Skip navigation

Shifting sands: Part I

An empire from a tub of goo

ERIN ANDERSSEN and SHAWN MCCARTHY AND ERIC REGULY

From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:47 PM EST 16/02/08

How did the quest to retrieve the hidden treasure go from fool's errand to huge payoff? ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. J. D. from St. Catharines, ON, Canada writes: Monumentous?
  2. Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: In time, the people of Alberta will learn that you can't live a healthy life when you live on poisoned land.
  3. globefan EH from Canada writes: As a Canadian, flying across the tar sands the first time was not something that gave me any pleasure, the scale of destruction of the natural world is astounding.

    The long term cost may yet be deadly, cancer clusters are turning up.
  4. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: I dont think canadians grasp how much oil the country really has. What a great country. Check out these pics of Radarsat 2. Just hope the goverment doesnt go through the Deal to sell MDS, radarsat 2 and the canadarm to the American Defence Company. http://www.radarsat2.info/about/gallery/
  5. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: The Globe is censoring my comments - typical...
  6. diane marie from calgary, Canada writes: Dawn from Minnesota:-- A good number of Albertans already know that, but they somehow can't help themselves. Read Jeffrey Simpson's column.
  7. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Yes, there is defintely alot of oil in Canada -- the bigger question is are we destined to follow Norway's lead on how to manage these resources or that of some third world country? How does the average citizen benefit from their own country's resources?
  8. Stand up for Social Justice The Canadian Way from Canada writes: The oil belongs in the ground, that is where the creator put it. These corporations are not Socially Responsible and it will be those in Alberta that will pay the ultimate price. Money is not the end it to be all. Do not cry when there is no more water, your children are dying and mother nature is destroy forever.
  9. Shaun Adamson from Brantford, ON, Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Yes, there is defintely alot of oil in Canada -- the bigger question is are we destined to follow Norway's lead on how to manage these resources or that of some third world country? How does the average citizen benefit from their own country's resources?

    -----------

    Robert, the natural resources are controlled by the provinces, not all of Canada. Therefore, Alberta's resources are Alberta's. Same goes for Saskatchewan.
  10. chris jenkins from Free the West, BC, Canada writes: All you Easterners hate Alberta but love to claim that it's resources are your own. Not so! How lucky you are that the Albertans you deride have been so overly generous with you. So far.
  11. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: Wow - the 'automated' censorship filters are working full time now. Twice now, they have killed commentary about the toxic ponds from Oilsands development, the wasteful consumption of a lifetime of natural gas in 10 years, and the downstream environmental impacts on the watershed (including fish and migratory birds). And that all this oil is for consumption in US SUVs and Hummers.

    Looks like the petro industry is paying for mild commentary on the Globe website. So much for free speech in Canada...
  12. Shaun Adamson from Brantford, ON, Canada writes: Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: In time, the people of Alberta will learn that you can't live a healthy life when you live on poisoned land.

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

    Then eventually the world will have to learn to find an alternative fuel source. Because otherwise, the world needs oil and Alberta has a resource that people want. This isn't just about Alberta, it is supply and demand.
  13. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: In 1789, Alexander Mackenzie described how the banks of the Athabasca seeped oil into the river.

    Maybe that is why their is cancer in Ft. Chipewan??....... In the warm sun the oil literally flows out of the banks into the river over several hundred km of banks..... I have stood there and watched it....
  14. J Law from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada

    The question is, Robert, will you people on the east coast learn from what Alberta is doing and the positives you see in Norway? Time will tell.
  15. MJ M from Fort McMurray, Canada writes: A relatively balanced story for a change. Clearly there are issues facing Oilsand development. It's a world class resource and there are world class companies working to develop it in a sustainable way. For people with skills, Fort McMurray is probably the best place in the world to live and work.

    I don't work for an Oil Company, I moved here 7 years ago with my family and we all like it here very much. It's been great for me and my wife professionally and personally and our kids love it here. They have gotten opportunities here at young ages that they wouldn't have gotten anywhere else, they attend good schools and have great friends.

    Like it or not, Oilsand development is the engine that will drive Canada for the next couple of decades.
  16. Mike Schulz from Houston, United States writes: Globefan flew across the sands and did not like it? Did she/he purchase a carbon offset?
    Alberta has a resource and they should develop it like all other municipalities such as Texas or Saudi. The economic benefits can be reaped by all. If they invest wisely, their families can enjoy those benefits.
    For all you naysayers, jealousy is not a virtue. Before you go off on a tangent, look at your life.
  17. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Not only did they get Glen Schmidt's name wrong they also got the project name Deer Creek wrong... looks like they did a lot of ground work to write this piece......
  18. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Sam, did your comment appear and then disappear later or did they just not show up when you submitted them? If the latter, it could be because your comment contained characters which are regarded by the G&M brain-dead semi-moderator to refuse a posting. Examples include the long dash, the opening and closing double quotes and the curly apostrophe. I can't show you them here because my comment would be filtered out. Try using the dash (minus sign) -, the plain double quote ' and the plain apostrophe '.
    These could typically be embedded in text copied and pasted from another source, e.g., a web site.

    I've gotten into the habit of composing my comment in MS Notepad and then pasting it into the comment box. If it doesn't show up, I look for 'special' characters and try again.

    Good luck.
  19. Alyssa Watson from Canada writes: chris jenkins from Free the West, BC, Canada writes: All you Easterners hate Alberta but love to claim that it's resources are your own. Not so! How lucky you are that the Albertans you deride have been so overly generous with you. So far

    You would be suprised how many eastererners are working there. Its mainly the newfies that are keeping things running. CBC had quite the program tonight on how many out east head to alberta to work on the projects.
  20. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: Shoot, even the headline saddens me. Canada 'an empire'? Because of its 'goo'? Canada aspires to be no empire, and its resources aren't baby-food. We're an astonishingly young country, which happens to 'own' a staggering amount of what the rest of the world wants, which we've been slap-happily selling already to our 'best friends' for decades. Which they slap-happily don't seem to know about. And which they would like nothing more than to 'take care of' for us, as our older and more experienced and more powerful sibling. Even as we disagree on things like the death-penalty, birth-control, sex-education, Darwinism, and the separation of church & state. My current Prime Minister Stephen Harper - would you or Sandra Buckler care to comment?
  21. Shaun Adamson from Brantford, ON, Canada writes: chris jenkins from Free the West, BC, Canada writes: All you Easterners hate Alberta but love to claim that it's resources are your own. Not so! How lucky you are that the Albertans you deride have been so overly generous with you. So far.

    --------

    'All you Easterners'...wow that is an overly generic statement. Honestly I haven't heard too many people around here deriding Albertans over their resource. Stop being such a hate monger.
  22. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Shawn Adamson from Brantford, Ontario:

    There's also oil on the offshore of Newfoundland, in the Arctic, British Columbia, etc., etc. There's probably also oil in other provinces/territories that we don't even yet know about. I am talking bigger picture here, Shawn...

    Here's a paper that I wish more Albertans would read from the Government Department at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York...

    http://www.cpsa-acsp.ca/papers-2007/Carter.pdf

    The paper is called 'Cursed by Oil? Institutions and Environmental Impacts in Alberta's Tar Sands'

    Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yemeni (quoted in this article) also said, 'All in all, I wish we had discovered water?'

    Boy, Albertans are really paranoid, eh? -- I guess that is Mr. Trudeau's fault!
  23. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: Shaun - you are correct - it is about supply and demand, but do we have to scorch the earth in a decade to continue the current madness? And to get a lecture from Dawn in Minnesota, part of the SUV/Hummer madness, is galling.

    As a native born Albertan, decendent from immigrant grandparents who homesteaded and responsibly farmed in central Alberta, I am ASHAMED at the rape and pillage of the paradise that was once Alberta.

    I am not anti development, but I am anti-uncontrolled-development and I am ashamed that our government is not throttling back the carnage. Alaska and Norway have implemented intelligent and measured development, but we are missing the opportunity to slow development and use the proceeds to be TRUE world leaders in alternative energy development.

    We are bit players in wind energy compared to Germany and several other European countries.

    It is OUR SUPPLY and we must secure OUR ENERGY SECURITY FIRST !!! The demand will always be there as long as we take the environmental short cuts to feed it.

    On the current path, we in Canada will ALL be the 'b*^stards freezing in the dark'. What a shame!
  24. OilerFan in FortMac from Canada writes: Interesting choice of photos to go with this cover story, the oldest tailings ponds in the oil sands (from Suncor) sitting a stone's throw away from the Athabasca River. How many think they hold everything in, 50 yrs later?
    And for the record, bitumen is not trapped in 'mud' as the G&M writes. The muddy layers are seperated out and trucked to dumps as waste, the money is in the sand only!
  25. John Carlson from Edmonton, Canada writes: I grew up in he 80's my dad sold his construction company because of the NEP. Thank god he did. Now its my turn. I will to not allow another NEP. The people in quebec but this on their on the license plate. We put it on our memory.

    Albeta
  26. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Please note that the boys from Texas have already arrived to this thread to preach on what a special kinship that they have with Alberta...

    Texas loves Albertans while all 'Easterners hate Alberta...'

    You guys are funny -- Mr. Trudeau really did screw up a number of your heads, didn't he?
  27. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: By all means, let's take advantage of the goo but let's also try to minimize the impact by improving the extraction process (e.g., sequestering carbon) and decreasing demands for greenhouse gas producing fuels.

    Scientific American News - January 24, 2008

    'Geophysicists Urge Steep Cuts in Greenhouse Gas Emissions'

    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=geophysicists-urge-steep-cuts-in-greenhouse-gases
    http://tinyurl.com/33jo7r

    The scientists of the American Geophysical Union (AGU) warn that greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions must be slashed in half to keep temperatures from rising 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit (2 degrees Celsius) - or else. 'Warming greater than 2 degrees Celsius above 19th-century levels is projected to be disruptive, reducing global agricultural productivity, causing widespread loss of biodiversity and - if sustained over centuries - melting much of the Greenland ice sheet with ensuing rise in sea levels of several meters,' the AGU declares in its first statement in four years on 'Human Impacts on Climate.'

    The statement, released today, is the latest - and strongest - statement from the Washington, D.C.-based scientific organization on human-induced climate change. 'The record of the Earth's climate since the invention of the thermometer is much better understood now,' says physicist Tim Killeen, AGU president and director of the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) in Boulder, Colo. 'This detailed understanding of the climate of the 20th century gives confidence in the ability to project into the future. It is now agreed that we can't explain the detailed temperature record of the 20th century without bringing to bear human effects and GHG emissions. That, in a way, is the smoking gun, the fingerprint.'
  28. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Interesting that they quote all of the environmentalists and Think tanks yet they do not quote any of the re-cycle ratios readily available from the producing companies on their websites nor do they discuss the work that is underway to store water for during low flow months of the Athabasca...
  29. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada:

    Well Said -- spread your message throughout Alberta!!

    You are right on in what you have said!

    If Albertans give Stelmach a fright in the upcoming election, things may change and Albertans like yourself may get heard!

    Perpetual, single party states are not in the interest of the general population in any country/province.
  30. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Sam Gallagher you said '......the rape and pillage of the paradise that was once Alberta....'

    Have you ever actually stepped outside the door of your house? Or are you worried about tripping over a DEMAG shovel cable? come on give me a freeking break, that is just a we bit of an exaggeration...
  31. Marv M from Canada writes: Yes, and the Amazon Rain forest has the potential for a monumentous payoff also. Lets get in there and cut all of those trees down. What's the difference between that and the Tar Sands? It's bad enough that Alberta is destroying it's Northern fresh water supplies and polluting thousands of Acres all for the sake of what? Money in some peoples pockets but a ton of pain and misery for the majority of other Albertans who have to put up with the off the charts Inflation, House prices and rents. Drug problems, congestion, crime, line ups, waiting lists, yeah!, the Tar Sands has been wonderful for Alberta.
    Never before in my life have I heard so many friends and relatives talking about their wish to move away from this Province as the thousands of transient workers continue to flood in.
    The Tar Sands has destroyed this Province and I know most people who are outside of the Oil industry would agree. Wages for most have not even remotely kept up with inflation or the skyrocketing costs at the same time Big Oil companies like Suncor continue to announce record profits.
    Join the masses, move to Alberta, there are thousands of crappy paying jobs which is good because most people who move here quickly find out that they need 2 of them to make ends meet. Oh, also, be prepared to work twice as hard because most jobs are understaffed. If you think you will find a cushy, high paying job that requires little effort, be prepared for a nasty surprise.
  32. Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto, Canada writes: Whether environmentalists (and I count myself among them) like it or not, the Tarsands will be developed. It is important for environmentalists to educate themselves in economics as it is for Oil Companies to educate themselves in the environment. Technology is changing and ways are being developed to minimize the negative effects of development.

    Most people who think of themselves as 'Green' oppose nuclear power, yet that will probably be the best way to eliminate most of the GHG emissions from production in the Tar Sands.

    The problems with water usage and degradation in my opinion is the most difficult to resolve and the most important to find a solution for.
  33. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Marv M did it ever occur to you that the water in the Athabasca isn't really that nice after all? It has a couple of hundred km of oil seeping into it naturally... I wouldn't drink it even if there were no mines around... the oil flows right out of the banks into the river... Noone is 'destroying' the frexh wate rof the north, it is mostlly natural, as a matter of fact the report that the natives had written actually had a sample taken downstream of a large slump of tar sand 'naturally occuring' of course there was hydrocarbosn and nastys in it.. and completely natural....
  34. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: First-ever Report Card Gives Oil Sands Mines a Failing Grade

    Key Findings of the Report Card

    - While the majority of oil sands operations have comprehensive environmental policies in place, only two companies provided evidence of having an independently-accredited environmental management system such as ISO 14,001.
    - With the exception of the existing Albian Muskeg River Mine, no operation has voluntary targets to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
    - No project or company has publicly-reported targets to reduce water usage from the Athabasca River.
    - Despite more than 40 years of oil sands development, not a single hectare of land has been certified as reclaimed under Government of Alberta guidelines.

    http://www.oilsandswatch.org/
  35. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: Robert Miller, Thanks - but I am minor voice in the capitalist wilderness. And among we few enlightened voters, the emerging concensus is that the current bunch of Tories will be back with less power, but still with a majority and still stuck to our boots like a bunch of smelly doggie-doo. The Texans love us because after they suck us dry, we all in Canada will freeze in the dark while they will still have a warm climate down there in Galveston. Meanwhile, we will be here in Alberta, wading about in the hectares of the world's largest version of the Sydney tar ponds. The lakes in Northern Saskatchewan will be dead from acid rain and tar pond leeching, so Americans will not longer come to fish. And now Ed wants to pump our hugely excess emissions underground so we can poison the remainder of our underground water aquifer. Water will come with 'natural' flavouring like H2S, 84 octane, and diesel. And with the Glaciers on the Icefields Parkway (Banff to Jasper) gone due to the 'non-existent' global warming (according to George W), we will no longer have drinking water in the prairies and even the new Asian tourists won't come anymore because the grizzly bears will be gone. This is truly a shameful Canadian travesty in the making - we are selling our future for a wasteful way of life today.
  36. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: J Law from Canada:

    I think there is already compelling evidence that Premier Williams in Newfoundland and Labrador has learned to keep unions at bay with his left hand and corporate interests (particularly those corporations who may not always have the best long-term interests of his Province in mind) at bay with his right hand...

    In my estimation, this is the mark of a true 'Progressive' Conservative -- something that there is too few of in this country. Stelmach cannot achieve such a balance by being a complete toadie to the oil industry...
  37. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: John Carlson from Edmonton, the way you put it, it sounds like past NEP resentments rule your life. That's a shame. Sam Gallagher from Calgary sounds just as angry, but far more hopeful. I'm not a farmer, or a rancher, or an oil-woman, but I am a Canadian. And my ancestors pioneered the land on the prairies. Let's agree.
  38. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada:

    I understand, Sam!

    However, one voice in the wilderness is sometimes all that it takes if that voice decides to become very loud -- particularly, when that voice speaks the truth.

    Otherwise, what will you tell your grandchildren about what Alberta used to be like?
  39. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Alan Burke, what is the standard enthalpy of fusion for 1 cubic meter of ice? And based on that what would be the cooling effect on the atmosphere for melting enough ice to raise the sea level 'several meters' and after that how much co2 would end up in solution for each new cubic meter of fresh water that comes off the ice sheets?
  40. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Have you ever actually stepped outside the door of your house? Or are you worried about tripping over a DEMAG shovel cable? come on give me a freeking break, that is just a we bit of an exaggeration... Cardium - you are clearly a consumer of the 'Jonestown Koolaid'. To answer your question, I have travelled extensively through my 45 years living in Alberta - with hundreds of hours of that travel via bicycle on weekends and vacations. I know the difference between sustainable, manageable development and complete devastation. In addition, I have travelled extensively elsewhere in the world and have seen the devastating legacy of unbridled, unregulated development on other locales and peoples. For example, visit Arizona, New Mexico, Texas, Rwanda, Tanzania, Zaire (now Congo), Syria, Jordan, Poland, Romania, and numerous other locations to see what your sacred 'uncontrolled' development does. Alberta, with all of its potential, is acting like a so-called banana republic with puppet politicians bending at any pressure from the oil companies. Alaska and Norway did not bend and maintained control. What's our problem? Perhaps it is too many Tory governments controlled by rural hacks who have no clue of life beyond whitebread Alberta. We owe it to Canada to take better care of Alberta for the benefit of all Canadians - not just the money guys from Texas. Get off the koolaid - it will open your perspective.
  41. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Sam gallagher you said =

    'And now Ed wants to pump our hugely excess emissions underground so we can poison the remainder of our underground water aquifer. Water will come with 'natural' flavouring like H2S, 84 octane, and diesel.'

    I don't know about you but I don't have my drinking water well in the Granite Wash, or Keg River formation that is 1600m underground that has a TDS of around 40,000 mg/l. I think the mile or so of solid bedrock will keep it down there for a long time.... think about what you are saying.....
  42. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada: Otherwise, what will you tell your grandchildren about what Alberta used to be like?

    Robert, I agree, but I have noticed that the truth gets squashed a lot of different ways and with considerable energy since 9-11. And if you speak in any contrary terms, you become instantly labelled as a terrorist, negativist, anarchist, and that most vile of American terms, a 'liberal'. Intelligent dialogue is increasingly a challenge to find - everyone seems to just want to shout each other down instead with labels. A sad commentary.

    We don't have kids, so no grandkids possible. I do feel, however, for my nephew and what is being done to his legacy.
  43. Shaun Adamson from Brantford, ON, Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, I am aware that other provinces and territories have oil and natural gas, I was just giving some examples. Actually, Ontario had decent reserves of oil and natural gas in the past as well, but they have all been depleted. That's the problem with nonrenewable resources, once they are gone, they are gone forever. Also Robert it's Shaun, not Shawn :).

    Sam Gallagher from Calgary, I agree with you. The way we have all treated the environment over the last 6-7 decades is a serious concern for me and actually presents a big moral dilemma. You see, I will be completing my Chemical Engineering degree in about 4 months and, in the past, the petrochemical industry did some nasty things. However, things have slowly improved. I can tell you that I will always try my best to do what is right for people. That's just about the only thing I can do. Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough willingness to change just now, but that doesn't mean that industry should act irresponsibly.

    Lastly, Go Flames Go !!! (there are a few Flames fans in the east).
  44. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Sam,

    Can you explain to me how the tailings will leach over hundreds of km into precambrian bedrock and into the lakes in northern saskatchewan? Give me a break... the aquifers around the tailings pond move at around 1-10 meter a year maximum, and leaching from the ponds is collected by wells ditches and other means and sent back into the process... what are you smoking, you have no idea what you are talking about.....
  45. Dawn from Minnesota from United States writes: To Mr. Gallagher who writes: 'but do we have to scorch the earth in a decade to continue the current madness? And to get a lecture from Dawn in Minnesota, part of the SUV/Hummer madness, is galling.' -----I agree with your point of view. I do not drive an SUV or a Hummer. I drive a Volvo 740 GL, which I have lovingly maintained for 18 years. I worked professionally in environmentalism: cleaning up and restoring wetland ponds, rivers, and streams in five states. I have multiple chemical sensitivity as a result of being exposed to industrial chemicals in the water at cleanup sites. I am a victim of the sort of pollution that is being created with abandon in Alberta, and I will suffer for the rest of my life. My one line comment (above) is hardly a lecture. Don't be so quick to judge people.
  46. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: Shaun, I wish you well in your new career and I applaud your stated commitment to do the right thing. We all have a responsibility (unlike the ignore the problem attitude of Cardium Crude) to do our best.

