interests. I've never heard a decent argument (or any argument?) explaining why resources royalties in Alberta should be considered so sacred in the first place while equalization payments are supposedly more or less equivalent to highway robbery. Of course, I'm not implying that that's what everybody who has posted in this thread thinks but it's something I hear a lot. It's particularly puzzling when combined with all of the simultaneous boasting.

The East had a part in Alberta's development, because there was money to be made here. The Americans developed the Alberta oil industry in the early years and ever since the East has been a thorn in Alberta's side

I doubt that the constitution can be classed in an arbitrary sense as it give Alberta the full right of resources. In the past to today Alberta has paid far more than it's worth to stay in Confederation

I think the East should stop interfering in Alberta's issues and clean up their own back yard. The Oil and the money it produces is Alberta's, no one elses, and so are the problems it causes the environment if things don't change.

Ontario and Quebec should count themselves lucky to have Alberta as a leading economic driving force in this country.

[Boris2k7]

All this dick-wagging certainly isn't helping...

Both the Oil Sands and the auto manufacturing have their good and bad points. They create jobs and wealth, but at the same time are environmental disasters. Just because the economy is doing well does not absolve these projects from dealing with their issues. And the environment isn't just a provincial issue, it's a national and global issue, as greenhouse gas emissions are involved. The companies involved will NOT be accounting for their externalities, as we've set the lightest, most conservative environmental regulations in the developed world so that we don't inconvenience them.

Another point I would like to touch on is that of Alberta's development. Without Eastern Canada's involvement, Alberta would not exist as it is today. Calgary and Edmonton would have been nothing but small rural outposts if not for the railways, immigration programs, etc. That should not be forgotten, especially as they were massive nation-building efforts with huge expenses. Secondary to the main point is that the influence of Americans is extremely overstated. American migrants have always been but a small, small part of our overall population, and while they had a hand in the rise of our oil industry, mostly through their Canadian subsidiaries, we do not owe them any more than to the federal government which has long subsidized big oil to the tune of billions of taxpayer dollars.

[MrChills]

I think the East should stop interfering in Alberta's issues and clean up their own back yard. The Oil and the money it produces is Alberta's, no one elses, and so are the problems it causes the environment if things don't change.

Wow... Of all the shit posts in this thread yours without a doubt smells the worst.

How can you say that the environmental damage created in Alberta is a problem of Alberta and no one else’s??? :koko: We all live on the same planet, and pollution, whether its in Alberta or Afghanistan affects all of us, and it’s our right to have a say on how it should be monitored and controlled. All that money is not going to mean shit, if the climate continues to change as rapidly as it has been in the past couple of decades.

[Architype]

Another point I would like to touch on is that of Alberta's development. Without Eastern Canada's involvement, Alberta would not exist as it is today.
Especially as a good proportion of the labour force is coming from Eastern Canada, i.e, Fort McMurray, which even has daily flights from St. John's NL and Toronto. All Canadians have a right to criticize and have some say in whatever environmental destruction is happening in our country.

[MolsonExport]

The East had a part in Alberta's development, because there was money to be made here. The Americans developed the Alberta oil industry in the early years and ever since the East has been a thorn in Alberta's side

I doubt that the constitution can be classed in an arbitrary sense as it give Alberta the full right of resources. In the past to today Alberta has paid far more than it's worth to stay in Confederation

I think the East should stop interfering in Alberta's issues and clean up their own back yard. The Oil and the money it produces is Alberta's, no one elses, and so are the problems it causes the environment if things don't change.

Ontario and Quebec should count themselves lucky to have Alberta as a leading economic driving force in this country.


Welcome back, Dinomind35

[lubicon]

http://www.rigzone.com/images/news/library/maps/5/2411.jpg


wait till the mining is done what are we going to do with the tailings ponds?

It should be pointed out that this map depicts the areas of Alberta underlain by oilsands, but it most certainly does not depict the area that will be mined. By far the majprity of the oilsands lie too deep below the surface to be mined economically meaning they will be produced using 'conventional' means (ie drilling wells) which leads to MUCH less surface disruption. Only the portions roughly north of Ft McMurray are suitable to mining. The Peace River, Cold Lake, and areas south, east, and west of Ft Mac will be produced in-situ.