    Government can never be at the cutting edge of everything, but business will be. And truly ethical business will recommend best practices because they have the knowledge, and social responsibility, to do so. A leading ethical business will work with government to do more than just minimally comply with regulations. In turn, that government must ensure that the business is able to compete in fair arena. That includes pounding on trade from countries that do not operate to acceptable labour, environmental, and commercial regulations.

    We need better than 'minimal' adherance to regulation and permitting every corner cutting country like China unfettered access to our citizens. Government and industry working together can be mutually protective of all of our citizens and commerce.

    Shaun, my friend, you are the future and I am encouraged by your refreshing dedication.
  47. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: Dawn, thanks for your additional perspective. Chalk up my reaction to your one-line as a limitation of this conversation medium. I empathize fully with your chemical issues and I wish you more wellness going forward.

    However, I think we are in violent agreement that the excessive waste (on both sides of the 49th parallel) needs to be reigned in.

    I fear that our voices will both be silenced in the dim of mass scorch and burn here (and elsewhere) so that others can drive their Hummers over top of your Volvo 740 GL and my smaller Pontiac Sunfire.

    No offense intended - I hate what is happening to the Alberta my Grandparents help build.
  48. Bob G - from Hohhot, China, Canada writes: Thirty years ago I visited some family friends in Calgary from my home in Toronto. Alberta was a pristine jewel then. I warned the Calgarians of imminent environmental pollution if they didn't manage their environment properly. I'm sure they thought I was nuts.
    Today Alberta is the environmental albatross around Canada's neck.
  49. Robin Hannah from Canada writes: Can the stories of people like 'Dawn from Minnesota' HELP US WAKE UP??
  50. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada:

    Keep talking, Sam!

    It reminds the rest of the world that there is indeed intelligent life in Alberta!

    I also find the interesting thing about the Alberta blogs compared to other blogs is these threads relating to Alberta are the only ones that you are shouted down for having an opinion in about ten seconds...

    Albertans seem very uncomfortable about actually talking about:

    (1) academic evidence from their own universities showing their water supply is being compromised and that their forests are being lost forever.

    (2) the royalties that Alberta is paid for their oil are amongst the lowest in the developed world

    (3) Alberta's GHG emisssions total approx. 110, 000, 000 tonnes CO2 annually -- By far, the highest emissions of any Canadian province.

    (4) Stelmach is not adequately addressing point (3) despite Canada's recent committments to curbing GHG emissions...

    Sooner or later, Albertans will have to start addressing these issues.

    I am glad to know that people like you are in that province!
  51. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes:'This detailed understanding of the climate of the 20th century gives confidence in the ability to project into the future.'

    Except their projections into the future aren't working out. Alan keeps quoting stuff like this that is simply not substantiated by the actual models.

    The models fail to 'predict the past' except for about 1960-2000 or so, and aren't doing very well at present since there has been no signifigant warming for over six years despite increases in GHGs.
  52. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Sam:

    One final thought...

    I would speculate that a number of these shouter down types on these threads could likely be traced to the 'war rooms' of both the CPC and Albertans PC...

    Don't let governments tell you what you should think -- the facts on Alberta's water, forests, emissions are all easily accessed and you know them instinctively anyways from your posts...
  53. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes:'Don't let governments tell you what you should think...'

    Don't let political organizations like the IPCC tell you what to think either.
  54. Chris E. from vancouver, Canada writes: Canada should be to the United States what Russia is to Europe - a supplier of energy.

    What we need to do is scale back immigration in both countries and learn to prosper with what we have. Our populations are high enough - we don't need to add more energy consumers just to line the pockets of bank shareholders.
  55. Rob g from Japan writes: I think they meant monumental. Ryerson is producing some top notch journalists.
  56. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: And now Ed wants to pump our hugely excess emissions underground so we can poison the remainder of our underground water aquifer.

    Sorry Sam but you don't know what you are talking about. I'm not saying there aren't environmental concerns regarding the oilsands operations; but CO2 poisoning underground water aquifers is not one of them.

    Kenneth Yurchuk from Toronto makes a good point when he says 'Whether environmentalists (and I count myself among them) like it or not, the Tarsands will be developed.'

    It's not just Alberta's provincial gov't and oil companies benefiting economically from the oilsands. Ottawa is getting a big chunk of the pie. That isn't going to change.

    I know many don't see it; but the pressure exerted by environmental groups as well as citizens is working. All of the companies are investing heavily in new technologies. Everything from water usage to extracting the metals from the tailings ponds.
  57. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall, Canada:

    I wonder why so few of the CPC/Albertan PC hack types use their real names?

    Do you actually think that the World Health Organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is less reliable than a bunch of phony studies put out by the politicos at the Fraser Institute and the 'Friends of Science?'

    I wonder if Dick Cheney liked that fishing gear that the Fraser Institute sent him last year?
  58. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: Do you actually think that the World Health Organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is less reliable than a bunch of phony studies...'

    When the IPCC makes claims that their models do not substantiate, then they're just not reliable. Not more or less, just not.
  59. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bring up this link from the IPCC site, and go to page 684, figure 9.5:
    http://tinyurl.com/yplrpb

    Also bring up this one for comparison:
    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    The 1910-1940 warming clearly visible on the HadCRUT3 observations ran from about minus 0.51 to plus 0.01 (about 0.50 degrees) over thirty years. The 58-fold stacked model output shows minus 0.15 to plus 0.30 (about 0.45 degrees) over fifty years. The slope is way wrong (.017 vs .009 degrees per year) and so is the turn-over date from warming to cooling.

    The IPCC models just don't replicate the known observations, and are thus not reliable enough either to predict the future or to justify the conclusion that AGHGs dominate temperature change.
  60. Hugh Campbell from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: 'Don't let political organizations like the IPCC tell you what to think either.'

    GM likely knows better than these groups as well:

    http://www.logicalscience.com/consensus/consensus.htm
  61. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Hugh, that link tells us nothing about the climate. It's a waste of bandwidth.
  62. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: A well written article. The oil sands are a good thing. I know people love to get up in arms over it, but think about the value Sudbury nickle factories have brought and the damage. Or the extreme poisoning of the great lakes due to greed. Its no different here. No worst, no better. But there is hope. We here are very connected to our environment, in a way many may not even understand. Many here were raised with miles of land and mountains and wildlife right outside our door. We like nature. When the great lakes were dying we didn't like it, but we also gave those whose lives were directly affected the benefit of the doubt that they would eventually fix it. We are still waiting but can see the winds of change happening. I can understand that many who don't live here might be concerned, but that is all you can be. Its up to us just like its up to you to fix your local problems. We'll do it, but we'll do it the only way we can, just like you have done it for your region the only way you can. Time. We will demand better from those that take and demand they give it back. Will it be perfect? No. But perfection is unattainable, yet knowing my fellow Albertains, we won't stop before we are satisfied with a reasonable result.
  63. Todd Spencer from Victoria BC, Canada writes:

    Har har har.

    The tide, she has turned.
  64. Cyrus Of Persia from Canada writes: J.D. from St. Catherines (1:32 am), you beat me to it.

    Actually, monumentous, as a neologism, is useful and elegant, combining 'monumental' and 'momentous.' But it will of course lose all subtlety instantly, and fall among the ironed out and now popularly synonymous 'great' 'tremendous' 'terrific' 'fantastic' 'awsome'
    'fabulous' 'spectacular' etc. etc. each of which denotes a wondrous meaning, now all but lost.
  65. Todd Spencer from Victoria BC, Canada writes:

    NEP.

    Let the ba$ards freeze in the dark.

    Never forget.
  66. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Huge. You'd do better at providing a solution such as http://www.logicalscience.com/technology/ instead of questioning a questioners valid questions and observations. To many it seem so perfectly wrapped. Ya know. Like there is a agenda at play here. Paranoid? Maybe, but still the thought lingers. Am I one to object to living clean? No way, I love the thought of clean, free energy, but somehow, someway, I feel manipulated by this AGW. Its not a good feeling. It seems like a fake reason to vote for a fake candidate promising fake goals.
  67. David Bakody from Dartmouth, Canada writes: The complete picture is not good, Alberta will continue to spend money like drunken cowboys home from a long winter on range, which by the way was not really a bad life in the past. To-day big dollars are being made but families are not better off for it. The province will want more power and all those who had a country way of life will loose it forever if they have not already have. The drug trade has flourished destroying many lives and crime has increased while many of Canada's youth who have gone West are sadly missed by their families. The sad part is done deal and the West has almost become the new Toronto of Alberta...........how do like it now? and just think it's going to get even worst!
  68. John McCormick from Toronto, Canada writes: So does this mean we're next on the invasion list because of our oil?
  69. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall is a master of deceit, distortion and misrepresentation when it comes to climate change. He continues to spout the same nonsense in G&M commentaries although he has been rebutted frequently. You'll find answers for all of his objections on my website (and there's more coming). For example, he fails to note that the IPCC models do indeed track very well (see my figures 17 to 22).

    It's time to move away from denial that there is a problem to finding solutions to the problem. The cost of acting now is dramatically less that it would be if we continue to wait (see the Stern Review linked from my Fig. 33).

    The IPCC reports are all available for download from http://www.ipcc.ch and working group 3 (AR4-WG3) includeds recommendations for solutions. Yes, the IPCC is a political body reporting on thousands of refereed scientific papers but in general any political intereference with their reports has been to dilute the conclusions; the reality and risks are generally worse than those projected. A case in point is the dramatic annual melting of the Arctic polar icecap (see my Fig. 11).
  70. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Todd Spencer from Victoria, BC:

    Yes, Alberta committing suicide is really showing us, Easterners, for Trudeau's NEP...

    Mea culpa... gawd, are you for real?

    You sound as dumb as a CPC hack from Victoria that used to bash Danny Williams -- perhaps you know him!
  71. Eddie 'mush' Montanaro from montreal, Canada writes: The article forgot to mention all the corporate welfare given to big oil to get the goo out of the ground while at the same time Klein was blowing up hospitals in Calgary and selling off hospitals to his friends for pennies on the dollar.
  72. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: The Earth today stands in imminent peril

    ...and nothing short of a planetary rescue will save it from the environmental cataclysm of dangerous climate change. Those are not the words of eco-warriors but the considered opinion of a group of eminent scientists writing in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.

    See: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-earth-today-stands-in-imminent-peril-453708.html
    http://tinyurl.com/2mdeck

    and the study itself 'Climate Change and Trace Gases' published in 'Philisophical Transactions of the Royal Society':

    http://www.planetwork.net/climate/Hansen2007.pdf
  73. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: I was asked by 'Cardium Crude': 'Alan Burke, what is the standard enthalpy of fusion for 1 cubic meter of ice? And based on that what would be the cooling effect on the atmosphere for melting enough ice to raise the sea level 'several meters' and after that how much co2 would end up in solution for each new cubic meter of fresh water that comes off the ice sheets?'

    Given his other postings I'm assuming that these were rhetorical questions given from a prejudiced position but I'll answer some of it anyway.

    One cubic meter of ice would weigh a metric tonne (about 2,200 punds). With a 'heat of fusion' of 79.72 cal/g, it would require 79.7x10^6 cal to melt it. I don't have the rest of the numbers handy but I will note that the ocean level is rising (see my Fig. 4) and the Hansen paper noted above in my 7:03 AM EST posting describes a possible runaway melting scenario.

    A recent paper indicates in excess of 100 cubic kilometers of melting each from Greenland. See:

    http://tinyurl.com/2jmzgm
  74. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: That's each year.
  75. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: See also 'Record Warm Summers Cause Extreme Ice Melt In Greenland'

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080115102706.htm

    Let's be careful how we extract and use that goo.
  76. Scott McLean from Alberta, writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes:

    In my estimation, this is the mark of a true 'Progressive' Conservative -- something that there is too few of in this country. Stelmach cannot achieve such a balance by being a complete toadie to the oil industry...

    Acutally no. A 'Progressive' Conservative is a Liberal with a smaller wallet when it comes to social programs.
    Anytime you place 'Progressive' in front of a title, your I.Q. drops about 20 percent, as there is only one solution: Central Governance.
    You, Joe Clark, and Barbra MacDougal can all sit around a card-table out in Halifax and plot the takeover of the Liberal party.
    They have already taken in that troll looking May, so I'm sure the Big Tent can fit you in as well.
  77. pran manga from ottawa, Canada writes: Think again, Albertans and Canadians. Alberta will be environmentally destroyed, the rich will move elsewhere, and much of the created riches will be in the US.Is this worth it.Why not wait a while till we solve the ecological problems first? The wealth in the ground will not disappear, if anything, it will rise in value as oil stocks in the rest of the world diminish.
  78. The Bubble from Canada writes: If Alberta can supply America for the next fifty years, that's really not a lot of oil. If it was used to supply Canada, it would last roughly five hundred years. This stuff is so dirty to produce it really should be slowed down. The Americans want to use it up but they do have enough oil of their own down in texas and in the rocky mountains, they just want to use up Albertas first and they don't really care how filthy and torn up the place gets. What Alberta needs to do is jack up the price of oil or ask for more money for drilling etc. It is supply and demand but it seems in Alberta, the more the Americans demand, the less money is supplied.
    The politicians need to grow some cajones like Danny Williams, it's only about money, we here in the east aren't trying to take your oil or money or whatever, we see you guys as happily working along, believing in this weird hatred of the east which is propogated by texas oilmen so you will run to them and give them what they want. It's pretty spurious on the part of big oil. Bottom line is: a very large part of Alberta's population comes from Ontario and the image you have of this place is a little narrow and wrong, we are not the enemy, big american oil is.
  79. Bob Van Derlay from Canada writes: Thanks to the Globe for the great pictures of the oils sands operations under the caption 'Shifting Sands'. However the captions seem to be out of whack. For instance the 6th picture claims to be Syncrude and tailings ponds. The plant is clearly Suncor and this can be confirmed by reading the sign on the side of the tank with the blue roof. I have driven by that tank a few times. Also those ponds are not tailings ponds. They are mostly waste water from Upgrading. It is a shame to see such great material handled so carelessly.
  80. bob london from Canada writes: With Liberal Bellyaching above with Pseudo Environmental Religion Propeganda, WHY THE HE!! ARE ONLY LIBERALS MOVING FROM ONTRIO TO ALBERTA???????????!!!!!!!!!!!! CAN'T YOUR LEADER CREATE A FN JOB WITHOUT BUYING IT?????????? LOOK AT HIM SALIVATE PG 2.
  81. The Bubble from Canada writes: bob london is obviously American, it's so sad.
    On the upside... on google earth if you type in fort mcmurray there are a lot of pictures of the whole area including the sands development, it's pretty huge. I can't imagine, however, why Albertans would want to live in such dire straights as to not be able to keep burger kings open, wouldn't a little more control of the situation by the government so's y'all can live with a little less stress and pollution maybe a good thing for everyone?
    What's the rush in getting the whole tar pit dug up as fast as possible, the Americans seem to have the whole province on the run.
  82. Emma Hawthorne from Canada writes: Alberta has a duty to remove the polluting effects of the tar sands, or shut it down.
  83. Black Jerry is a idiot from Canada writes: When we are old there will nothing left for our grandchildren. There will just be a polluted mess..even worst than now. I understand the money it makes but the cost is really high. We need electric cars and we could cut down on oil greatly. Even if the power came from coal its still much better than a gas car because they are 99 percent efficient and the BEST motor car is only 33 percent. We need to stop this destruction.
  84. The Bubble from Canada writes: I don't know why it can't be slowed down a little at least so the place could civilize a little. There's too much room for charlatans in this kind of environment. I know a guy that went out west and was going to start a capentry business, I worked a day with him and thought he was going to kill me sooner or later he was so wreckless on the job. This is what Albertans have to watch out for. I can't imagine what life is like in those ATCO trailers, there would be nothing to do if you weren't working. This has always been the problem for Alberta, good money but man o man the lifestyle is rough and try to get a woman out there... I lived in Williams Lake BC for a while but it was a nice town that was pretty close to an Ontario town. The biggest difference between the people out there and here is that people out there are more self starters than they are here, there's more of a business to the place. Small town Ontario is getting so old and there isn't much work anymore. I guess in a perfect world you might find a perfect life.
  85. lynn H from Canada writes: Oilsands are not only going to stay they are going to expand. Saskatchewan may have as much or more oil sands than Alberta. It is only a matter of time before they are in production too. Canada needs to adapt to this reality. Ottawa can work with the western provinces or against them. If they work with them then technological advancements like sequestration or a nuclear power solutions will happen much faster. If they work against them by removing and redistributing money to the east then valuable time and resources will be spent fighting. Money from the oil boom is already spread across the country in the form of equalization, employment, manufacturing and investments. No one is going to turn off this oil money tap.
  86. evelyn robinson from Canada writes: This dirty oil is destroying the environment of Canada. The oil should stay in the fround until it can be extracted in a more environmentally friendly way.

    Most of the money rolling in is going to foreign oil companies not Canadian interests. Our environment is in critical danger for this race for the cash.
    Future generations will be the ones paying the big price.
    destruction of our environment and the loss of wildlife caused by this global warming irresponsible process is too high a price to pay and is not contained within Alberta.
  87. Nick Wilson from Toronto, Canada writes: There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that Dalton McGuinty and Stephane Dion's Liberals are secretely plotting a NEP II. Want a proof of that ? Just think about the visit of Toronto Liberal MP Mark Holland to Alberta in which he threatened the Liberals would nationalized the Alberta oil industry. Let's call aspade a spade, the NEP was a crime against humanity. Thousands of people have lost their jobs and their homes in Alberta because of that. Many others have died because the health care system deteriorated because of underfunding. Trudeau and the Liberal party should have been sued over that. I even think that Alberta should sue the federal government to recuperate the 100 billion it's been stolen. And don't forget, this 100 billion would have produce interests, it could have been used for income producing investments like plants and all kind of economic developments. When you factor it in the equation, the federal gvmt, then led by Trudeau's liberals robbed Alberta of much more than 100 billion. We'll never know for sure the extent of the devastation caused by the NEP but it will certainly go down in history as the worst economic crime ever committed by a gvmt against a part of it's population. At least we know who are the real traitors in this country and it's not the Quebec separatists as it was not Levesque or Parizeau that plotted the NEP. The real traitors in Canada are the Liberal Party, Trudeau, Chretien, Lalonde, McGuinty, Dion, Charest and the list goes on and on.
  88. The Bubble from Canada writes: No one want to turn it off, just slow it a little, it would be good even for Alberta. You guys have to let the infrastructure catch up and maybe learn about quality of life. Anyone in Fort McMurray with kids are going to have them grow up and then move when the sands are depleted anyway, there is nothing else up there that would support the people who are going to have to move there to satisfy the American demand. It's not easterrn canada that needs the oil, it's the USA and they can just learn to live with it and start to look at their own oil reserves. Alberta has more friends in Canada than they do south.
  89. joe blow from the boonies, Canada writes: Could someone share the math with us? Should we exploit all the sandoil deposits, how much of Canada's ( just a reminder that last time i checked Alberta was a province ) natural gas deposits will be needed ?

    And while we are at it, i would like to respectfully remind the Albertan poster that believes it is Albertans' decision since it is their resource, that the CO2 consequences do not conveniently stop at the border.

    Evelyn has it right. The rush for cash. Or as a popular movie noted 'greed is good'.
  90. The Bubble from Canada writes: Nick sounds like an American. It's nonsense to talk about Trudeau like this because that was thirty years ago. The reality now is that Alberta can't keep up with the demand from Americans for their oil. What would be the point of even more development when you don't have the people to keep up with it now, that argument is stale. Alberta is the richest province, no provincial tax, people have everything they want and make great money, how much more do you need out there? It's illogical even from Alberta's point of view other than this perpetuated lie probably by older guys or Americans to confuse the debate and keep Albertans on the run.
  91. scare crow from Canada writes: Environmental cleanup and pollution control will follow later... sad but this appears to be the way the economics of oil and (other heavy industry) work its ways. My dad said in the early days of Saudi Arabian oil production, no regards were given to the impact to the environment. Yet when I went there in the mid '90s lots of efforts were made to clean up the environment as well as improvement of pollution controls all around. They even employed German wildlife experts in the Jubail/Dahran areas (eastern provinces) to look after migratory fowls.
    Inco mines is doing the same in Sudbury. Planting hundreds of thousands of trees trying to absorb all those slags and mine pollution that fell around its smelters. Remember those american astronauts who went up there practicing for their moon landings because the landscape is eerily similar to moon craters?
    Much that we like environmental controls to be put up if not considered in all aspect of development, it only work after an industry has matured enough. Right now, the article mentioned that the science of extracting oil from the tar sands is not yet perfected. Once that is done, then I'm sure the pollution controls and environmental management will follow.
  92. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: A well written essay that covers all the bases. Bravo, Globe and Mail.
  93. Sam Gallagher from Calgary, Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Sam: Don't let governments tell you what you should think -- the facts on Alberta's water, forests, emissions are all easily accessed and you know them instinctively anyways from your posts...

    Robert, you are correct. Most of us in the cities try not to let governments tell us what to think and we want a PLAN for measured development. Unfortunately, we only get 1/2 a vote, in equivalent terms, to a rural person's 1 vote, so we are easily shouted down at the ballot box by the likes of 'dead in the head' Ed and the rest of the rural hillbillies.

    As a joke, a former work colleague used to say that Rural Conservative voters 'also have sex with their mothers.' If only he knew how true that statement has turned out to be.

    Welcome to the Nigeria of the North.
  94. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: As Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty said in a recent interview, “If Alberta is doing well, that's something that Canadians everywhere should celebrate. Ultimately, we all stand to benefit.&8221;
    .
    .he's right . we need butlers , maids , assorted servants and shoe shine boys to polish up our boots. just be sure to get out here before we close the border up.......
    .
    www.freealberta.com-www.republicofalberta.com-www.seperationalberta.com
  95. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Black Jerry - The coal fired BOILERS are about 85% efficient. However, the UNIT (boiler, steam turbine and generator as a whole) will be about 33%. There are combined-cycle co generation plants that can hit in the low 60% range, but there are issues. The gas turbines are FAR LESS robust than steam turbines, and the electrical output is pretty much tied to the thermal load. You can certainly generate powerin these plants without the thermal load, but the efficiency just plummets.

    I think you'll find the same type of efficiency ratio with gasoline engine driven cars. The engines alone might hit 33%, but by the time the tires actually put the power to the asphalt, you're down to about 12%.
  96. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: 'scare crow', you should read http://www.oilsandswatch.org/ - a report card on the oil sands extraction companies. (See my posting at 2:44 AM).

    We cannot afford to wait. The Stern Review points out the economic consequences of delay (see my 6:52 AM posting) - 1% of GDP now but 5% per year for each additional year of delay.
  97. Karen Chan from Hong Kong, China, writes: Thank You Sam from Calgary. I'm from Toronto (living overseas at the moment) and the oil sands literally make me feel sick. On a practical level, it is understandable that they are being developed (although, in my heart of hearts I would prefer that this not be the case). What irks me most however, is watching how it is being developed. Beyond our regional rivalries, this is more than an Albertan issue or a Western Canadian one. It concerns the whole country. If the oil sands were well developed (with strict environmental controls as well as controls on how much could be developed and pumped per year and with a large part of the money set aside and or invested like they do in Norway) then it would be a whole lot less disturbing. Instead we have classically Canadian lack of planning. Just let the Americans or whomever come in and develop everything. The pictures coming out from the oil sands developments are extremely disturbing. All that poisoned water and all that land that looks like the side of the moon. What are Albertans going to do when the goo runs out and the oil companies leave? Who knows what effects that poisonous water will have on the general population (as if we can really believe the oil companies when they say everything will be okay)? I just wish, even if Alberta and Albertans didn't give anyone else in the country a cent, that at the very least they would look after their own backyard and not encourage Canada to become some sort of toxic waste dump just so they can earn a few ephemeral dollars. Is everyone asleep at the wheel?
  98. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: The Oil belongs to the Province????? The Province is the People. The Oil belongs to the People of Alberta. Please remember that the People have the Power. Yes, the People of Alberta should remember that they have a big responsibility. First of all, stop the tax incentives which even the recipients have said they no longer need. Then remember that there is an enormous waste of water. Then remember that the main beneficiaries of this - 'The world's greatest environmental crisis' - as described in the European Press, is giving the greatest benefit to the United States who continuously rob us in trade , the latest being softwood lumber. The world only trades with America at the present time when they cannot trade with someone else. The Asian market is contracting, the South American market is contracting, the European market is contracting. Only Canada, who must support the war in Iraq by its ships in the Gulf for refuelling the American aircraft, the special forces with several Generals in Iraq, and all the other auxiliary support we are giving them which is not publicized in the Canadian media. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STINK COMING OUT OF ALBERTA.
  99. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: For the people getting wound up about the 'environmental destruction' of Alberta, could you please try to pick up a sense of scale? For instance, about 20 km south of Ft. McMurray is Gregoire Lake Provincial Park. I haven't been there for a while, but I recall that the outdoor activities were great - swimming, canoeing, camping. Blue skies and fresh air. If this has changed for the worse, I'd like to see someone post with an update. Standing in that park you wouldn't know there was a large industrial development due north from it. I do recall seeing the Suncor's condensation plume from Ft. McMurray, and thanks to wind coming down the Athabasca River, you could smell the plant under certain weather conditions (the smell of money), but not so for Gregoire Lake (which is surrounded by forest). The oil sands developments pose a lot of challenges, but Alberta is a big place. Pick any community more than 100 km away (say, in Mariana Lakes) and you be hard pressed to know the oil sands were there. And as one poster mentioned, the oil does flow naturaly into the Athabasca River as it cuts through deposits near the surface. It's OK to be concerned, but please try to get a better understanding of what's going on. Too bad people didn't have the same sensibilities when Inco set up the big stack in Sudbury. It causes harm downwind, but does that stack and the mine around it spoil all of Ontario?
  100. Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Nick Wilson, Alberta does not even exist beyond its definition within the federal framework. 'Alberta's wealth' is ultimately Canada's wealth. Period. Then and now. If you think Alberta could ever - will ever - get away with enriching itself to Saudi proportions while the rest of Canada makes do with your potato peelings, thrown-out furniture and other wholesome scraps, then you're truly delusional.
  101. Not right or left from Canada writes: chris jenkins from Free the West, BC, Canada writes: 'All you Easterners hate Alberta but love to claim that it's resources are your own. Not so! How lucky you are that the Albertans you deride have been so overly generous with you. So far.'

    You got to remember that the oil won't be there forever. Whats Alberta going to do when the oil dries up?
  102. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: The Bubble - Only a tiny fraction of the oil sands has been developed. It'll be many decades before they're depleted. I really don't think Ft. Mac will be a mining ghost town anytime soon. Saskatchewan has at least the reserves of Alberta, but no infrastructure to exploit it, at the present. Tough to get labour & materials now, anyway.

    There's a saying: 'There's nothing to do in Alberta, except make money.' That's not entirely true, but it's still largely the case. For someone with a journeyman's ticket in a construction trade, you can make a LOT of money here. If someone is looking to get into an apprenticeship, it's easier to do here, than anyplace I've seen. There are apprentices here in their 50's and even a few in their 60's.

    For everyone back in ON that is outraged by the environmental issues in AB, I have two words for you: Hamilton Harbour. For the folks from Halifax and Victoria - still flushing your untreated sewage directly into the ocean? People who live in glass houses...
  103. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: For those of you interested in learning something about carbon capture try this link.
    http://www.carboncapturejournal.com/issues/CCJjan08web.pdf

    Sam Gallagher rites '....Ed and the rest of the rural hillbillies.

    As a joke, a former work colleague used to say that Rural Conservative voters 'also have sex with their mothers.' If only he knew how true that statement has turned out to be.'

    Why don't you get bucking Bronconier to do some planning for you?

    Price of oil in 1973 was about three times the price of wheat so today oil would sell for about $36/barrel and wheat is also at record prices.

    Farmers actually have to cope with weather (climate) and things like BSE on top of the usual business issues.

    After Ralph Klein's studied management of the Alberta economy it's going to take awhile to bring back a semblance of normalcy.

    Besides the government has to invest right along with industry as it will take a number of years to get infrastructure built and oil delivered to the market before the cash returns, maybe up to 10 years or more.
  104. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: Not right or left from Canada writes:

    'You got to remember that the oil won't be there forever. Whats Alberta going to do when the oil dries up? '
    .
    at the target production rate of 3 million barrels / day the oil sands will be 10% depleted in 300 years.

    i think by the time the ' oil dries up' we will all be happy , wealthy and , hopefully , independent...
    .
    .
    www.freealberta.com=www.republicofalberta.com=www.seperationalberta.com
  105. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: This has got me reminiscing about times spent at Gregoire Lake. It was a good way to spend a weekend if you could get a spot, but it wasn't perfect - the black flies and mosquitoes were pretty intense.
  106. Not right or left from Canada writes: 'at the target production rate of 3 million barrels / day the oil sands will be 10% depleted in 300 years.

    i think by the time the ' oil dries up' we will all be happy , wealthy and , hopefully , independent...'
    .
    .
    www.freealberta.com=www.republicofalberta.com=www.seperationalberta.com

    In your dreams. You really think Alberta will be independent? Quebec has a better chance of independence than Alberta and I don't think Quebec will ever be independent either. It amazes me what money will do to peoples heads. How many people from Alberta are transplants from the rest of Canada? Do you think these people would vote for independence?
  107. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Nick Wilson, Alberta does not even exist beyond its definition within the federal framework. 'Alberta's wealth' is ultimately Canada's wealth. Period. Then and now. If you think Alberta could ever - will ever - get away with enriching itself to Saudi proportions while the rest of Canada makes do with your potato peelings, thrown-out furniture and other wholesome scraps, then you're truly delusional.

    The shoe was largely on the other foot during the NEP. I don't know that you could blame the whole economic collapse here on it, but it was certainly a big part of economic woe that befell AB during that time. I didn't live here then, but many (and I mean MANY) people who did remember it very clearly. Kinda of a 'sore point', to say the least.

    There seems to be enough here for all those interested in showing up and working for it. Why threaten to come 'goose stepping' in?
  108. Zando Lee from Vancouver, Canada writes: ....here's how will it affect Alberta?....it will destroy a pristine area the size of Vancouver Island...replete with dead lakes, animals and people.....that's the price one has to pay....
  109. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: The Oil belongs to the Province????? The Province is the People. The Oil belongs to the People of Alberta. Please remember that the People have the Power. WAKE UP AND SMELL THE STINK COMING OUT OF ALBERTA. Yes, it belongs to Albertans. Albertans vote, and the result of the votes indicate that there is still a MAJORITY who believe in the Conservative party. There is no viable alternative in this province. If there was, we would certainly look at it. The 'stink coming from Alberta'. This is quite a statement. Being located in a septic pond just outside of Toronto, your olfactory prowess is quite an achievement. Are you sure it's not just the smell of the years of smugness spewing from your province to the 'little children of confederation'? Here's a tip: If you need to really understand what you are talking about, then go and see it firsthand. If you feel that is too much of a burden, then try and comment on something you actually know about. As with the rest of the non-Albertans commenting, basically if you don't live in Alberta, then sit back and shut up. We are working on solutions, and don't really care what the hell your opinions are. Lots of intelligent people working on reducing pollution, so why don't you try something in your own backyard first. If it works, we'll buy it from you.
  110. The Bubble from Canada writes: The article states the oil will only last about fifty years with the projects due to come on stream. Many decades is only five decades. That gives your kids enough time to grow to about fifty and then have to move, grandkids? forget about them, there will be nothing left. The way the oil companies have set up the camps, they don't look like they are very assured that there will be long term sustainability. If we have used ten percent of the sands and polluted ten percent of what will come, in fifty years there will be nothing but pollution left. Independence may sound fine but it'll be a pretty dirty place up there by then so who would want to live there?
    The rest of the country has it's pollution problems but this is no excuse to have the biggest pollution problem.
  111. Joseph T from Victoria, Canada writes: Alberta is fast becoming Canada's biggest toxic waste dump. The environment is polluted. Enormous quantity of water is being used for the oil sands. Hydrocarbon contanmination of the water supply there is rampant. Alberta the new China.
  112. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: Not right or left from Canada writes:
    'In your dreams. You really think Alberta will be independent?'

    -------citing the ctv website--------

    At least one-third of Western Canadians think it's time for their provinces to consider quitting Canada, a new poll suggests.

    The survey was commissioned by Western Standard magazine, a right-leaning bimonthly news and opinion magazine founded in 2004 by Ezra Levant, a former Reform Party and Alliance Party activist.

    The magazine's survey found that 35.6 per cent of respondents from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia agreed that 'Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country.'

    The poll claims that Albertans, at 42 per cent, were most likely to consider independence, followed by Saskatchewan at 31.9 per cent.
    .
    .not yet perhaps ............
    www.freealberta.com=www.republicofalberta.com=www.seperationalberta.com
  113. The Bubble from Canada writes: The only people who would be angry are the ones directly benefitting from getting as much out of the ground as possible. Albertans who own farms, natives, tradesmen etc. they will still make money. Ontario doesn't want all of your money or oil, it's better for Alberta to slow down, shave a bit more from the big oil companies to keep the revenues the same and develop their province into a place that is liveable. The oil companies need the oil sands so they might stamp around a bit but in the end there is nothing they can do.
  114. S Boatright from Canada writes: Wow - this sure stirred up the hornet's nest of environmentalists. :)

    I've lived in Alberta all my life and I concur with James P from Spruce Grove. We Albertans love our province. We will do our best to take care of it. Because we've lived through the NEP we will be very protective of our provincial jurisdictions - just as we respect other province's rights to make decisions on those matters that are within their provincial rights. We'll continue to honor our responsibilities to Canada by contributing to the nation both financially and philosophically - and happily doing so. How many of the naysayers realize that several times Alberta provided low interest loans to other provinces from the Heritage Savings Fund?

    As James said - we're not perfect - but then who really is?
  115. Not right or left from Canada writes: ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: 'At least one-third of Western Canadians think it's time for their provinces to consider quitting Canada, a new poll suggests.

    The survey was commissioned by Western Standard magazine, a right-leaning bimonthly news and opinion magazine founded in 2004 by Ezra Levant, a former Reform Party and Alliance Party activist.

    liThe magazine's survey found that 35.6 per cent of respondents from Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia agreed that 'Western Canadians should begin to explore the idea of forming their own country.'

    The poll claims that Albertans, at 42 per cent, were most likely to consider independence, followed by Saskatchewan at 31.9 per cent.'

    If only 42% want Alberta to seperate now when the money is rolling in than what's going to happen if the price of oil crashes? Can Alberta support itself without oil money? When I lived in Alberta it wasn't that rich. The price of a barrel of oil was below $20 than. What happens if oil drops to these prices again? Sorry to burst your bubble but the map of Canada you see now will be the map of Canada 50 years from now.
  116. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Bubble - 'The rest of the country has it's pollution problems but this is no excuse to have the biggest pollution problem.'

    The biggest problem tends very much to go hand in hand with the biggest industry. It's like the folks who like to throw stones at the coal fired Nanticoke generating station in ON. 'It's the largest single source of pollution...' That's true, as far as it goes. It's also quite possibly still the single largest coal fired generation plant in the world. You could have 2 or 4 smaller coal fired plants, generating the same amount of power, that wouldn't be on that same radar screen.

    If the oil is gone in 50 years, than that's that. It'll be the same at that point as it is in southern ON now. The manufacturing industry that employed generations of people is coming to an end. The young people will drift to where the work is. T'was ever thus.
  117. Travlaki Souvlaki from Vancouver, Canada writes: Alberta will never cease to amaze and frustrate. Never in the history of mankind has a people with so much been capable of bitching about it so relentlessly.
  118. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Not right or left from Canada writes: '... How many people from Alberta are transplants from the rest of Canada? Do you think these people would vote for independence?' NROLFC, you have a good point, but you have to consider something else. Canada's natural governing party is the LPC. People in Central Canada and a few other places traditionally vote for this party. When they do, the federal government is 'Their' government. It's an important connection to make. OK, so you move to Alberta from Central Canada - because you have a desire for self improvement and a few marketable skills (a can-do sort of person if you will). In Alberta, you are surrounded by like-minded people and you may end up wanting a Conservative federal government for a change. Only problem is, Conservatives don't often run the country, and there aren't enough voters in Alberta to really influence the situation. Then the federal government can end up being 'Not my government', and an us and them mentality takes hold. A LPC government is elected by people with different sensibilities. At least for me, it was an eye-opener and a new experience to live somewhere where my federal vote didn't count. Don't be so sure that the Alberta newcomers wouldn't vote for separation if their frustration level got too high. People migrating there have many things in common with the long standing locals and are quite likely to think the same way. Now if we could do something about their latent hatred for people from Ontario, and maybe the weather, it would be a great place to live.
  119. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: How many people here have actually taken the public tours of the facilities up there? Or how many of you have accessed the environmental impact statements on the companies websites? Or do you just take the lazy approach that most media does and quote 1 or 2 pembina reports.... Perhaps they could have actually talked to the operators to get some real information.... maybe even taken the tours... There is nowhere in Canada that has the amount of environmental studies and monitoring going on. Typically a large application is reviewed for at least a year prior to receiving approval. The review takes place by Alberta Environment, the ERCB, DFO etc. it is not just a mad staking rush..
  120. Unrepentant Outdoorsman from Dominican Republic writes: Oh boy, the voice of environmental social conscious is busy, busy, busy today. New board on Alberta, whoopee! No sense getting anything productive done now, got to find new friends. Robert, if that is your real name, do you know how easy it is to put any name on here and say that it's your actual name? Do you think that my name might be Robert Miller? Could be, no way of telling, eh? So here you are, one day espousing old Danny W., about how he's the man for doing things for his province, his people, in his own way without regard to what the rest of Canada thinks, then, at the drop of a hat, go on to tell us how bad those Albertans and their Premier are because they're doing the same thing. How was that bus ride, Robert? Hows those lovely little tar ponds, and poorly reclaimed old coal mines doing? How does that old saying go, clean up your own yard before complaining about others!
  121. Bob Van Derlay from Canada writes: Joe Blow - Here is the math as requested. Most future oil sand processing will likely use little or no natural gas. That relationship is a feature of current plants.
  122. Uncle Fester from Upper Canada, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: 'The article states the oil will only last about fifty years with the projects due to come on stream. '.....No Bubble, that is not what it said, current projects will increase production from the curent 1m bbl per day to 3m bbl per day. That is about a billion parrels per year when all planned projects come on stream. Todays conservative figures put about 175 billion in reserves. That is 175 years of production NOT 50 years. The article stated that the current 175 bbbl reserves would serve current american consumption for about 50 years. You must also consider that the world is moving toward alternative fuels in that time frame.
  123. Not right or left from Canada writes: Woody Forrest trust me I know how it feels to not be heard by the federal government. I lived in New Brunswick and Alberta in my life and it seems like both provinces have no voice in the federal government. Ontario and Quebec have most of the seats which is unfair. Separation is not the answer though. I know it may sound good but you have to think about the future.
  124. The Bubble from Canada writes: Why would anyone say that 'If the oil is gone in 50 years, than that's that.' Only someone who is there for the short term would say that. Can't Albertans see the oil is finite and will run out? What about the future of Alberta? Manufacturing in Ontario is overhauling, there will always be some new crap to build, but when the oil runs out, Alberta will have to do something, the money that is being pumped in should be used to build some kind of tertiary industry not simply spent. I don't get it, this latent hatred of the east simply makes no sense, why would you simply want to make and spend tons of money and have nothing to show for it later? I'm sure some people out there have kids and would like them to have a future.
  125. L. van Dyk from Canada writes: I've lived in Ontario and I've lived in Alberta, and the only complaint about Ottawa from Alberta that I understood was from the farmers having to pay for shipping grain to the provincial grain monopolies while at the same time paying to have products shipped to them.

    Other than that I could never understand what Ontario had that Alberta lacked except large crowds everywhere.