[lubicon]

How did Eastern Canada build Alberta beyong passing an act to create the province as a legal entity? Homesteaders (mainly from Eastern Europe and the Northern States) built the agricultural economy and American capital built the energy industry. Eastern Canadians had plenty of opportunity to homestead and it invest in the energy industry, but in large part chose not to. Alberta developed in spite of Eastern Canada's protectionism, risk aversion and socialist bent, not because of it.

Equalization is a wealth transfer from Alberta even if no cheques are written directly to other provinces. Federal spending is higher per capita in other provinces, meaning that in Alberta the provincial government picks up the slack. At the same time, federal revenues collected in Alberta are higher as its individuals and corporations are more productive.

The flaw with equalization is that it rewards bad government policy. Provinces east of Ontario are poor in part due to terrible mismangement by provincial governments that borrowed billions of dollars with little tangible to show for it, and high taxes required to support massive debt and bloated public sectors.

Another flaw (and a huge one in my opinion) is that equalization does not take into account the cost of providing a particular service, it is simply a dollar for dollar transfer. For example if you 'pick' a certain service or level of service in Alberta or Ontario it will cost $x to provide. That same service might only cost a fraction of a $ to provide in a 'have not' province yet an entire dollar is transferred to the have not province. It rewards inefficiency in some ways.

[wild wild west]

Folks, just pointing out that the argument Alberta would not exist if it weren't for Eastern Canada is a bit absurd. People settle where climate and geography make it feasible, and as such with its abundant resources, arable land and bearable climate it was only a matter of time before Alberta would become a major population centre irregardless of government policies.

In fact, I would argue that Canadian governments have, since Confederation, done a piss-poor job of developing our hinterland in comparison to other large land-mass countries. This isn't intended as a criticism of Ontario or Quebec or any particular political party, since the wheels of Canadian nation-building were set in motion long before any of us were born, but rather a critique of early government policies which favoured development of a strong industrial heartland at the expense of hinterland regions, including both the east coast and the west.

[vid]

"irregardless"

Were irregardless actually a word, it would mean "regarding", as it is a double negative.

And I can agree with you that the government neglects its hinterlands. This is true even within provinces.

[rapid_business]

You are just making a point for the little outpost you live in, no?

[Doug]

How has the Federal government subsidized big oil? If anything, it has unjustly puhished big oil by maintaining a made in Canada (i.e. sub-market) oil price prior to the mid 80's and not allowing full deductibility of royalties. The accelerated CCA deduction that oil sands operators once enjoyed weren't a subsidy as they simply put producers on the same depreciation schedule as the mining industry. The R&D grants were relatively small and pale in comparison to those provided to practically every other industry in the country. If you want to whine about indsutries dependent on government largesse, look way east: the auto assembly, the Quebec dairy industry, aerospace.

What economy is not dependent on capital and human resources from elsewhere? The notion that Alberta should be thankful that many of its residents are migrants from other parts of the country is ridiculous. Other regions of the country should be thankful that Alberta's success has pulled idle resources away from their moribund economies.

[wild wild west]

"irregardless"

Were irregardless actually a word, it would mean "regarding", as it is a double negative.

ir·re·gard·less /ˌɪrɪˈgɑrdlɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb Nonstandard. regardless.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]


—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

_________________________________________________________________

Yes I know it's a nonstandard word, but I like the way it sounds:)

[psych1]

How has the Federal government subsidized big oil? If anything, it has unjustly puhished big oil by maintaining a made in Canada (i.e. sub-market) oil price prior to the mid 80's and not allowing full deductibility of royalties. The accelerated CCA deduction that oil sands operators once enjoyed weren't a subsidy as they simply put producers on the same depreciation schedule as the mining industry. The R&D grants were relatively small and pale in comparison to those provided to practically every other industry in the country. If you want to whine about indsutries dependent on government largesse, look way east: the auto assembly, the Quebec dairy industry, aerospace.

What economy is not dependent on capital and human resources from elsewhere? The notion that Alberta should be thankful that many of its residents are migrants from other parts of the country is ridiculous. Other regions of the country should be thankful that Alberta's success has pulled idle resources away from their moribund economies.


Thank you Alberta. Can we stop now?