    The NEP didn't get off the ground, though it was tried. Albertans can be greedy too- look at the rents in Ft. MacMurray

    It seems to me that whoever benefits from the oil revenue has to pay for cleaning up any mess. I hope they do. I've seen people hide things that shouldn't be hidden, but I guess that's people, not east-west.
    I've seen that everywhere.
  126. Unrepentant Outdoorsman from Dominican Republic writes: Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Nick Wilson, Alberta does not even exist beyond its definition within the federal framework.
    Same can be said for any Province, or Country for that matter. Rebel, why don't you tell us about the 9 Billion dollar gift the EU gave to the power companies in the form of free carbon credits, credits these same companies used to charge full price for to their customers in the form of additional costs on their heating and electric bills. Carbon trading equals fraud! Heck, they even get to increase their actual emissions output over the next three years at no penalty. What's that new term they have in Europe, now? Power or Energy Poverty, something like 35 percent. Care to elaborate on this?
  127. Uncle Fester from Upper Canada, Canada writes: Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: How many people here have actually taken the public tours of the facilities up there? Or how many of you have accessed the environmental impact statements on the companies websites? ....I have been up there many times Cardium, I have driven down in the mines in a pickup truck around those big dump trucks, I have worked on the Syncrude plant site and spend many hours talking with designers building the place (one of which I once was). The place is not the mess that the G&M likes to poprtray. Sure there are huge moungains of tailings, just like at mine sites all over Ontario, and some pretty big darn piles of sulphur. However the mined areas which are stripped to extract the bitumen are returned to rolling hills, grasslands and forests. Water consumption in the Athabasca is heavily controlled and currently stands at less than 1 percent of the current flow. Readers are fed what they are willing to pay to believe.
  128. Jeremy F from Alberta, Canada writes: I thought we had enough crude to supply the U.S for a century as reported on CBS 60 minutes? Also, I heard that we have more bigger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia??

    I'm confused.

    Well anyways, I'm young and I live in Northern Alberta, but no way in hell will you find me working on one of those camps. I would rather make half the money to live my life then make twice the money to live no life. But hell, each to his own I suppose.
  129. The Bubble from Canada writes: There's a lot of oil. I'm not even talking from an environmental point of view, I'm saying that given the lifestyles that are being created by such a rush of needed labor, and I suppose the pollution, the fact that Alberta doesn't need the cash, why would the province not work to control the situation to make sure the reserves last, keep their pollution down, steady revenue and create a lifestyle that is good for the workers of the industry instead of having them live in trailers and having to be away from their families and not having amenities? I could care less if you shut off the oil to Ontario, I stopped driving and my house is natural gas heated. Why doesn't the people of Alberta demand their government get control of the situation, this can't be bad for Alberta.
  130. Uncle Fester from Upper Canada, Canada writes: Jeremy F from Alberta, Canada writes: I thought we had enough crude to supply the U.S for a century as reported on CBS 60 minutes? Also, I heard that we have more bigger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia??.......170 billion in reserves is the official, published proven reserves number by the Alberta Government. The actual reserves could easily be double that. Those numbers contuinue to rise as exploration goes on. Alberta very likely has far more oil than anyone can imagine.
  131. Unrepentant Outdoorsman from Dominican Republic writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: The only people who would be angry are the ones directly benefitting from getting as much out of the ground as possible. Albertans who own farms, natives, tradesmen etc. they will still make money. Ontario doesn't want all of your money or oil, it's better for Alberta to slow down, shave a bit more from the big oil companies to keep the revenues the same and develop their province into a place that is liveable. The oil companies need the oil sands so they might stamp around a bit but in the end there is nothing they can do.

    That is actually what is happening right now, as we speak. Expansion requires manpower, materials, and approval. Approvals are so backlogged, it's taking twice as long to reach the approval stage than it did before. Materials do not appear out of thin air. Machine shops, engineers, and fabrication facilities are all out, non-stop, and cannot keep pace with the demand for even more materials. Translation, cost over runs and delays. Now the most basic element, manpower, is grinding to a halt as Saskatchewan and NFld bring their industries on line. Where would you rater work; home or away? So there even more pressure on obtaining the trades and labor to even build what's in the pipe right now. Development has reached critical mass, the announcement of new production facilities may occur, but the chances of them coming on stream in less than 10 years is almost nil, so in a sense, a slow down is already occurring in the overall development. Makes me chuckle hardily when I hear of American desires to see our production increase to 5 million bpd. They must be incorporating the same pixie dust into their planning that those on the more extreme side of the environmental debate have been using.
  132. Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes: As mature Democracy Canada able to deal with pollution. We need people on both sides of spectrum to duke it out. We need enviros voices to keep us honest, and we need greedy capitalists who would put their own money on line to make Canada a major oil supplier of hydrocarbons in the world. I understand that environmental impact on Alberta landscape is very present and visible. But if the same thing would happen in China for example, it would be very very dirty. We need balance. Canada is emerging as a World Energy Superpower, we have to accept it and act responsibly. Signing Kyoto was very irresponsible and nearsighted act.
  133. Uncle Fester from Upper Canada, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: There's a lot of oil. I'm not even talking from an environmental point of view, I'm saying that given the lifestyles that are being created by such a rush of needed labor, and I suppose the pollution, the fact that Alberta doesn't need the cash, why would the province not work to control the situation to make sure the reserves last, keep their pollution down, steady revenue and create a lifestyle that is good for the workers of the industry instead of having them live in trailers and having to be away from their families and not having amenities? I could care less if you shut off the oil to Ontario, I stopped driving and my house is natural gas heated. Why doesn't the people of Alberta demand their government get control of the situation, this can't be bad for Alberta.'.......Greed Bubble, big housed, SUV, fifth wheel sucking, new money greed.
  134. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Bubble - A huge chunk of the construction work in AB has always involved 'camp jobs'. Several thousand guys showing up for a year or two for a given plant construction job would simply overwhelm most small towns. It would be hard to recruit labour without offering room & board. Camp jobs have been the norm here for decades.

    As far as not using oil, and that you heat with gas, you do realize that AB wells deliver huge amounts of natural gas to the North American supply, right? Further, ON has a couple of large natural gas fired electrical generation plants coming on line in the very near future. AB gas is a lot more important than many people in ON realize. I think that once those plants start-up, you should expect your gas bill to start climbing - along with your electricity rates.

    L. van Dyk from Canada writes: Albertans can be greedy too- look at the rents in Ft. MacMurray.

    I would put the rent issue in Ft Mac into the 'supply & demand' category. If the supply exceeds the demand for some product or service, the price falls. My understanding of the situation in Ft Mac is that the infrastructure for the city - municipal water, sewage treatment, electrical power supply - are pretty much maxed out. If you can't build more housing, and people keep coming, then demand outstrips supply, and prices rise.

    I guess the bottom line is, that if you don't like the rents - or anything else about Ft Mac - then don't go there.
  135. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Whether Albertans care to acknowledge it or not, the Federal gov't. has been pouring billions of Canadian taxpayers dollars into the oil sands projects for decades. Back when cheaper oil was readily available from many sources, the Feds, beginning with the TRUDEAU LIBERAL FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, have been subsidizing oil sand RandD through pilot projects and tax breaks to big oil. Long before $100/barrel oil prices were thought plausible, the Feds invested in the oilsands in the hopes of one day getting production costs to below, I believe, $40/barrel in the hopes that someday the oil sands would become profitable. Lo and behold, now that oil is in the $90-100/barrel and the oil sands is raking in the profits/royalties, many Albertans act like they pulled this windfall out of their own a$$e$, that the Feds have been unfair to them for eons, and that helping Ontario land the latest Ford plant is some sort of abuse of taxpayers $. Clearly, much of Canada's economic clout has and will be shiftinf westward to Alberta in the years to come. For the country's sake, let's hope Albertans and their gov't. are as willing to look at the big picture as Ontarians and their gov't. have for decades. At some point, Alberta's embarassment of riches would, you would hope, stop them from playing the victim of confederation. Bring back Loughheed.
  136. S Boatright from Canada writes: L. van Dyk from Canada writes: 'It seems to me that whoever benefits from the oil revenue has to pay for cleaning up any mess. '

    Remove one word from your statement - and it takes on a whole new meaning.

    'It seems to me that whoever benefits from the oil has to pay for cleaning up any mess.'

    Because, in the end, those who want it - will end up paying for the cost of clean up. And that isn't a bad thing, in my mind. It's a great incentive for conserving and reducing consumption.
  137. S Boatright from Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC - I'd like to see that facts that back up your allegations that the federal government has been pouring billions into oil sands projects.

    Seriously - please provide them.
  138. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Tim Rutkevich from Canada writes 'I understand that environmental impact on Alberta landscape is very present and visible. But if the same thing would happen in China for example, it would be very very dirty. We need balance.'

    China is industrializing at a fantastic rate. The situation there IS far, FAR worse than anything in AB. Everybody who lives in Canada has a vast number of products of China in their homes, cars, and workplaces right now - including all of the folks busy kicking around 'dirty Alberta'. Many of those same products USED to be made in southern ON - where I lived most of my life. Now they're coming from Chinese plants that get their electric power from coal fired plants that are coming on line at the rate of one a week. I guess if you can't actually see the smokestacks in Canada, then somehow the pollution doesn't exist. I believe the correct term for vast majority of the would-be environmentalists posting here slagging AB would be 'hypocrites'.
  139. The Bubble from Canada writes: Tony Connor, what's your point? I've met a few guys who lived in camps and in the early eighties some of my friends went from eastern ontario to Fox Creek to work for the gas plants. I stomped around Alberta in the early eighties. I know this place and what it's like, the stories of fights in the bars etc are still passed around when we get together. If it's been like this for decades as far as living in camps, why would the government allow it to continue, who wants to live like this, in a trailer with a bunch of guys making love to their socks every night?
    Chances are we won't get all the oil out of the sands before global warming becomes even more deadly and we'll have to stop anyway.
  140. The Bubble from Canada writes: Connor, you're right about the environmentalists, my point is Alberta needs to fix it's quality of life and not let the industry force the province into such sub human living conditions.
  141. We Are Far Greater Than Barney Fife Mayberry Peacekeeper from Ottawa, Canada writes:
    If Ontario's economy is a Rosebush Alberta's is a towering California Red Wood. And in ten years time Alberta's growing population and continued prosperity will place it at the centre of political power. Liberalism may never be restored to the once impregnatable fortress of the past thirty years.
  142. Allan Simonson from Canada writes: Wow, lots of Dion 'Izzy money' cheerleaders here.

    Everyone here has an opportunity to work in the oilsands, and to invest in the corporations.

    You guys act as if 'huge corporate profits' somehow disappear from the economy, going to one guy at the top.
  143. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Whether Albertans care to acknowledge it or not, the Federal gov't. has been pouring billions of Canadian taxpayers dollars into the oil sands projects for decades.

    Your fulla crap.

    The Patch has been getting tax breaks. Tax is not something you or Ottawa should be setting your budgets on anyways.

    Please provide a link that states actual monies coming from Ottawa.
  144. Mike Quinlan from Gatineau QC, Canada writes: Is it my knowledge of Canadian History that is flawed? I thought that Alberta didn't exist at the time of confederation. As for seperating from this country and formenting a little rebellion, seems to me that was tried by Louis Riel. In fact, Alberta's provincial status and bounderies were conferred by Wifrid Laurier only on Sept 1, 1905.
    Let's also remember that that fateful day would never have happened if the Trans-Canada railway had not been built prior. Trick question, how many investment dollars for it came from the 'Albertans' at the time?. Answer, not many. Moreover, many settlers in the province of European descent were subsidized in some fashion by the federal government, and lets not forget the great claim of the RCMP that it established law and order in what was the wild west. What is with this weird human tendency to forget and to discount the ealier contribution of others to one's present day successes.
  145. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: S Boatright(11:50): Are you serious? If you are, I hope to god you aren't more than 20-25 years old. I'm no computer serfing wiz, just look up the Federal budgets since the OPEC oil embargo of the early 70's. Just google it pal and, if you are sincerely ignorant of this, brace yourself, your illusions are about to be shattered.
  146. OilerFan in FortMac from Canada writes: 'The Bubble from Canada writes: I don't know why it can't be slowed down a little at least so the place could civilize a little. There's too much room for charlatans in this kind of environment. I know a guy that went out west and was going to start a carpentry business, I worked a day with him and thought he was going to kill me sooner or later he was so wreckless on the job. This is what Albertans have to watch out for. ...'
    ---------------------------

    You are right, the one thing that isn't given much attention with the rapid development is the lack of quality workers who know what they're doing, have the experience. This not only applies to the construction workers building the plants, but the many new engineers and plant operators (including immigrant engineers/trades) working as permanent employees.
    Very green people are on the increase up here, the companies don't seem to have much choice with them as probably more than 50% of the best talent that was up here 5-15 yrs ago, if they haven't retired, they have left Ft Mac for Calgary. This shift in HR talent is now noticable. If a big accident ever happens, don't be surprised that worker inexperience was a major factor.
  147. Uncle Fester from Upper Canada, Canada writes: We Are Far Greater Than Barney Fife Mayberry Peacekeeper from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'If Ontario's economy is a Rosebush Alberta's is a towering California Red Wood. And in ten years time Alberta's growing population and continued prosperity will place it at the centre of political power. Liberalism may never be restored to the once impregnatable fortress of the past thirty years'.........In 10 years Alberta's total population will be still far less than the GTA's....governments are established through votes.......You go girl!
  148. Watcher of the skies from Montreal, Canada writes: Has anyone figured the cost of cleaning up that mess?
  149. liz mitchell from Canada writes: Four millions barrels a day. Impressive. Let's see, that equates to somewhere between eight and sixteen million barrels of toxic water a day, doesn't it? Let's hope they can improve on that and reduce the poisoned water output to perhaps a reasonable million barrels of toxin per day. It never ceases to amaze how quickly money can cloud our judgement.
  150. T TFD from Canada writes: Disturbs me to see some Westerners now holding this resource over the rest of the country's head, thinly veiled threats of separation etc, poor form given our history.

    and
    --
    Suncor Energy Inc., partly owned by the Ontario government, had started first, along a stretch of the Athabasca River in 1967. 'No other event in Canada's centennial year is more important,' Alberta premier Ernest Manning declared on opening day.
    --
    Looks like Ontario had more faith in you than you yourselves did at one time.
  151. globe mail from Toronto, Canada writes: A few decades ago, this would have been dystopian science fiction. Will anything more than a fraction of tar sand profits be used to clean up this monumental, unprecedented land rape? Or will it be a typical get-in, get-out, fly to Mexico routine? Who is accountable for the (seemingly irreversible) mess?
  152. The Bubble from Canada writes: The last few posters here seem very angry but the anger has no basis. Even if the whole country voted conservative, there would be more politicians from eastern canada. What would Alberta get for all it's power that it wants. It seems at this point all that the conservatives want to do is restore old world values of religion and erase the border on the 49th parallel. Do Albertans really simply want to exact revenge on Eastern Canada? Is this the be all and end all of the reason you are all so needing Harper in power, for revenge? What would Albertans do if they had all the power? Force people to work in camps for the oil industry? The hatred seems to be fomented by possible plants on this post for the oil industry to keep the hatred alive, it makes no real sense.
  153. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes:

    'For the country's sake, let's hope Albertans and their gov't. are as willing to look at the big picture as Ontarians and their gov't. have for decades.'
    .
    .
    different situation. ontario is a square peg in a square hole . left wing , liberal , passive , socialists setting national agendas and electing national governments as they saw fit.

    Albertans are the round pegs of the canadian ' square peg' confederation . right wing , conservative , independent and unable to identify with the 'foreigners' outside our borders.
    .
    ontario ' looked at the big picture' because it was is its best interests to do so .

    not so with aAberta. $12 billion lost each and every year by Alberta to eastern interests interests via the asymmetric taxation of equalization.....
    time for change????
    www.freealberta.com www.republicofalberta.com
  154. T TFD from Canada writes: Bubble, I agree....it's disturbing to see the divisiveness being promoted here, that's not Canada....I never liked the Quebec separation or the 'special' treatment they got, but they're my fellow Canadians, just like my buddy who lives in Calgary or my extended family in BC.

    To see this anger you refer to is dis-heartening, and to have it perhaps inflamed by corporate or political political interests for their own gain is sickening.
  155. The Bubble from Canada writes: ralph klein, would you be happier not giving any money to confederation?
  156. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: ralph klein, would you be happier not giving any money to confederation?
    .
    .
    .much
    .
    . tens of thousands of Alberta jobs lie unfilled while hundreds of thousands of easterners collect UIC...........

    that aint no way to run a country
  157. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Bob Durant(12:10): The Federal gov't. wanted to make the oilsands oil profitable at, I'm not exactly sure, about $40/barrel. (Still pretty darn farsighted when oil was less than $10/B at the time.) They gave big oil big tax breaks to provide incentives for them to continue to undertake research and development aimed at lowering the cost of extracting oil from the oil sands. They also provided tax breaks and equity in large pilot projects that applied these techniques. Have you never heard of Syncrude? Petrocan, which way back when, was owned by the feds, also took part in these projects, albeit as a minor partner. Despite your snarl to the contrary, when a government provides tax breaks to economic players in order to get them to undertake economic activity that would otherwise be too uneconomical to be undertaken, that is a subsidy. It doesn't matter whether the gov't is giving a company new money or simply not collecting the taxes it would have, the company is still being 'paid' to undndertake an activity they otherwise wouldn't have. As I just posted, I'm no internet trolling wiz, but if you are sincerely looking for proof, google it. And while you're at it, check out the Federal Gov't policy that forced Ontario to buy Albertan oil way back when it was more expensive than international oil.
  158. The Bubble from Canada writes: I've been watching this site for six months now and the pattern of evidence supports a few individuals taking Canadians for suckers and fanning old flames of discontent.
    Trudeau, really, thirty years ago and you still foam with hatred, that can't be real.
    I doubt BC would want out of the country. Quebec's language would die a hard death on it's own. Nothing is perfect, but I sure would hate to keep sliding into this mess of Americanism, the war, the violence. I remember how I felt when I was a kid watching The Forest Rangers on CBC on an old black and white tv. I remember seeing even Johnny Winter scolding the audience in Ottawa to 'keep what you got' during the NAFTA negotiations. Our politicians have let the country slide. I've been so busy for the last twenty five years with kids and work, I never noticed how much the country has grown apart.
  159. The Bubble from Canada writes: so ralph klien, you don't want to have to pay taxes to Canada, think hundreds of thousands here are on pogey, have so much hatred for us, but want us to come out there and work? Am I reading this right?
  160. MARK S from Calgary, Canada writes: The Bubble is an an American Draft Dodger.
  161. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Ralph Klein(12:27): I'm talking about way more than Federal Equalization my friend. With few exceptions, BC has been paying them for years.(Ontario even more consistently). But noone is talking about economic and political clout moving out here to BC.
  162. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: Thanks Bubble. Now I've got the Forest Rangers theme song stuck in my head :)
  163. Byron Rottweiler from Canada writes: A couple of perceptual distortions have appeared in the article and on this forum:

    1) that objections or skepticism to oilsands development come exclusively from 'environmentalists' - presumably some type of mythical, wild-eyed creatures who know nothing, and should be ignored.
    This subtle labeling is nothing more than an attempt to dismiss criticism as invalid - apparently the righteousness of the oilsands development is a matter of faith for many people.

    2) that the 175 billion barrels of extractable oil will be a meaningful replacement for the US market. Even at 3 million barrels per day output (projected), which is arguably not sustainable (see fresh water use, natural gas use, emissions, etc..) if sold exclusively to the US - with no internal consumption in Canada - it would only account for about 14% of current US consumption.
    In other words, it can never replace conventional crude oil. Meanwhile, the EROEI (net energy return) is dismally low, meaning as conventional oil and gas sources dwindle, Synthetic Crude will become LESS feasable to produce, not more so.

    There is nothing that will alter these simple truths, and oilsands will never be the magic bullet for world energy supply that the hype claims. You can count on it.

    Meanwhile, lots of money will be made in this industry, no question. The real price will be paid by future citizens of the world.
  164. T TFD from Canada writes: So do you think given the oil corporations great track record on environmental concerns (lol) that a watchful eye must be kept to prevent Alberta from becoming a toxic wasteland that produces oil and elevated cancer rates and a barren landscape? Will the associated increase in health care costs then be shouldered by the rest of Canadians as well, I mean I don't have a problem with my taxes taking care of the less fortunate, but a cautious approach to this would be wise. Unfortunately corporate profits usually trump common sense.
  165. Allan Simonson from Canada writes: What 'price' is that?
  166. The Bubble from Canada writes: I was born in Eastern Ontario, I've been to the states twice and I've never been to any other country. I've lived all over Canada however.
    I've been to Seattle once to go shopping and I was in A Bay in New York once to get drunk on Ezra Brookes sippin whishky, I drank it because I'd never seen a bottle of whishky with a cork in the top before. The guy I was drinking with fell asleep in his chair and rolled into the bonfire.
    I'm definitely Canadian.
  167. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: so ralph klien, you don't want to have to pay taxes to Canada, think hundreds of thousands here are on pogey, have so much hatred for us, but want us to come out there and work? Am I reading this right?
    .
    if ya want my money , come on out and put in a days work . i'll pay ya well . if ya want to stay put , stay put- but dont expect ta keep cashing my checks.
    .
    as for hating the east- i never have . you are no different to me than belgium , cyprus or bhutan.... a foreign nation with different politics , policies , hopes and dreams.

    i would object to my tax dollars building schools in brussels or roads in thimphu and i object to them being used for those same reasons in your towns when they could be used for those same purposes in Calgary..........
  168. Not right or left from Canada writes: ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: 'different situation. ontario is a square peg in a square hole . left wing , liberal , passive , socialists setting national agendas and electing national governments as they saw fit.