[Greco Roman]

"irregardless"

Were irregardless actually a word, it would mean "regarding", as it is a double negative.

And I can agree with you that the government neglects its hinterlands. This is true even within provinces.

You are good. Can I get you to proofread me 300 page paper? ;)

[psych1]

ir·re·gard·less /ˌɪrɪˈgɑrdlɪs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ir-i-gahrd-lis] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adverb Nonstandard. regardless.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1910–15; ir-2 (prob. after irrespective) + regardless]


—Usage note Irregardless is considered nonstandard because of the two negative elements ir- and -less. It was probably formed on the analogy of such words as irrespective, irrelevant, and irreparable. Those who use it, including on occasion educated speakers, may do so from a desire to add emphasis. Irregardless first appeared in the early 20th century and was perhaps popularized by its use in a comic radio program of the 1930s.

_________________________________________________________________

Yes I know it's a nonstandard word, but I like the way it sounds:)

If some educated speakers jumped off a bridge on occassion, would you do it too?

Mom

[kool maudit]

this country has some absolutely toxic regionalism.

[Me&You]

this country has some absolutely toxic regionalism.


Says the guy from Montreal?

[skyscraper_1]

Says the guy from Montreal?

So he is from Quebec, therefore he is a separatist?:koko:

[feepa]

So he is from Quebec, therefore he is a separatist?:koko:

I like bananas. :banana: Just thought I would throw that in there before this thread really goes down the tube, and gets locked. :lockd:

[Me&You]

So he is from Quebec, therefore he is a separatist?:koko:

I never said or implied that he was a separatist :shrug:

[Doady]

Why is equalization being brought into this? I thought money from oil was exempt form equalization?

[vid]

You are good. Can I get you to proofread me 300 page paper? ;)

Depends. What's it about?

[someone123]

Folks, just pointing out that the argument Alberta would not exist if it weren't for Eastern Canada is a bit absurd. People settle where climate and geography make it feasible, and as such with its abundant resources, arable land and bearable climate it was only a matter of time before Alberta would become a major population centre irregardless of government policies.

Well, fundamentally, Canada took over the West. It spent money and send troops there. It paid many millions of dollars in subsidies (equivalent to billions today) to construct railways. Typically, states that do this kind of thing do whatever they want to the new territory they acquire. There's no reason why Alberta had to become a province or why it needs to include still sparsely inhabited but resource rich Northern areas. Northern Quebec and Ontario are equally questionable (having almost nothing to do with the Southern parts specifically aside from maybe providing hydro power and mineral resources). Also note that the Maritimes gained zero new territory from Confederation.

The whole concept of strong provinces is something that dates back to when Canada first formed and probably never made any real sense in the West. Furthermore, I'd argue that provincial politics and national politics in North America have been pretty wasteful, since so much effort has gone into getting companies and people to move within certain political boundaries when they should just be left to settle wherever is most efficient and desirable.

In fact, I would argue that Canadian governments have, since Confederation, done a piss-poor job of developing our hinterland in comparison to other large land-mass countries. This isn't intended as a criticism of Ontario or Quebec or any particular political party, since the wheels of Canadian nation-building were set in motion long before any of us were born, but rather a critique of early government policies which favoured development of a strong industrial heartland at the expense of hinterland regions, including both the east coast and the west.

Canada was at a disadvantage from the start because of how fractured it is. It's not a natural state, it's just the leftovers that didn't become a part of the US. "Peripheral" regions of Canada (really only from an Ontario/Quebec perspective- nobody calls the East or West coasts of the US "peripheral") have closer geographic ties to parts of the US than to Central Canada so they suffered under protectionism (which is now on its way out). Consumers in the West and Atlantic region effectively paid a high tax for many decades since they had to buy from Central Canada.

[James Bond Agent 007]

Here's a new technology that could make oilsands extraction a lot less messy.

http://www.technologynewsdaily.com/node/8638

Toe-to-Heel Air Injection (THAI™) System
Published Thu, 2007-11-29 16:08

A new method developed in Britain over the past 17 years for extracting oil is now at the forefront of plans to exploit a massive heavy oilfield in Canada.

Duvernay Petroleum is to use the revolutionary Toe-to-Heel Air Injection (THAI™) system developed at the University of Bath at its site at Peace River in Alberta, Canada.