    Albertans are the round pegs of the canadian ' square peg' confederation . right wing , conservative , independent and unable to identify with the 'foreigners' outside our borders.
    .
    ontario ' looked at the big picture' because it was is its best interests to do so .

    not so with aAberta. $12 billion lost each and every year by Alberta to eastern interests interests via the asymmetric taxation of equalization.....
    time for change????'

    I lived in Alberta at one time and the people there are no different than most people in Canada. I don't know what part of Alberta you live in but it sounds different from where I lived. I lived in Whitecourt at one time and I also lived in Red Deer.
  169. L Harder from Canada writes: I've learned a long time ago to distrust corporate propaganda when money is involved. Just consider the efforts of tobacco when listening to oil mouth pieces.

    I doubt the costs of environmental damage has been considered. Companies will simply walk away if forced to clean up what they destroyed and Albertans will be left with a wasteland. The environmental steps taken thus far (reusing water) were taken because water is a limiting factor to production. I have to apologize in advance Alberta but I applaud California's measure. It means that oil sands is an becoming an embarrassment and your provincial government is doing very little about it.

    Meanwhile I drive a piece of crap waiting for an electric car to become available, am researching how to utilize solar space and water heating on my house, and some grid tied wind generators on a country place. The less money I give to these environmental parasites and their hangers on, the better.
  170. T TFD from Canada writes: Ralphie, it sounds like you're advocating some sort of country named Alberta. I also get the feeling you have no clue of the complexities of what you're talking about.
  171. The Bubble from Canada writes: ralph klien sounds like someone trying to sound like a Canadian.
  172. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: While I'm at it, when Alberta became a province, underground resources under Federal jurisdiction. Years later, Alberta, and other provinces of course, were 'granted' jurisdiction of below surface mineral rights. One main reason was to make you guys economically viable. However, coastal provinces were screwed over because undersea mineral rights off their coasts were not 'granted' to them. Now we see NL, and others, in the unenviable position of having to go 'cap in hand' to the Feds in order to keep some of the royalties from oil extraction off their own coasts. If Albertans feel long suffering now, imagine how you would feel in NL's position. It could have be you.
  173. Able Bodied Man from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: ... I drank it because I'd never seen a bottle of whishky with a cork in the top before. The guy I was drinking with fell asleep in his chair and rolled into the bonfire.
    I'm definitely Canadian.
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Out here we either pull the cork out of the bottle with our teeth and throw the cork away, or swack the whole dang top off - cork and all - with a gun barrel. It's called ' Peace River drinkin' ' and ya cain't beat it it fer economy of time.
  174. Not right or left from Canada writes: Ralphie is just letting the money get to his fat head. He thinks anyone who lives outside the borders of Alberta is somehow different than him. I don't know if you know this Ralph but most Canadians came from the same place. Comparing different parts of Canada to completely different countries is moronic. Alberta wasn't even a Province before confederation. Why don't you leave Canada if you hate it so bad and yes Alberta is a part of Canada. It doesn't matter if you like it or not.
  175. The Bubble from Canada writes: I looked into the wind generators Crappy Tire is selling but two years ago to set up it would have been several thousand dollars. These types of companies should be supported with tax incentives to make them viable. They're pretty cool actually and you hook up a box under the kitchen counter to plug in appliances. There's a series of batteries to store the electricity. It actually looks pretty simple, like a car generator.
  176. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: After reading Ralph Klein from wild rose country(12:50), I think this is Steven Harper's pseudonym. How do you feel about firewalls 'Ralph'?
  177. Uncle Fester from Upper Canada, Canada writes: T TFD from Canada writes: So do you think given the oil corporations great track record on environmental concerns (lol) that a watchful eye must be kept to prevent Alberta from becoming a toxic wasteland that produces oil and elevated cancer rates and a barren landscape? Will the associated increase in health care costs then be shouldered by the rest of Canadians as well, I mean I don't have a problem with my taxes taking care of the less fortunate, but a cautious approach to this would be wise. Unfortunately corporate profits usually trump common sense......... Greed trumps common sense, greed us universal. Last I saw the air pollution in Calgary and Edmonton are non existant, whereas here in the GTA we have daily health warnings in the summer. I am sure the ROC has more of a case to resent funding treatment for our high cancer and pulmonary disease rates.
  178. The Bubble from Canada writes: end result is the same, I'm always a little put off when the guns come out with the liquor. I can tell you're Canadian too.
  179. Able Bodied Man from Canada writes:
    When conventional oil was being developed in Alberta in the 1940s or so, oil people approached the banks -- headquartered of course in Toronto / Montreal -- and the banks weren't much interested in financing the oil boom so Alberta turned to the US and got development money.

    When Trudeau and his centrist thugs tried their resources grab in order to keep western Canada a colony of the TOM (Toronto-Ottawa-Monteal axis) it showed the Centre's disdain for the rest of Canada.

    Eastern Canada still imports much oil from overseas instead of from the West. Confederation cannot continue to be only on Ontario's or Quebec's terms.
  180. T TFD from Canada writes: Uncle Fester from Upper Canada, Canada,

    Was it not apparent I was referring to long-term and immediate? I guess the word 'becoming' doesn't hold the meaning I thought it did, lol.
  181. T TFD from Canada writes: sorry, I meant 'referring to long-term and not immediate or current conditions.'
  182. The Bubble from Canada writes: Alberta is pretty free from the rest of Canada now. Ontario and BC don't take money from anyone either. Alberta's Beef (pardon the pun) is non existent now. The industry is trying to hard to grow when it obviously can't so the Alberta government should be the ones stepping up to control it or Alberta will continually get flack from the other provinces mostly for polluting, keep your money, ask more for your oil, that's fine, but get the industry under control for the sake of everyone in Alberta. Maybe the winds from the oil sands don't blow over Edmonton or Calgary but the world is a closed system and the air is full now and we keep pumping the crap up there. The beef isn't with Alberta, it's with the CO2 emissions, you guys are taking it too personally.
    I'd go out there if there was the remotest chance of getting laid but there's no women, I've checked.
  183. T TFD from Canada writes: oh and Uncle Fester
    'I am sure the ROC has more of a case to resent funding treatment for our high cancer and pulmonary disease rates.' given the fact hat Ontario was the manufacturing sector of Canada and originally put the country on the map so to speak counts for nothing I suppose. Disturbing how quickly history is forgotten when the eyes light up with dollar signs.
  184. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'GlynnMhor of Skywall is a master of deceit, distortion and misrepresentation when it comes to climate change. ... he fails to note that the IPCC models do indeed track very well...'

    Alan, a slope that is off by a factor of two for the 1910-1940 warming period, and an end point for that warming two decades in error can hardly, be said to exemplify 'tracking well'. That warming period was almost identical to the more recent 1970-2000 one (about half a degree rise over thirty years in each case) yet the models only succeed in replicating the latter.

    What that tells us about the models is that they have been designed around the 1970-2000 warming and the accompanying GHG increases. But the assumption that GHGs cause the warming only works in the one case. That means that the models are not correct for 1910-1940, and whatever factor caused that warming is not modelled into the 1970-2000 warming.
  185. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'The cost of acting now is dramatically less that it would be if we continue to wait (see the Stern Review...'

    The Stern Review is a set of economic predictions extrapolated from weather effects modelling that is itself based on temperature prognostications that we know to be faulty.

    It's no more solid than the Quebec Bridge (version 1.0).
  186. Peter Kells from Bytown, Canada writes: The part that I don't understand is why the big hurry to develop this resource. The goldrush style flurry of development is creating all kinds of problems for Alberta and Canada. There is an opportunity here to develop in a planned and coordinated way but it is being wasted by the boom or bust mentality.

    The current rate of development is creating huge economic and social turmoil for all the other sectors of the Alberta economy. It is also totally destroying the natural environment in an area of northern Alberta that is as large as the entire state of Florida!

    The demand for oil is not going to go away and the oil is worth more in the ground tomorrow than it is today. In undertaking a project of this magnitude, it is predictable that many mistakes will be made along the way. They are still trying to develop technologies which may reduce the damage. Why don't they just slow down the pace of development, learn from the mistakes they make along the way and try to get it right?
  187. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Bubble- You wrote:

    'Why would anyone say that 'If the oil is gone in 50 years, than that's that.' Only someone who is there for the short term would say that. Can't Albertans see the oil is finite and will run out?'

    That's the nature of resource booms. Has been throughout history. One can only really plan for the relative short-term anyway. Events occur that cannot be predicted. I saw a

    You asked what my point was including:

    '...and create a lifestyle that is good for the workers of the industry instead of having them live in trailers and having to be away from their families and not having amenities?'

    Camp work has always been the 'nature of the beast' here since long before the current boom. It's not just a recent phenomenon.
  188. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'See also 'Record Warm Summers Cause Extreme Ice Melt In Greenland'.'

    And you really ought to remember, Alan, that phenomena that are local both geographically and temporally, like a single summer's melting in a small part of the globe, constitute weather, and not climate.

    Meanwhile global average temperatures are not rising, despite your understandable deep disappointment at the failure of the AGW paradigm.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf
  189. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: After reading Ralph Klein from wild rose country(12:50), I think this is Steven Harper's pseudonym. How do you feel about firewalls 'Ralph'?
    .
    .
    strongly in support of :)
  190. The Bubble from Canada writes: Actually GlynMhor is simply really a wet blanket, he's like having a fly buzzing around at night when you're trying to sleep, really annoying, just ignore his posts and he'll go away.
  191. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: joe blow from the boonies, Canada writes:'... remind the Albertan poster that... the CO2 consequences do not conveniently stop at the border.'

    As one can see from the absence of warming of the actual temperatures, the CO2 consequences so hyped by the IPCC have stopped globally.
  192. The Bubble from Canada writes: Conner, you sound like a crew boss.
  193. D. B. from Greater Sask., Canada writes: Is there any doubt that the Canadian temperatures for December 2007 and January 2008 will be above average? They will be above average.
  194. The Bubble from Canada writes: drop yer cocks and grab yer socks boys it's time to work...
  195. T TFD from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes:
    As one can see from the absence of warming of the actual temperatures, the CO2 consequences so hyped by the IPCC have stopped globally.
    ---

    Wow, dishonest commentary or just plain ignorant to the actual science and facts.
  196. globefan EH from Canada writes: Nick Wilson...you state ' Let's call aspade a spade, the NEP was a crime against humanity.'

    Really? Can't imagine what an Iraqi might think. There are your crimes against humanity in our addiction to oil, but I would never have thought the NEP was one of them. No one died at the office that I ever heard about.
  197. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: ALAN BURKE: Don't be so hard on Glynnmhor! Denying human activity driven climate change is his 'thing'. We've learned to accept it as part of the joy of his company. He's like that Great Uncle that rants about Jews or Blacks, and yet, is still a treasured guest at family functions. There, there Uncle Glynnmhor, just ignore that bad man. Have you tried the stuffing yet? It's nummy.
  198. The Bubble from Canada writes: Just keep the remote away from granpa GlynMhor.
  199. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Bob Durant(12:10): The Federal gov't. wanted to make the oilsands oil profitable at, I'm not exactly sure, about $40/barrel. (Still pretty darn farsighted when oil was less than $10/B at the time.) They gave big oil big tax breaks to provide incentives for them to continue to undertake research and development aimed at lowering the cost of extracting oil from the oil sands.

    Exactly my point. You believe that not collecting tax amount to 'financing' something, I do not.
    Taxation is not how you should be trying to run a govenment, provincial or federal. Taxation has been allowed to expand at such an obscene rate because of Canada's left-wing policies. This never should have been allowed to happen.
    This is not something you are going to be convinced of, as it appears you gladly work until July to pay your taxes to fund another Big Brother project at social engineering.
    Many Albertans feel that this is not something we wish to participate in, and welcome any and all tax-cuts that the Conservatives put forward.
  200. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Anybody remember the night Trudeau and Lougheed went on tv together to announce the NEP??

    It would be instructive to see it again. CBC probably has it in the archives and maybe even CTV but it'll never be shown.

    Lougheed looked weak and shaky. Having backed down from the old arguments of jurisdiction he had decided it was ok to share as long as the price of oil was high enough. When oil prices cratered due to inflation fighting tactics of World central bankers(interest rates double inflation) both Federal and Provincial deficits soared along with taxes.

    Some people I knew started selling off real estate the next day. It took about 5-6 years for the market to bottom out.

    I don't doubt the same will happen if a Liberal coalition wins the next Federal election. They will get power the same way Trudeau did.
    LIE about putting on fuel taxes and then do it anyway.

    If the Liberals/NDP/Bloc get a minority or majority government, anything could happen but it would probably be a good idea to be real light in oil stocks and Alberta real estate.

    The only thing that can prevent the leftist coalition from blocking tar sand development is the NAFTA agreement which did not exist during Trudeau/Lougheed era. Probably somebody will get sued if regulations regarding development are too tight and carbon taxes are significantly higher than the US.
  201. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: T TFD from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor: Wow, dishonest commentary or just plain ignorant to the actual science and facts.'

    Here is the temperature dataset, the one referenced by the IPCC when they point to observed temperatures:

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    As you can see, cooling is quite distinctive in the southern hemisphere, and the overall global average is down from the last few years. 2007 was even cooler than 2001.

    It would be dishonest and/or ignorant to claim that the globe is still warming.
  202. The Bubble from Canada writes: We, in Ontario, pay the same taxes, it's a common complaint, but, as they say in life there are two truths: death and taxes. Blaming the east is irrelevant, even Jevus said pay back Caesars things to Caesar. So we give money to Newfoundland, NB, PEI, Quebec etc. big deal, you need more money out there Mr. Durant? Look how hard Newfoundland is working to get off the dole, if Quebec was fairer with the hydro thing they wouldn't need money either.
    It's not the big problem except for the waste in Ottawa and Harper is proving this is not a partisan problem. I worked in private business in Ottawa, there is a lot of waste, but if you see the problem up close you get the picture and it's better to just live life as best as possible.
  203. a sailor on the prairie ocean from Canada writes: it was an interesting article. it's only human nature to want to exploit resources quickly and revel in the riches obtained therefrom. there are a significant number who preach restraint. i can understand those who disagree with them.
    the last thing someone who has found what looks like an ocean of money is some voice telling them to be sure to put some money in the bank. it's entertaining to read 'ralph klein's remarks because i think he is the perfect representative of the main thrust of oil sands development.
    pure, naked greed.
  204. T TFD from Canada writes: BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes:
    Taxation is not how you should be trying to run a govenment, provincial or federal.
    ---

    You do realize that this is non-renewable energy source, eventually you'll be left with nothing and no tax base, you think that can continue unabated forever...you can't be that dense?
  205. T TFD from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes

    Sorry my good fellow, but that talking point has been refuted time and time again...you'll have to find another one to copy and paste, that one is done.
  206. Northern Pike from Canada writes: Canada's future? Why is it when something happens outside Ontario that's good economically it's 'how will it affect CANADA's future' and when it happens in Ontario it's 'how will it affect Ontario's future'? I think the wording shows just who ends up getting the spoils of every other provinces' success. Too bad the grubby hands of the feds and the oil companies are taking the larger slice of the pie.
  207. T TFD from Canada writes: Northern Pike, I think thats how you choose to read it....
  208. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Well, Gary and Bubbles, when the data tell us that the theories are faulty, then no matter what the credentials of the theorists, it's time to get a new theory.

    Despite continual year-over-year increases in GHGs, and particularly CO2, temperatures have stubbornly refused to rise for over six full years.
  209. The Bubble from Canada writes: John Cameron is an American stirring up hatred. His analogy is pure paranoia.
  210. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: ALAN BURKE: Don't be so hard on Glynnmhor! Denying human activity driven climate change is his 'thing'. We've learned to accept it as part of the joy of his company. He's like that Great Uncle that rants about Jews or Blacks

    So stating a fact that there is not 100% consensus on the human root-cause of Climate Change/Global Warming (or whatever Gorian term you have come up with) amounts to that person being a Holocost denier or racist?

    I have seen your type before, and really, for you to take a postion that this is 'settled science' or that there is 'no more debate', then it would expose the depth of your ignorance.
    If you and your followers are not willing to fully explain how almost weekly there are alternate theories being put forward at to why solar/geothermal/wind activities can contribute to this, then you might as well rejoin the circle jerk with David Suzuki.
  211. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: T TFD from Canada writes: 'GlynnMhor:... that talking point has been refuted time and time again...'

    That 'talking point' is the actual temperatures. What else lies at the core of a Global Warming issue if not the temperatures?

    And those temperatures are irrefutably failing to increase.

    Inconvenient though that truth may be for the AGW enthusiasts, it's not going away.
  212. NUCK ABROAD from Houston, United States writes: Son of a drilling engineer and growing up in Calgary, my dad never let me buy gas from Petro Canada because they received govt (Easterner) handouts. In his words, we dont support those, well, guess what comes next. Likewise with Air Canada, we flew Canadian. These days its Westjet. Sounds funny from the sidelines, but lots Albertans were burnt hard by the NEP and they still remember it today. Lately they call the royalty review the home grown NEP. One thing about Canada, the govt always has its hands in the pie for good or bad.
  213. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Bubble - I'm not a crew boss - I'm just a pipefitter in Edmonton. But I DO believe in people having the freedom to chose. Nobody HAS to take camp jobs, or live in Ft Mac, Alberta in general or anywhere else in Canada for that matter. It IS a free country.

    As far as the camp jobs up north, the 'word around the campfire' :) is that in addition to room & board, lots of outfits are topping it up with $100 a day 'camp allowance' over and above the excellent hourly rates and overtime. If you're working 10 days on and 4 days off, you've got an extra grand very two weeks. This is not to suggest that 'camp jobs' are a dream come true - they're not. Most people think they suck. But the majority of those guys keep going back after their days off. 'There's nothing to do but make money.' Money isn't everything, to be sure. But I've had time of 'no money' and times of 'having some money'. Having some money tends to be a LOT better.
  214. The Bubble from Canada writes: Glynwhore, stuff your data, your're so two dimensional that you are the single biggest poster on here without his own opinion.
    The people who post nonsense about NEP on here are most likely making good money or represent the Oil interests. I don't want anything from Alberta, I just think most Albertans would benefit if their own provincial government had bigger testes.
    Keep the money, make lots of it, charge the americans and everyone through the nose for it, but get your crap together.
  215. T TFD from Canada writes: NUCK ABROAD
    One thing about Canada, the govt always has its hands in the pie for good or bad.
    ----

    I'd like to think it's because our gov tries to follow the ideology that everyone matters, the fortunate, the less so and all that are in between. Tommy Douglas, most important Canadian? That happened for a reason, and one I am damn proud of. The selfish nature of the US is one of the reasons the economy down there is tanking, one of the reasons an entire city was lost and never rebuilt, one of the reasons why that country is so fractured...the list goes on. But I'll be damned if I let that type of me first, partisan attitude take over Canada.
  216. The Bubble from Canada writes: They should have company reps who work to stabilize the employees financial situation in those camps because that camp life promotes the 'going to town on the weekend to get liquored up and blown' lifestyle. That's the problem with camps, the young guys get into bad habitual lifestyles and have nothing left after. Then theres all the money they spend just to get there. I prefer a regulated life of making enough money and being able to go to shows or concerts or a hockey game once in a while. I've been in the bush, can't do it after a while, how many guys up in those camps complain about their wives fooling around? You can't be sober and celibate for ten days and then blow out the system in four, it's not human.
  217. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: 'Glynwhore, stuff your data...'

    Gee, Bubbles, do you seriously think that the actual temperature data are not relevant to the issue of global temperature change?

    In reality, nothing could be more central.

    If GHGs do not dominate warming trends, then all the fuss over CO2 emissions is just so much hot air. And it becomes clearer with time that GHGs cannot be as important for global temperatures as the hypesters claim. Were that the case, we'd have seen some sort of warming over the last six years. Instead, it looks like the globe is cooling.
  218. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: 'They should have company reps who work to stabilize the employees financial situation in those camps because that camp life promotes the 'going to town on the weekend to get liquored up and blown' lifestyle...'

    if that's what they want to do with their money and their time, who are you to gainsay them?

    'I prefer a regulated life...'

    Get thee to a fascist dictatorship then. Or indeed any similarly deeply socialist regime.
  219. John Cameron from John Cameron, Canada writes: Hey Bubbles

    There's no analogy in there just history and history tends to repeat itself.

    btw your paranoia and hatred about Americans is showing a bright red.
  220. The Bubble from Canada writes: It's not Global warming GlibMhor, it's you who is irrelevant, you say the same thing over and over and over like a schizophrenic alzheimers patient that forgets what comes out as soon as he says it.
    You're hot air is contributing to global warming more than the tar sands.
  221. Alastair james Berry from NANAIMO BC, Canada writes: I arrived in Canada in 57......and when I got a few $ 1's together I bought shares in ROYALITE OIL . an integrated Alberta oil Co. that had the option on the 'sands'.....Atlantic Richfield suggested a few small atomic explosions to form hot cavities into which the hot tar would run......Alberta turned it down....ROYALITE OIL was swallowed by B.A. Oil and vanished! Sun oil of Pennsylvania arrived on the scene and attempted to get permission for 100,000 bll/day facility!! (In 1960 I visited Mc Murray airstrip....There was nothing, tundra, the river, a few tar paper shacks and a little airstrip for the DND Mid Canada line site nearby.) THE GOVERNMENT OF ALBERTA TURNED THE PROJECT DOWN FLAT!! Then it relented a little and decided to permit a 80,000 bll unit. SUN said it was barely economic but would built it anyway! GREAT CANADIAN OIL SANDS was formed(with me as an original shareholder) AND WITH OUT A SINGLE PENNY OF GOVT. SUBSIDY OR HELP built the plant. The SUN OIL OF PENNSYLVANIA SHAREHOLDERS WERE MAD AS HELL!!..........All their potential dividend money was diverted into ALBERTA for over ten years. Then came OPEC and TRUDEAU'S NATIONAL OIL POLICY and PETRO-CAN...NEW oil got world price ..Old oil got only $2.50/bll this damn near killed GCOS! Then TRUDEAU went to Venezuela and bought 400,000tons(?) of Orinoco Tar oil at $4.00/bll to add insult to injury!! Next GOVT. SUBSIDIZED FACILITIES WERE BUILT - SYNCRUDE. The G&M said GGOS shares were valueless(and a member of my staff showed me the article......I told him to wait and see) In the event the Govt of ONTARIO(in the early 70's) decided to secure a supply of oil for itself and after many years of a roller coaster ride on the shares I was 'bought out' at a reasonable profit! Alberta has only itself to blame that it's citizens are not yet as wealthy as the SAUDI's are!!! The OIL SANDS COULD HAVE BEEN IN FULL PRODUCTION FORTY YEARS AGO!!!
  222. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: T TFD from Canada writes:

    I'd like to think it's because our gov tries to follow the ideology that everyone matters, the fortunate, the less so and all that are in between.

    But where does it stop? The Court Challenge program for someone who does not like something to use our money to challenge the courts? If you feel strongly about something, rally together like-minded individuals and take on the courts yourself. Why the F should we be paying for that?
    When the Conservatives killed this, the screaming was deafening.

    There have been so many parasites attaching themselves to Ottawa, who really knows how much money has been pissed away?

    Your argument lacks merit, as you lump all these 'causes' together as somethng that needs to be funded.

    As for Tommy Douglas being the best, that poll was taken on CBC, so having 3 million socialists voting to name this century's biggest socialist is not really something to put forward as an argument.
  223. The Bubble from Canada writes: Johnny boy, I don't hate Americans, I'm just not afraid of them. Alberta oilmen and politicians are afraid.
  224. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Uncle Glynn, ya ol' darlin', please, put your teeth in before you try to speak. Have you tried the yams yet? Honey, put some yams on Uncle Glynn's plate. They're nummy.
  225. The Bubble from Canada writes: Bob I think everyone in Alberta deserves more money from big oil, what do you think of that, is that too socialist for you too?
  226. Frank Johnston from Grand Falls, NB, Canada writes: Hello:

    Alberta is prosperous because of a non renewable resource. It has made Canada, with the compliance of Ottawa, one of the least energy efficient and most effective, on a per capita basis, emitter of Green House gases on the planet. The rest of us might, if we can afford it, better remain behind tending our gardens.

    yours
    Frank Johnston
  227. The Bubble from Canada writes: GlibmHor, you realize you're a joke right?
  228. T TFD from Canada writes: Your argument lacks merit, as you lump all these 'causes' together as somethng that needs to be funded.

    As for Tommy Douglas being the best, that poll was taken on CBC, so having 3 million socialists voting to name this century's biggest socialist is not really something to put forward as an argument.
    ---

    They do need to be funded, example one would be NOLA...but the economy is just another example of the me first attitude that the US has let prevail that results in a systemic disaster overall....my post is too abstract for you to understand, thats ok

    and on the Tommy Douglas front, you're claim is pathetic as to the reason why it happened, I'm sure the socialist all loved Don Cherry too.
  229. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: John Cameron is an American stirring up hatred. His analogy is pure paranoia.
    .
    .
    . strange this ROC penchant for demonizing things they dislike or fear by branding them 'American'.

    i moved up to Calgary from the States in the late 90's and have never encountered this prejudice out here in God's country.........
    .
    .

    must be an eastern thing
  230. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Bubbly

    Your post count is 54. Froth is a mass of bubbles.
  231. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Alastare James Berry(2:06): Sure, the oil sands could have been in full production forty years ago. If you could have found someone willing to buy oil for $40/barrel when the rest of the world was selling it at $2.50, the oil sands might even have made a profit.
  232. T TFD from Canada writes: John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Bubbly

    Your post count is 54. Froth is a mass of bubbles.
    ---

    No there is just that much stupid here to refute.
  233. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: 'It's not Global warming GlibMhor, it's you who is irrelevant...'

    This from someone who is now reduced to childish misspellings of names, and who has probably not dared even to look at the temperature data for fear it might prove me right.

    The reason I keep pointing out the fact that the globe is not warming is that these fora seem filled to bursting with naive folks who think that the globe is still warming.
  234. The Bubble from Canada writes: It's a slow day Johnny.
    Funny you should count.
    I knew it would be Americans humping this blog to inflame old problems to try to make Albertans hate the east. It's in their and only their interests. Albertans need to take control of the oil away from the Americans and then they would have lots of money and wouldn't have to give it away so freely to the Iraqui warmongers.
  235. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor said: 'That 'talking point' is the actual temperatures. What else lies at the core of a Global Warming issue if not the temperatures?

    And those temperatures are irrefutably failing to increase.
    '

    Absolutely wrong. See figures 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14a, and 21 - 28 on my website. these are measured temperatures and trends derived from several sources and without resorting to climate models.

    They show from real and direct temperature data that he is a charlatan when it comes to discussing global warming. Only the southern hemisphere oceans show a slight cooling trend, very similar to similar blips in the past and certainly not sufficient to justify his statement about cooling, especially long term.
  236. The Bubble from Canada writes: John, what have I said to make you so angry anyway, I'm simply advocating Albertans stand up for themselves in the heady arena of international oil, get a little Danny Williams in them and tell the oil companies they can have that oil but they have to pay a good price for it, otherwise it's really not worth it to anyone in Canada including Alberta.
    Why would this make you mad?
  237. T TFD from Canada writes: Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com,

    I wouldnt bother, he has a very closed mind, facts will not sway him. Although posting them at least shows others the true facts, thanks.
  238. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes:

    ' Why don't you go back to from whence you came if you don't like our socialist ways, the west is the cradle of socialism in Canada. '

    the state i last lived in , California , was far more socialistic than the province i now call home so heading back that way would be heading back to bigger government and higher taxes....... no thanks.

    and the west may be the cradle of socialism but not Alberta...........
  239. L. van Dyk from Canada writes: S Boatright from Canada writes: L. van Dyk from Canada writes: 'It seems to me that whoever benefits from the oil revenue has to pay for cleaning up any mess. '

    Remove one word from your statement - and it takes on a whole new meaning.

    'It seems to me that whoever benefits from the oil has to pay for cleaning up any mess.'

    Because, in the end, those who want it - will end up paying for the cost of clean up. And that isn't a bad thing, in my mind. It's a great incentive for conserving and reducing consumption.
    Posted 26/01/08 at 11:48 AM EST
    -----------------------------------------------
    SB I'll buy that, if the oil producers don't pollute and cover it up. I saw a little of that when I worked in the patch and heard of more.
    I think 'Whoever' means everyone involved, in all the steps, from producer to consumer. If I should have said 'Whomever,' ah nutz.
  240. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Bubbles

    My browser does the counting automatically.
    btw I'm not an American.

    See ya another day, foamy!
  241. The Bubble from Canada writes: I think GlibmHor is a robot, or a pod. whatever he is, his constant ravings about global warming really are annoying.
  242. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan, when you do your 'thirty year trend' line, then of course you include periods of actual warming, like 1970-2000, with periods where there is no warming, and the (doubtless deliberate) effect is to conceal the current absence of warming.

    I can see that you're desperate to dissuade people from looking at the actual Hadley temperature dataset, quite clearly because it shows exactly what I say it does; over six years of no signifigant warming.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    However, I'm glad to see you finally admit that there is cooling going on in the southern hemisphere.
  243. T TFD from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: I think GlibmHor is a robot, or a pod. whatever he is, his constant ravings about global warming really are annoying.
    ---
    The conspiracy side of me is telling me he is a plant.
  244. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: 'I think GlibmHor is... really... annoying.'

    Well, no one is regulating your life by forcing you to read my posts, much less take the trouble to type up personal attacks in lieu of responses.
  245. The Bubble from Canada writes: Day of the Triffids, good movie and book.
    GlibmHor, it can't be personal if you're not human.
  246. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes:

    'Albertans need to take control of the oil away from the Americans and then they would have lots of money '

    dude , we already have lots of money........

    highest incomes in the country
    lowest taxes in the country
    fastest growing economy in the country

    citing stats canada:

    'The per capita GDP in 2006 was by far the highest of any province in Canada at C$69,789. This was 56% higher than the national average and more than twice that of some of the Atlantic provinces. This deviation from the national average was the largest for any province in Canadian history'

    citing TD Bank Financial:

    'The Calgary Edmonton corridor is the only Canadian urban centre to amass a U.S level of wealth while maintaining a Canadian-style quality of life, offering universal health care benefits. The study found that GDP per capita in the corridor is 10 percent above average U.S. metropolitan areas and 40 percent above other Canadian cities.'

    wouldn't want to be greedy now...................

    :)
  247. a sailor on the prairie ocean from Canada writes: hilarious! some guy finds a cave full of money but can't get it out.
    he hires ONE guy to get the money out, so the 'helper' says,'how much money have you got down there, and what's my share?'
    the finder says,'well, i found it but i need you to get it out, it's worth nothing to me without you so i'll pay you 10% of it's value, but i don't know how much there is.'
    helper says 10% isn't enough. finder hires 200 albertans to get it out for him and pays them, in total, 5%. everybody's happy.
  248. The Bubble from Canada writes: These things always fall the same way, when the oil people, and I know now that most of the global warming deniers and people who defend wreckless exploitation of Alberta are mainly Americans or people with money invested, come on here to lower the debate by posting mindlessly about global cooling and defending terrible lifestyles of Oil workers.
    This is what it's about, they have no leg to stand on so don't debate, obfiscate.
  249. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes:'See figures 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 13, 14a, and 21 - 28 on my website. these are measured temperatures and trends derived from several sources...'

    It takes 16 sets of data graphed yourself for you to try to refute one simple and obvious dataset of the actual temperatures. You're perhaps trying too hard.

    Meanwhile, the globe goes merrily onward without being afflicted by the dreaded Global Warming.

    And no matter how many master tailors and other 'experts' praise the AGW emperor's new clothes, His regal PP can be seen dangling limply despite all the hype.
  250. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: a sailor on the prairie ocean from Canada writes: hilarious! some guy finds a cave full of money but can't get it out.
    he hires ONE guy to get the money out, so the 'helper' says,'how much money have you got down there, and what's my share?'
    the finder says,'well, i found it but i need you to get it out, it's worth nothing to me without you so i'll pay you 10% of it's value, but i don't know how much there is.'
    helper says 10% isn't enough. finder hires 200 albertans to get it out for him and pays them, in total, 5%. everybody's happy.
    .
    .right on ...........' everybodys happy'

    the Albertans who made $250,000 a year to bring it out and the dude who found the cash and had rightful title to it....

    in Alberta thats called win/win..........

    the only people who are sad are the easterners who only get $12 billion a year in Alberta transfer payments to split............

    :)
  251. The Bubble from Canada writes: So there you have it folks, Ralph Klein, an American who lives in Alberta to do nothing more than exploit the land never mind having no respect for an ex premiers name. These are the people who hate the east so much?
  252. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: BTW, Alan, did you fix your errors in the annual averages from the NOAA monthly data yet? Or better yet get the real figures from their site insted of making those mistakes calculating it on your own?
  253. NUCK ABROAD from Houston, United States writes: I think Alastair hit the nail on the head with his historical account. One day the govt says no. Two years later they say yes and give handouts. Four years later they say no...

    The only way to understand this Albertans vs. govt thing (from an Albertans side) is to have money on the table as an individual (maybe a house, RRSP investments, etc) and watch it devalue overnight because of some bureaucrat. Well at least the govt is getting Canadians their fair share.
  254. The Bubble from Canada writes: Ralph did you run up here because you didn't want to go to war? Hiding like a coward making money by ruining another country? Making oil to send back to the USA, your homeland so they can go to war illegally? Are you still an American citizen?
  255. T TFD from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: BTW, Alan, did you fix your errors in the annual averages from the NOAA monthly data yet? Or better yet get the real figures from their site insted of making those mistakes calculating it on your own?
    ---

    Now I see what you guys meant, he is funny!
  256. T TFD from Canada writes: I think Alastair hit the nail on the head with his historical account. One day the govt says no. Two years later they say yes and give handouts. Four years later they say no...
    ---
    The government of the day does not always reflect the nations interest, thats why it changes occasionally ;)

    'Well at least the govt is getting Canadians their fair share.'

    exactly.
  257. ralph klein from wild rose country, Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: Ralph did you run up here because you didn't want to go to war? Hiding like a coward making money by ruining another country? Making oil to send back to the USA, your homeland so they can go to war illegally? Are you still an American citizen?

    too young for vietnam

    too old for the gulf

    ?? who says that the war in Iraq is illegal ??

    are the Canadians breaking the law in Afghanistan ??
  258. Alan Pater from Vancouver, Canada writes: Fossil Fuel production will need to be greatly reduced worldwide, as the only viable response to the threats posed by excessive global warming.

    '...it now takes two to four barrels of fresh water from the Athabasca plus 750 cubic feet of natural gas and about two tons of oily sand to produce one barrel of oil....'

    How is this in any way compatible with that 80-90% reduction in fossil fuel production?
  259. Pine Nut from Detroit, Canada writes: Canada should embargo the U.S and sell it to China, Germany, France and India!
  260. Wayne Young from Victoria BC, Canada writes: I see the left wing nuts are out in power on this article. We are very fortunate and in the process of becoming a real power in the world my question is what will we do with this new state of being as in the past we have always viewed our selves as the smaller cousin to the USA and within a few years we will have paid off our national debt and probably have a currency worth 3 times that of the USA one of the facts few people realize and rarely mention in the value of our currency is how investors view our economy and then invest in it. Every year that goes by our economic house looks better and better irrespective of what happens in the USA we are nowhere near as coupled as we used to be and our cousin to the south is either stagnating or growing very slowly. The OIL Sands have contribute to our lifestyles in ways few can imagine and the higher and higher standard of living we enjoy is in no small part owed to this resource for all Canadians. PS: as long as we have the Conservatives in power we have little to worry about when it comes to economic resource policy however if the Liberals ever manage to elect another leader and then Bobby R or Mikey I. get in the power seat then we had better start to watch out folks!
  261. lynn H from Canada writes: I am not sure how is works in Alberta but in my home province there are environmental regulations for industry. The province gives the company an environmental permit that they must operate in compliance with. It regulates both the amount water intake allowed and the quality of water returned, holding ponds, environmental sampling/testing and how the land must be reclaimed after mining. Assuming that this is similar in Alberta then all this talk of poisoning the land, air and water is a bit dramatic. Alberta is probably no better or worse than any other industry or province. Every province has its area of environmental 'disaster'. The real story is the value of its resources and its wealth shifting Canada's economic and political power. CO2 pollution is just a convenient new tool to continue to try to beat Alberta down.
  262. bill bocher from Canada writes: The oilsands are going to give everyone in the country the services that they need. They are going to provide Canada with economic power that nothing else in Canada can ever provide. That is why the oilsands must be kept out of liberal hands and kept financially viable.
  263. Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: Bring on the palm trees! Meantime, all you GTA types can do the world a favour and disable your air conditioning this summer and quit building cars. and shut down your forestry, mining, and other manufacturing while you're at it. And turn off your computers while you're at it. Meanwhile, we'll carry on, because its in our jurisdiction and we'll manage the friccin' resource the way we want to.
  264. The Bubble from Canada writes: Why should the Americans control the oilsands?
  265. Flames Forever from Canada writes: Another article about pollution from Alberta oilsands, for balance sake let's have one about the smog coming from Toronto and its effects on rural Ontario.
  266. The Bubble from Canada writes: Why change the subject? Can't you Americans debate why you should be able to keep the oil, the profits from oil, displace all the families in Alberta and leave nothing but a filthy hole?
  267. a sailor on the prairie ocean from Canada writes: wayne young - your fearless leader racks up 36% of voters and you come on like it's a landslide.
    people who don't see things your way are socialists, not left wing nuts.
    somehow i don't see all that oil wealth launching canada into a world power. the history channel has a slough of marching armies, and they are in black and white, but what the hell, you can always pretend.
    good luck with your enormous heaps of money.
  268. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: Bob I think everyone in Alberta deserves more money from big oil, what do you think of that, is that too socialist for you too?

    And what do you define as 'more'? What does your Ontario sensibilities tell us inbreds that we do not see?
    Do you mean royalties? Special Ed did increase Alberta's royalty structure, and there was some job reduction as a result. Not major, but support businesses did some cutting.

    Are you from Alberta Bubbles? No? Guess what, no-one here gives a s**t what you think. Did you know that Bubbles? Normally hanging around a trailerpark in Eastern Canada does not work out to well for ya.
    Is that the Grade 10 education kicking in?
  269. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: T TFD from Canada writes:

    They do need to be funded, example one would be NOLA...but the economy is just another example of the me first attitude that the US has let prevail that results in a systemic disaster overall....my post is too abstract for you to understand, thats ok

    Sorry, not sure what NOLA is.

    No, your post is not too abstract, you just are guilty of being intellectually lazy when you provide a blanket statement that 'they all need to be funded'. I doubt you could even cover all the hands extended to the public trough.

    You want taxes to pay for everything, many Albertans do not.

    You want every one legged lesbian crack addict to have a 'day in the sun' with the Supreme Court on the taxpayer's dime, most Albertans do not.

    If it is not crystal clear as to why there is a huge philosophical difference between your Eastern position and our Western position.
    Polar opposites.
  270. The Bubble from Canada writes: I was checking out the trailer parks in Fort McMurray on Google Earth, they are a bigger part of the landscape in Alberta than they are here son.
    Ed is sliding back on the royalties because he's afraid of the American Oil Interests. Sounds like things are fine out there and would still be fine if the royalties were kept up and raised even more. The Americans think that if Canadians stand up for themselves, they are communists. You guys simply have to stop being so greedy, and pay up for the mess you're making in Alberta, it's not much to ask. Alberta will always be happy to sell you the oil, you just have to learn to pay properly for it that's only fair. It's all numbers, nothing to bring the army in about.
  271. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada writes:

    nothing but a filthy hole?