Unlike conventional light oil, heavy oil is very viscous, like syrup, or even solid in its natural state underground, making it very difficult to extract. But heavy oil reserves that could keep the planet’s oil-dependent economy going for a hundred years lie beneath the surface in many countries, especially in Canada.

Although heavy oil extraction has steadily increased over the last ten years, the processes used are very energy intensive, especially of natural gas and water. But the THAI™ system is more efficient, and this, and the increasing cost of conventional light oil, could lead to the widespread exploitation of heavy oil.

“The world needs to switch to cleaner ways of using energy such as fuel cells,” said Professor Malcolm Greaves, who developed the THAI™ process.

“But we are decades away from creating a full-blown hydrogen economy, and until then we need oil and gas to run our economies.

“Conventional light oil such as that in the North Sea or Saudi Arabia is running out and getting more expensive to extract.

“That’s why the pressure is on to find an efficient way of extracting heavy oil.”

THAI™ uses a system where air is injected into the oil deposit down a vertical well and is ignited. The heat generated in the reservoir reduces the viscosity of the heavy oil, allowing it to drain into a second, horizontal well from where it rises to the surface.

THAI™ is very efficient, recovering about 70 to 80 per cent of the oil, compared to only 10 to 40 per cent using other technologies.

Duvernay Petroleum’s heavy oil field in Peace River contains 100 million barrels and this will be a first test of THAI™ on heavy oil, for which THAI™ was originally developed. Duvernay Petroleum has signed a contract with the Canadian firm Petrobank, which owns THAI™, to use the process.

The THAI™ process was first used by Petrobank at its Christina Lake site in the Athabasca Oil Sands, Canada, in June 2006 in a pilot operation which is currently producing 3,000 barrels of oil a day. This was on deposits of bitumen - similar to the surface coating of roads - rather than heavy oil.

Petrobank is applying for permission to expand this to 10,000 barrels a day though there is a potential for this to rise to 100,000.

The 50,000 acre site owned by Petrobank contains an estimated 2.6 billion barrels of bitumen. The Athabasca Oil Sands region is the single largest petroleum deposit on earth, bigger than that of Saudi Arabia.

Professor Greaves, of the University’s Department of Chemical Engineering, said: “When the Canadian engineers at the Christina Lake site turned on the new system, in three separate sections, it worked amazingly well and oil is being produced at twice the amount that they thought could be extracted.

“It’s been quite a struggle to get the invention from an idea to a prototype and into use, over the last 17 years. For most of the time people weren’t very interested because heavy oil was so much more difficult and expensive to produce than conventional light oil.

“But with light oil now hitting around 100 dollars a barrel, it’s economic to think of using heavy oil, especially since THAI™ can produce oil for less than 10 dollars a barrel.

“We’ve seen this project go from something that many people said would not work into something we can have confidence in, all in the space of the last 18 months.”

Professor Greaves, who was previously Assistant Professor at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada, and who also worked with Shell and ICI in the UK, is looking at making THAI™ even more efficient using a catalyst add-on process called CAPRI™.

This process was also developed by Professor Greaves’ team at Bath and is intended to turn heavy oil into light while still in the reservoir underground. The CAPRI™ research has recently been awarded funding of £800,000 from Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council, including £60,000 from Petrobank. The project collaborators are Dr Sean Rigby, from the Department of Chemical Engineering at Bath, and Dr Joe Wood of the University of Birmingham.

And here is Petrobank's brochure describing the process:
http://www.petrobank.com/webdocs/whitesands/whitesands_brochure.pdf

http://www.petrobank.com/images/content/heavyoil/ho-thai-sideview-label.jpg

[Aylmer]

I nominate this as the Canadian Thread of the Month!

That'S new...

:)

[Aylmer]

http://www.petrobank.com/images/content/heavyoil/ho-thai-sideview-label.jpg[/QUOTE]


And the ground cracks and collapses!

:)

[jawagord]

That'S new...

:)
This would have been called a "fireflood" when companies were doing this in the late 70's around Lloydminster. It looks like the same process "tarted up" with horizontal drilling and probably some improved injectors that didn't exist 30 years ago. Will be interesting if this becomes a commercial success.