    At last you start talking about you neck of the woods! Please enlighten us to the wonders of smog/random gang violence/grinding taxation.
    Let me get the chips and dip first, as I'm sure it will be a doozy.
  272. a sailor on the prairie ocean from Canada writes: watch out bubbles, bob durrant has a degree. it's the wrong year and the name's wrong, but it's bob's degree. bobby was a real terror on campus, chasing fire hydrants.
    you gotta watch out for these alberta boys fresh off their newfoundland fishing boats. 'at'll learn ya, by!
  273. The Bubble from Canada writes: I think most Albertans are reasonable people and know that taxes are part of a good solid socialist foundation. No need to be angry about it all Bob, it's only showing the greed you have that I'm talking about. You didn't put the oil in the ground.
  274. The Bubble from Canada writes: No need to change the subject Bob, we're having a nice discussion about all our futures as Canadians, you are Canadian right?
  275. Nancy Wilson from N.Ontario, Canada writes: Lots of hatred for Alberta being spewed regularly on these boards.
    But no one seems to have any problem benefitting from their contributions.
  276. The Bubble from Canada writes: I've been personally threatened a dozen times on this website, the Americans really don't like me much. It surpises me they never run into many people like Danny Williams, maybe if they did, Canada would stop acting like a battered spouse.
  277. The Bubble from Canada writes: Where is the hatred for Alberta Nancy?
  278. T TFD from Canada writes: No, your post is not too abstract, you just are guilty of being intellectually lazy when you provide a blanket statement that 'they all need to be funded'. I doubt you could even cover all the hands extended to the public trough.
    ---

    LOL, i never said they needed to be all funded, the abstract part was the selfishness and the me first mentality that has helped create the situation that exists. That was too subtle or beyond your understanding. However, I understand your pure capitalistic approach, yet my equitable and social justice approach is lost on you, opening your mind doesn't always mean opening your wallet...

    and your comments regarding crack addicts is disingenuous at best.
  279. Mad Hatter from Saskatchewan, Canada writes: Interesting article. Saskatchewan's north if full of heavy oil as well.

    They have been drilling from West to East across Saskatchewan trying to find the end of the heavy oil band and haven't found it. In fact, some are now suggesting that Saskatchewan may have more heavy oil than Alberta. The problem is that it is deeper.
  280. The Bubble from Canada writes: For every insult to Alberta here there are ten for Ontario and it's patently obvious much of this is actually posted by American posters.
  281. The Bubble from Canada writes: I guess we have more oil than we know what to do with.
  282. The Bubble from Canada writes: The one post about detonating an underground nuclear explosion to melt all the oil at once is interesting. I wonder if it would work?
  283. T TFD from Canada writes: This might be a stupid question but wouldn't the oil extracted then be radioactive?
  284. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: No need to change the subject Bob, we're having a nice discussion about all our futures as Canadians, you are Canadian right?

    Yup. Other than some of the Quebecois, family has been around longer than most. Broke the land, a few run ins with the natives, made a life.

    The majority who post here are a few generations from the boat, so their opinions are as valid as mine.
    The opinion from someone who lives in Alberta regarding Alberta issues carries substantial weight when compared to someone from Ontario or other nether regions, which means when it comes to how we run our economy and what measures we are working on to reduce pollution, your opinion does not really count.
    Stick to reducing the poverty/crime/pollution in Ontario, and when you have that tackled, start working on your cousins next door.
  285. The Bubble from Canada writes: so Bob you believe that the oil sands should go ahead full steam regardless of the pollution? If I moved to Alberta would that help?
    I don't know if the oil would be radioactive or not. It sounds like fun though. might be a gusher.
  286. a sailor on the prairie ocean from Canada writes: an underground nuclear explosion would be followed by an enormous army of oil sands investors chasing, with definite plans to murder, the dumb sombich who burned down all the oilsands.
  287. The Bubble from Canada writes: I guess that's where the nuclear reactors come in, generate lots of heat without the radiation.
    They could just wait a few years, with global warming, the oil might separate by itself.
  288. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: T TFD from Canada writes: 'This might be a stupid question but wouldn't the oil extracted then be radioactive?'

    The answers are

    1) yes, it is a stupid question

    2) no, the oil would only be trivially radioactive if at all

    3) the unstated question about practicality is that it wouldn't be practical
  289. The Bubble from Canada writes: blowed up real good.
  290. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: T TFD from Canada writes:

    I'd like to think it's because our gov tries to follow the ideology that everyone matters, the fortunate, the less so and all that are in between.

    Does this not imply that you want to fund everything?

    and your comments regarding crack addicts is disingenuous at best.

    Untrue. The needle clinic issue is not that old. The issue on same-sex, sex-changing, not sure what sex, is not that old either.
    Just cuz you are someone from a small minority, you don't get to automatically demand funding.
    You want off drugs, fine. Stop taking them. You want to kill yourself on them, fine. Many people stop whatever physically addicting hobby they are on every day.
    You want to mate with your brother, fine. You want to become a she instead of a he, fine. Not sure what the hell you are? Fine.
    Again, take that journey on your own dollar please.
    Trying to raise a family while getting taxed for this sh*t is maddening.

    If this is your version of utopia in Ontario, more power to ya. It's not the majority in Alberta's vision of utopia.
  291. The Bubble from Canada writes: hey there glib, I did so ask if it would work.
  292. T TFD from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: T TFD from Canada writes: 'This might be a stupid question but wouldn't the oil extracted then be radioactive?'
    ---

    LOL!! You're funny with your insults and what not gampy. Way to contribute to the conversation, heh.
  293. The Bubble from Canada writes: praise the lord and screw your neighbor.
  294. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: so Bob you believe that the oil sands should go ahead full steam regardless of the pollution? If I moved to Alberta would that help?

    There is work being done on the environmental aspect. Maybe not as fast as David Suzuki would like, but it is happening.

    Um, No. Ontario is a good place for you Bubbles. I thought you shot that show out on the East coast somewhere?
  295. The Bubble from Canada writes: gampy, now i'm laughing but I think there's a hockey game on soon.
  296. T TFD from Canada writes: 2) no, the oil would only be trivially radioactive if at all
    ---

    and please forgive me if I don't take your word as gospel, since you've been so correct so far, or has it all been satire?

    Or not only are you expert on the environment but you're a nuclear scientist as well? I need your thoughts on the economy as well, lol.
  297. The Bubble from Canada writes: speaking of Utopia, Todd Rudgren is playing here soon.
  298. The Bubble from Canada writes: I have a DVD of the trailer park boys when Ricky hijacks a tour bus and makes Rita MacNeil help them harvest the weed. They filmed the weed fields in southern ontario.
    Lots of weed out west I hear. oil and weed oil and weed gonna get me some oil and weed.
  299. The Bubble from Canada writes: Grampa simpson.
  300. a sailor on the prairie ocean from Canada writes: gee bobby, if that's the way you feel you must get REALY UPSET with canada sticking its nose into afghanistan. wax on you bottomless well .
  301. Not right or left from Canada writes: BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: 'There is work being done on the environmental aspect. Maybe not as fast as David Suzuki would like, but it is happening.

    Um, No. Ontario is a good place for you Bubbles. I thought you shot that show out on the East coast somewhere?'

    Do you even know what Provinces are on the east coast? When I lived in Alberta a friend of mine thought Canada stopped at Quebec. He never heard of NB,NS,PEI or NFLD. I couldn't believe it because he was 16 years old at the time.
  302. The Bubble from Canada writes: I hear the canadian army is trying to get the afghanis to stop growing opium and start growing weed. Can you imagine training people to be in the army all stoned on opium? It's no wonder their shooting each other, it's not civil war, they're just hallucinating.
  303. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: speaking of Utopia, Todd Rudgren is playing here soon.

    Lucky you. We get the International Children's Festival or the Flames (yak!).

    At least you can drive to go and see the Sens.

    Please don't say you're a Leafs fan. It would explain much, but there's always hope.
  304. OAK ! from Canada writes: Well written article! Nice to the the G&M with a balanced piece about the Oilsands.
  305. The Bubble from Canada writes: It's like that everywhere, I know guys who've never been north of the 401 here in Toronto, they don't know how much fun there is in the rural areas of this great f***g country.
  306. Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Unrepentant Outdoorsman from Dominican Republic writes: Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Rebel Prince from Berlin, Germany writes: Nick Wilson, Alberta does not even exist beyond its definition within the federal framework.

    __

    Same can be said for any Province, or Country for that matter. Rebel, why don't you tell us about the 9 Billion dollar gift the EU gave to the power companies in the form of free carbon credits, credits these same companies used to charge full price for to their customers in the form of additional costs on their heating and electric bills. Carbon trading equals fraud! Heck, they even get to increase their actual emissions output over the next three years at no penalty. What's that new term they have in Europe, now? Power or Energy Poverty, something like 35 percent. Care to elaborate on this?

    __

    Does anybody detect the way in which Unrepentant Outdoorsman's apparent response to my comment relates to my comment? I'm at a loss. Seems our friend in the Dominican Republic's had a bit too much sun .. ? Which is something I would gratefully suffer at the moment. Only three more months of thick, grey skies...
  307. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: Not right or left from Canada writes:

    Do you even know what Provinces are on the east coast? When I lived in Alberta a friend of mine thought Canada stopped at Quebec. He never heard of NB,NS,PEI or NFLD. I couldn't believe it because he was 16 years old at the time.

    Ya, lots of relatives in N.S and P.E.I.. Was out there as a kid visiting. Person you are speaking about was more than likely in Panoka, and just got out. Most Albertans are from elsewhere, so generally everyone has been or has relatives on the East Coast.

    Thought it was a hectic schedule for Bubbles to post from around Toronto and shoot his series from Nova Scotia or whereever the show originates.
  308. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: It's like that everywhere, I know guys who've never been north of the 401 here in Toronto, they don't know how much fun there is in the rural areas of this great f***g country.

    Few hours from Great Falls Montana for shopping, just over an hour to the Rockies (can see them from the back yard), no pollution, minimal amount of small time crime.
    Not bad.
  309. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: I need to put to bed some terrible misinformation from this article.

    ONCE AND FOR ALL THEY DO NOT USE 2-4 BARRELS OF FRESHWATER FROM THE RIVIER FOR EVERY BARREL PRODUCED!!!!* In reality they only use about 20% fresh make up water through the plant. the plant circulates around 4000 m3 of water per hour and produces around 350,000 barrel of oil per day. this gives roughly *3 barrels of oil for every one barrel of water consumed!!! It is downright irresponsible for them to continue to publish this type of misleading information... If you do not believe me check out the operators websites, there is plenty of information available....
  310. The Bubble from Canada writes: Women
    Music
    convenience
    Sports
    Women
    It's not as dirty here as you might think. Most of the towns in eastern ontario are riddled with poor man's crack, it's a mess in the rural areas. Ottawa is as dysfunctional a city as you can get. Toronto is the place for me, no more wood to cut, grass to cut, snow to shovel, houses to renovate, I'm done with it. Glad I raised my kids in the country but it's too desolate out there now. Best part of the city for me is anonymity. After I got divorced I slept with half the girls in town so things got tense. I move to the city for peace and quiet.
  311. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: I wonder how many people from outside Alberta would be referring to Oil Sands development in such derogatory terms if the supply of oil was to suddenly dry up.

    We are not developing oil sands to play with the big trucks and shovels, we are trying to meet the demand for energy. That demand for energy has caused lots of problems in the nuclear industry and in the coal industry both of which have abyssmal environmental records.

    CO 2 is just the latest focus area so if you want to contribute to the solution, stop using so much energy. If you shutdown or turn back Alberta's Oil Sands, you will need to go elsewhere for energy. Maybe those other places will do much worse things with the money. Who would you rather have in charge of this problem than Alberta where there are democratic principles, tremendous technologies under development and an elected government.

    Even wind energy has the blight of covering the landscape with wind turbines. All energy is dirty energy.

    I don't know why Alberta should take this abuse because they are attempting to meet the demand for fuel around the world. You are a hypocrite unless you stop using energy. Can anybody make that claim?
  312. Not right or left from Canada writes: BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: 'Few hours from Great Falls Montana for shopping, just over an hour to the Rockies (can see them from the back yard), no pollution, minimal amount of small time crime.
    Not bad.'

    When I lived just outside Red Deer you could see the mountains from my house and the view was something spectacular. The Rockies looks like a painting in the background.
  313. The Bubble from Canada writes: I went to google earth to look at the tailings ponds, whatever the NUMBERS are, it still leaves a good sized mess. Check out the pictures on google earth.
  314. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: I need to put to bed some terrible misinformation from this article.

    ONCE AND FOR ALL THEY DO NOT USE 2-4 BARRELS OF FRESHWATER FROM THE RIVIER FOR EVERY BARREL PRODUCED!!!!* In reality they only use about 20% fresh make up water through the plant. the plant circulates around 4000 m3 of water per hour and produces around 350,000 barrel of oil per day. this gives roughly *3 barrels of oil for every one barrel of water consumed!!! It is downright irresponsible for them to continue to publish this type of misleading information... If you do not believe me check out the operators websites, there is plenty of information available....
  315. The Bubble from Canada writes: Hendrick, no one is abusing Alberta, no one wants the oil to completely stop, the biggest problem is that the Americans are taking it all and making the oil workers work in terrible conditions. It would help if Albertans could stop thinking we're all out to get ya'll. The Americans have been the ones to take most of everything.
  316. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Ralph Klein from Wild Rose Country:

    Your comments about needing more slaves/servants in Alberta are really pathetic -- I hope that you are not the real Ralph Klein.

    But, God help all Albertans if you are...

    Cardium Crude -- you are lying and cannot provide any reference to prove your statement about the amount of water used. Read the paper from the Government Department at Cornell University, Ithaca, NY that I provided earlier...
  317. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada

    Was in T.O for a business convention a few years ago. Kids walking around downtown homeless with dogs. Really sad.
    Main train from the Convention area kinda cool going past the waterfront with some Caricana festival going on.
    Just to friggin much sprawl. Hotel by the airport and no end to the concrete. Had a executive car driver who knew his way around, so the bullshit traffic was not that bad.
    Bought some scalped tickets to a Jays game (snore) from some giant black dude just outside the stadium. Kinda exciting.
    Guess it's an acquired taste.
  318. Not right or left from Canada writes: Hendrick Larose, I think most people want the oil sands to continue operating but there needs to be a balance between development, environment and inflation. Inflation in Alberta is at over 5%/year which is too high. Development is slowing now anyway because of a shortage of workers and materials. Alberta is a beautiful Province and I hope it stays that way. I would hate to see a toxic mess left there after the large corporations are finished extracting the oil.
  319. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: Not right or left from Canada writes:

    When I lived just outside Red Deer you could see the mountains from my house and the view was something spectacular. The Rockies looks like a painting in the background.

    I know. I take friends and relatives golfing into B.C. around Fernie, and you have to jab them in the ribs, cuz they just keep gawking at the scenery.
    Enables you to drop your score a bit when they are not looking.
  320. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes:
    Bubble

    Suncor, Canadian Oil Sands and Albian Sands are the operators of the current Oil Sands Operations. Major developments underway by Nexen, Canadian Natural Resources. What Americans? Sure there are some but the majority of the Oil Sands has been a Canadian story.
  321. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: Hendrick, no one is abusing Alberta, no one wants the oil to completely stop

    Bubbles, you know that there are many who post here that are guilty on both counts.
    This is why folks get upset. We need to work this out for ourselves. We do have kids, we do have concerns about the environment.
    This is a 'made in Alberta' windfall, and it will need to be a 'made in Alberta' solution.
    If you have great ideas on how to help without killng massive amount of jobs, glad to hear it. If not, you are really talking to yourselves.
  322. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: Bubble I was up at Fort Mac Murray for a tour. The areas they call camps are like college campuses that have cost hundreds of millions of dollars to build. They include swimming pools gymnasiums and indoor hockey rinks. Why, because they need dedicated capable wrokers to ensure the competant development of this valuable resource. Can you see any of that through Google earth?
  323. P Conner from toronto, Canada writes: The Globe asks, 'How did the oil sands go from potential boondoggle to economic miracle?' My sad and simple answer, 'Through ecological catastrophe.'
  324. The Bubble from Canada writes: When I first went to Williams Lake and got off the bus there was a guy lying passed out on the sidewalk with pee dribbling away from him.
    Every town has their drunks, Toronto has the same by number. Vancouver has the most I hear cause of the warm weather.
    There's a woman in smiths falls ontario (land of the village idiot) who will preach to you until you're scared.
    My buddy and I walked around montreal and photographed all the street people we could find during the jazz festival once. There was a guy dressed like superman sleeping on a park bench. I still have the photos.
    I went by a park in Toronto last week and saw a nut gathering squirrels.
  325. The Bubble from Canada writes: I guess there are some nice places there but there's a lot of trailers. I lived briefly in a trailer in MacKenzie BC and hated it. My brothers roommate had a bad habit of taking apart an appliance every day to see how it worked, drove me nuts.
  326. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes:
    Bubble

    and suddenly I realize that I am addressing comments to someone whose lights are on but nobody is home. I will finish this discussion with my dog...clearly more intelligent responses likely to come from him.
  327. The Bubble from Canada writes: I think the oil sands are so friggin big that Alberta needs the fed to help them, I don't know why Albertans wouldn't take a more stand up approach to pricing the oil. The Americans need it and it's through pricing that you can control the development and pollution. None of my posts are anything but pushing Albertans to see how much power they actually do have. Ontario will continually move away from oil anyway probably faster than most American countries. The coal will have to go. The attempt at solar is half a$$ed but it's a start. Alberta needs to diversify anyway because chances are the need for the oil will run out before it's all used anyway. The government needs to work towards this for the province. I only have a problem with the people who continually bash Ontario as the antikrist when the problem isn't with us and there is no liberal conspiracy.
  328. The Bubble from Canada writes: That was 30 years ago larose, no need for that good old Alberta hatred.
  329. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: '... it's through pricing that you can control the development and pollution.'

    Prices are set by the marketplace. Government intervention can only be disastrously inefficient.
  330. BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: The Bubble from Canada writes: I think the oil sands are so friggin big that Alberta needs the fed to help them, I don't know why Albertans wouldn't take a more stand up approach to pricing the oil. The Americans need it and it's through pricing that you can control the development and pollution.

    No, Feds mean things get F**d up. Royalties have been increased, and to almost the amount the panel recommended.
    Kind of a delicate situation, so it can't just be hammered on them all at once. Ralph could have started this earlier, but he was too busy getting loaded at the Eddy. Good Guy to have beers with, but head was not really in the game for the last 4 years or so.
    Ralphy started out as a Liberal. Didn't know that, huh?
  331. Concerned Observer from Canada writes: 'Only when the last tree has died and the last river been poisoned and the last fish been cought will we realize that we cannot eat money.' Wolf Robe, Cree Indian 1909 (see Google 'eat money')
  332. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Well, CO, the history since 1909 has simply proven that Wolf robe had no idea what he was talking about.
  333. Roop Misir from Toronto, Canada writes: Definitely!

    With petrol prices going through the roof, which O&G producer dare complain?

    Bye bye to climate change efforts!

    Now we can say:

    'May we praise the lard as they live high off the hog!'
  334. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Sweet Jahweh Bubble: I agree with 95% of what you are saying here and I still wish you'd give it a rest. Take what you've said, add whatever you got left, and put it in a book.
  335. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: BOB DURRANT from Calgary, writes: Ralph could have started this earlier, but he was too busy getting loaded at the Eddy. Good Guy to have beers with, but head was not really in the game for the last 4 years or so.

    If only you knew how true that is. Stelmach has taken a lot of heat about not having a plan etc. Most people don't know just how much of a mess Ralph left behind.
  336. KEN CAMPBELL from Canada writes: The pros and cons of the Alberta oil sands are many and varied but I do not see or hear what would happen if they did not exist. Mind you the hot air spent on trivial discussions about them would go a long way to reducing the effect of climate change.
  337. Blue Helmet Mayberry Peacekeeper Remember Rwanda from Ottawa, Canada writes:
    The survey also shows in Ontario, the Conservatives enjoy the lead with 39 per cent support while the Liberals trail at 33 per cent. The NDP is at 15 per cent in the vote-rich province while the Green party can claim 12 per cent of decided voters.
  338. Robert Bott from Calgary, Canada writes: Bob Durrant doubts that the federal government has supported oilsands development. He forgets that the federal government was a 15 per cent partner in Syncrude when it was built, that it exempted synthetic crude from price controls between 1975 and 1985, that it gave developers accelerated tax writeoffs, and that Ottawa has contributed large sums directly and indirectly to oilsands research. The federal CANMET Energy Technology Centre (CETC) in Devon, AB, is a major centre for extraction and upgrading research. Most of the early research in the oilsands, from the 1890s to 1930, was done by the federal government.
  339. Doug - from Calgary, Canada writes: Bill G from Calgary, Canada writes: A well written essay that covers all the bases. Bravo, Globe and Mail.

    I would second that.

    =
    I feel for those not in the oil industry in Alberta who while benifit greatly from the royalites lowering their taxes, have had to deal with the growth. I'm making so much more money than I used to in Ont and working 1/2 as hard. really, I get 12 flex day plus 11 stats on top of vacation days.
  340. S Boatright from Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: 'S Boatright(11:50): Are you serious? If you are, I hope to god you aren't more than 20-25 years old. I'm no computer serfing wiz, just look up the Federal budgets since the OPEC oil embargo of the early 70's. Just google it pal and, if you are sincerely ignorant of this, brace yourself, your illusions are about to be shattered. '

    No sir - I believe I asked you to provide your facts - not tell me to 'go Google it'. Apparently you know everything about it - but can't actually prove it. Not worth my time 'pal'.

    I didn't really expect you to be able to substantiate your claims anyway. I've lived in Alberta for more than 40 years - and lived through the NEP, the lean Klein years and the recent challenges with the influx of people and lack of infrastructure. Disillusioned I'm not - sick of people like you spouting your rhetoric without facts, that I will admit to.
  341. Robert Bott from Calgary, Canada writes: Durrant also wondered about the NOLA acronym. I believe it refers to New Orleans, Louisiana (LA), and specifically the Katrina disaster and post-Katrina debacle.
  342. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: S. Boatright(7:01): I'm under no obligation to provide you with a website that backs my position. 1) I wouldn't know how if I wanted to, few computer skills; 2) anything can be 'proven' with an internet site somewhere, there's a lot of shite out there; 3) if you choose to remain uninformed when the truth is literally at your fingertips, do so (Though much of what I say is supported by the posts of fellow Alberta boosters right here in these comments-push the up arrow and read.); 4) choosing not to know something you don't want to know is not something to brag about, I believe the term is 'wilfull ignorance' and it's no excuse for breaking the law either; 5) okay, if 'fingertip proof' is your standard, prove me wrong; and 6) despite your status as an NEP 'survivor', when oh so many were not as fortunate, I cannot help but comment on the fact that you apparently chose not to read a newspaper or follow a federal budget the entire time... ; it should have been hard to miss since the Libs were running huge deficits at the time and were being much criticized for sinking funds into the oil sands when the pay off was so far in the future. And am I reading you right, you're claiming hardship credits for living in Alberta because the economy is growing too fast for your infrastructure to keep pace? Poor man, poor province.
  343. S Boatright from Canada writes: Gary Thompson from Surrey BC - I really couldn't care less if you are enlightened or not.

    Actually - I didn't ask for a website. I asked for facts. You could put them in a post. You have facts don't you? Or perhaps not.

    You are the one who threw out the ridiculous statement that the Canadian Federal government has invested billions of dollars into the tar sands project - and now when I ask for facts - you tell me to prove that you are lying?

    That's very amusing.

    I didn't 'claim hardship credits for living in Alberta' - it was in response to your silly 'your illusions are about to be shattered' statement.

    I am quite happy living in Alberta. I guess I will, in your words, 'choose to be uninformed'. Your paricular interpretion of 'truth' is a bit too surreal for me.

    Thanks for the chat - but now I've lost interest. I only responded to you because I thought you actually had some real data. If I wanted to waste my time on fabricated drivel, with a dash of bitterness, resentment and a sprinkling of pure insult - I could playfully banter with The Bubble. ;)
  344. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: When I left this conversation it was 10:20 AM today. It was my second unsuccessful attempt to post some input.

    All I want to say is that the conversation has become a good one.

    Please be aware of the fact that oil sands is NOT the villian many people try to portray.

    We are addicted to oil in this world. Oil sands offers a unique opportunity to do it clean. This is the third try I have made today on this simple point.

    I have been in this industry since 1980. There are many opportunities to make clean oil in this oil sands industry that do not exist in any other facet of petroleum production.

    I cannot seem to get this technically sound point through the screening of this 'semi-moderated' site. I don't know that I care to offer any information any longer. What a crock!
  345. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Has anyone posting to this board been to Bitumont? It's an early oilsands plant on the east side of the Athabasca River, just north of Fort McKay. Development there started in the mid-30's and ended around 1950 after the Leduc oil stike. It's a provincial historic site now.

    I visited there a few times, just after the bridge to nowhere was built. It took special measures to get there as the road was very rough. It was easier just before the spring break up, when the road was still frozen.

    Anyways, with all the recent development, I can imagine the day when this old plant is next to the parking lot for one of the new ones. While I'm at it, I'm wondering what became of the old drag line crane that was abandoned when the Alsands project fell through. I got to crawl over that one on a winter's day.

    Seriously though, Bitumont used to be in the middle of nowhere. Have the recent developments started to encroach upon this yet?
  346. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Boatright, quick, how many Canadians were killed in the Pacific theatre of WWII? What, don't know! I guess that proves none were. If you look up the fact, because you want to know, realize you could have looked up the oil sands subsidies just as easily. That is, of course, if you haven't stomped off to avoid the truth.
  347. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Rudy Kreuger(7:59): I too am often at a loss over the mysteries of posting on a semi-moderated site. If it's any help, I have it on good authority that using the name of the son of the Christian god is a sure fire deletion;)
  348. Able Bodied Man from Canada writes:
    It is estimated that the entire oils sands hold 600 Billion barrels of oil, not all easy to recover at the moment

    Oilcos in Fort Mac fouled the air in the early 1980s and probably earlier.

    Trudeau the Pinkeau I calls him.
  349. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: You want to know about oil sands? Ask to know! Insist to know! If you blabber your way through another round of entertianing publishing, you will come away with nothing.

    There is much to learn and most of it is good - most of it is about regular people who put there all into this industry.

    If you want to be proud of this country and its accomplishments - ask to know about what has been accomplished during the past 30-40 years and by whom.

    Don't let the public relations clowns spread mis-information over the story once again.

    This is a Canadian wonder - you should protect it, support it, put your democratic strength behind it.

    Come on!
  350. Able Bodied Man from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Has anyone posting to this board been to Bitumont?
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    I've flown over Bitumount in a small plane and in about 1980 landed there. There were many pools of oil on top of the ground. This oil had actually seeped out of the ground. An eccentric living in the area had scrawled notices on equipment telling people to get out. It was almost spooky.

    Oil also seeped out of the banks of the Athatbasca River and probably still does, and the natives pitched their canoes with it at one time. I thought I once read that the first paving in Edmonton around 1915 involved using bitumen from the tarsands.
  351. S Boatright from Canada writes: Sorry Gary - I'm a big girl, and I can walk away from a taunt without biting. It's not very mature, respectful nor productive to continue with this silly tirade. If you want to claim yourself the victor in this war of words - feel free to do so. I'll go back to my world of 'wilful ignorance' - lol.

    However, should you decide to provide facts to back up your earlier statements, I'm happy to take the time to read them. I don't need a website - I'm quite capable of doing my own research. I actually did the research years ago when Ralph Klein first set up the tax incentives for these projects. I just want to see where your numbers came from - because truly, I believe you are simply making up a statement that arises from nothing more than your own personal feelings on this subject.

    Anyway - I have more pleasant things to do - so I'm signing off. Have a good evening. :)
  352. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: SB: If you change your mind, google Syncrude and Petrocan.
  353. David Simon from Canada writes: Go goo!

    Goo, goo goo!
  354. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: 'The Bubble from Canada writes: Hendrick, no one is abusing Alberta, no one wants the oil to completely stop, the biggest problem is that the Americans are taking it all and making the oil workers work in terrible conditions.'

    Terrible conditions? You make it sound like the work here is under conditions that make the Soviet gulags look like Disneyland... 20 guys to an unheated bunkhouse with only one blanket, all being fed cold gruel and worked like rented mules 16 hours a day. All we need from you now are the cries from Monty Python & The Holy Grail - 'Help! Help! I'm bein' repressed!'

    I hate to 'burst your bubble', Bubble, but you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I have no doubt that you won't let a little thing like that stop you, though.
  355. Will Hoaccio from Toronto, Canada writes: Well, Alberta has a lot of bridges to repair with Eastern Canada, indeed the world in my books. They have produced the single most noxious and damaging product since asbestos and are dragging down Canada's reputation as a modern, developed country.

    In case you hadn't guessed, i am referring to Nickelback, the most odious, repetitive and absolutely horrible thing to ever emerge from that god forsaken town of Hanna, Alberta. I suggest we transfer the Alberta's Heritage fund to UNICEF to make amends for the damage that band has done to global culture and our children.

    -seriously though, how do those hacks keep getting air time? Stupid CRTC!
  356. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: I need to put to bed some terrible misinformation from this article.

    ONCE AND FOR ALL THEY DO NOT USE 2-4 BARRELS OF FRESHWATER FROM THE RIVIER FOR EVERY BARREL PRODUCED!!!!*

    From Suncor's report on water use for its mining operations:
    http://www.suncor.com/links_popup.aspx?cid=3093-3095

    In 2006, Suncor’s oil sands operation used 2.4 cubic metres of river water to produce one cubic metre of oil – a 51% reduction in water use intensity since 2002.
  357. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes:'... could have looked up the oil sands subsidies just as easily.'

    I've tried to find anything on actual subsidies for oil sands, but there's just nothing out there.

    Sure there's whining from the NDP and that ilk about some (though not all) capital costs being deductible, but that's hardly a subsidy.
  358. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:'In 2006, Suncor’s oil sands operation used 2.4 cubic metres of river water...'

    That's just Suncor's operation. Overall water usage per unit output varies considerably depending on the extraction and processing methods. SAGD vs open cast, for example.
  359. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Read the following paper:

    'An impending water crisis in Canada's western prairie provinces.'
    DW Schindler and W.F. Donahue
    Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

    www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0601568103
  360. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robert, that paper (I figured out how to see it instead of just the abstract) essentially fits an exponential curve to the recent 1970-2001 warming and projects increases in temperature of over 5 degrees by the end of the century. That's just laughable.

    Temperatures are declining at present, not rising.
  361. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: I can't believe regulations allow for the companies to create these toxic ponds (tailings?) and leave them there without treatment? Seriously?

    How is this sustainable? I want us to be an energy superpower too, but if we are doing it by consuming finite water and finite natural gas, the math just doesn't seem to all add up. We'll run out of water and NG long before we run out of oil at this rate, and either way that will put the breaks on development?
  362. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: 'I can't believe regulations allow for the companies to create these toxic ponds (tailings?) and leave them there without treatment?'

    The short answer is 'no'.
  363. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Laughable only if you're insane, GlynnMhor. The longterm trend of rising temperatures still exists and is dramatic in the land areas of the northern hemisphere. Instead of pushing your faulty knee-jerk reaction, why not critique the temperature models with rational arguments? The paper (with links to models) can be downloaded from here:

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/103/19/7210

    Here's an abstract:

    An impending water crisis in Canada's western prairie provinces

    D. W. Schindler
    Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 2E9

    W. F. Donahue
    Freshwater Research Ltd., Edmonton, AB, Canada T6C 0R6

    This contribution is part of the special series of Inaugural Articles by members of the National Academy of Sciences elected on April 30, 2002.

    Contributed by D. W. Schindler, February 25, 2006

    Canada is usually considered to be a country with abundant freshwater, but in its western prairie provinces (WPP), an area 1/5 the size of Europe, freshwater is scarce. European settlement of the WPP did not begin until the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Fortuitously, the period since European settlement appears to have been the wettest century of the past two millennia. The frequent, long periods of drought that characterized earlier centuries of the past two millennia were largely absent in the 20th century. Here, we show that climate warming and human modifications to catchments have already significantly reduced the flows of major rivers of the WPP during the summer months, when human demand and in-stream flow needs are greatest. We predict that in the near future climate warming, via its effects on glaciers, snowpacks, and evaporation, will combine with cyclic drought and rapidly increasing human activity in the WPP to cause a crisis in water quantity and quality with far-reaching implications.
  364. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'Laughable only if you're insane, GlynnMhor... why not critique the temperature models with rational arguments?'

    You know very well I've already refuted the results of the models many times. The ultimate rational argument is that the models simply fail to replicate the known data either before or after the 1970-2000 warming period.

    These guys use a prediction of an exponential increase in temperatures to justify their alarmism, and meanwhile temperatures have been slipping globally.
  365. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Easy guys!

    I think GlynnMhor of Skywall might, in fact, be insane... He didn't even know that the Leafs suck!

    GlynnMhor -- you are obviously being paid by someone to deny the obvious? Who's your daddy?
  366. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: I can't believe regulations allow for the companies to create these toxic ponds (tailings?) and leave them there without treatment? Seriously?

    How is this sustainable? I want us to be an energy superpower too, but if we are doing it by consuming finite water and finite natural gas, the math just doesn't seem to all add up. We'll run out of water and NG long before we run out of oil at this rate, and either way that will put the breaks on development?

    --------------------
    Exactly. We here need to demand that the oil companies use renewable tech to get the oil. Its that simple. Want oil Syncrude?(why didn't they just spell it sin crude?) Use the least harmful way that is known to man to get it out. Simple, expensive, but really simple.

    But before I get an enviro award I'd like to say we need to be the worlds leader in oil. Its for everyones sake here to find the way to get at this oil. This gold mine isn't gonna mine itself. We need forward looking people to find ways to get this oil yet show it can be done in the least harmful way. Thats our challenge. Once we meet it we can only then export the knowledge and create even more opportunities for Canadians
  367. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: Actually Glynn make some good points. Its the bulling that makes me wonder who is thring to control the 'truth'
  368. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes:'GlynnMhor -- you are obviously being paid by someone to deny the obvious?'

    The obvious is that temperatures are currently falling, not rising, in the face of ever-increasing GHG concentrations.

    http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.pdf

    And I just dislike being lied to by political hypesters who promulgate the AGHG alarmism.
  369. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: GlynnMohr of Skywall:

    You should really read these papers...

    1) Schindler DW, Donahue WF

    'An impending water crisis in Canada's western prairie provinces'
    The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

    www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.0601568103

    2) Carter A,

    'Cursed by Oil? Institutions and Environmental Impacts in Alberta's Tar Sands'
    Government Department, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York.

    I have a bunch of them if you want, but you do have that graph that you like to provide your own interpretation to.

    BTW, yes, I have read the most recent IPCC report to answer your question on a previous post...
  370. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Bullying or smacking some sense into ??

    I would say that it is a judgement call.
  371. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor, the sustained rise in northern hemisphere temperatures (measurements, not models) is 0.032 degrees per year since 1965 and 0.048 degrees per year since 1992. I'll publish additional graphs on my website in the next couple of days which clearly show that temperatures (as measured) continue to increase.

    At the current rate of change (assuming the trend continues), the northern hemisphere land temperature anomaly will hit the dangerous 2 degree mark in a little over 20 years.
  372. James P from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: trying...jeepers.... Anyways it seems all about people who want to lead them....At least here... The environmentalist are usually liberal or NDP yet conservatives wonder why they are so concerned now when for the last ten years they demanded nothing from those they saw as saviours? Its all a little trite. As an outsider looking in, I see its as a way to gain votes, not a real concern, and that is what bugs me the most. Its about power instead of about truth and justice. Where did you go?!?! Why does it matter to suspend your beliefs to justify your political appointments? Its seems odd. Explain it to me your sociopathic hatred for Hitler, I mean Harper.
  373. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: James P from Spruce Grove, Canada:

    I am going to assume that you might be addressing me when you say...

    'Explain it to me your sociopathic hatred for Hitler, I mean Harper...'

    Do you remember how you felt 25 years ago when a certain Prime Minister wrote off the West just because he could...

    Did you also forget that there is a world 'progressive' in PC provincially or do all small-c conservatives across Canada now have to support eco-cide?
  374. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Able Bodied Man from Canada writes: 'I've flown over Bitumount in a small plane and in about 1980 landed there. There were many pools of oil on top of the ground. This oil had actually seeped out of the ground. An eccentric living in the area had scrawled notices on equipment telling people to get out. It was almost spooky.' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Able Bodied Man, thanks for posting. I also few over the site during the summer of 1985. We didn't land there though. I drove to Bitumont three times, and saw the airstrip during one of my visits. I'm impressed that you landed there. I could see fuel caches, and it looked like it was still in use for either fire fighting or survey crews. I took lots of photos of Bitumont, including some from the air. On the same flight, we went over Suncor and Syncrude. I've worked at both sites and can see that the G&M article confused the Syncrude site with Suncor - it's Suncor in the photos. From flying over these operations, I can say that while they're huge, so is the Alberta and Saskatchewan (nearby) landscape stretching out to the horizon. The sites are a drop in the bucket when compared to the amount of un-developed land there. The oilsands may cover an area the size of Florida, but the surface mining (as the article states) is only practiced in the area around Ft. McKay, north of Ft. McMurray. I've read articles that gave the impression that a Florida sized area would be turned into wasteland. It's misconceptions like this that have to be corrected. Also the issues with recycling the tailings pond water are economic, not technical. That water can be turned into drinking water if you're willing to pay the money to do it. The ponds are the lowest tech solution to the problem of what to do with the process water - A hold over from the days when the plant's economics were shaky. Something the article covers pretty well too.
  375. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: I have posted four new graphs on my website of NOAA temperature measurements from 1880 to 2007 inclusive, for both northern and southern hemispheres and for land and ocean. They show very clearly that the trend is for continued global warming, with the northern hemisphere land masses most at risk.

    GlynnMhor, stop your distortions. Global warming has not stopped. If the existing trend continues (and there is no proven mechanism to stop it), northern hemisphere land masses will hit the dangerous '2 degree' mark in about 20 years. We must act now to minimize the environmental and economic damage which would result.
  376. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: I've added a fifth graph, consolidating land, ocean, north and south into a global picture.
  377. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Alan Burke writes: '... northern hemisphere land masses will hit the dangerous '2 degree' mark in about 20 years. We must act now to minimize the environmental and economic damage which would result.' I don't profess to know anything about the science of AGW. I do know a little about human nature and group dynamics. I will offer you there is not a chance in hell that any significant change to GHG levels (downwards) will take place in the next 20 years. I make this statement with some knowledge of where GHG's come from. You might be able to influence things in Canada. You won't have any influence over countries causing 98% (and growing) of GHG emissions. I haven't seen anything to make me believe that we can slow down growth, let alone make absolute reductions world wide. I have read that dealing with the effects of AGW would be cheaper than the cost of preventing it. Of course the problem with this is that you can't 'buy' replacement species for any going extinct. I'm just putting this out there to see if you really think things will change in the world in a meaningful way, and whether or not you've considered a 'Plan B'. If the statement you made above is accurate, you may as well consider it a certainty to happen, and start planning accordingly. There isn't time to build the things we need to make the changes in that time-frame.
  378. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: In anticipation of further fog from GlynnMhor, I'm now running an analysis comparing the NOAA and HADCRUT3v datasets. Unfortunately, the Hadley data does not distinguish between land and ocean so the comparison will be two sets of northern and southern hemispere land and ocean combined. I'll publish the results on my website within a day or so.
  379. Anne Peterson from Canada writes: I live on the river system that flows north from this mess, on a beautiful river that we use for water supply, fishing, recreation. The people of Fort Chipewyan, at the end of Lake Athabasca, are suffering health problems now, although the powers that be try to shut it up for all they're worth.

    The water will flow north, carrying its poisons, through many communities, to the Arctic. What will win: money or life?
  380. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Anne, I am saddened to learn that 'The people of Fort Chipewyan, at the end of Lake Athabasca, are suffering health problems now.' The same can be said for communites downstream from the Chemical Valley on the St. Clair River here in Sarnia. Birth gender rates are being skewed and defects are above normal. Despite some work on cleaning up industry's environmental record, spills still take place and Walpole Island has to truck water in from safe areas. A pipe line could have been built years ago to provide clean water, but nothing has been done.

    I'd be interested to see your correlated data sets. Where is your web site? Be careful extrapolating exponential curve fits, They are only good between limts ... sigh ...
  381. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Anne,

    Did you ever think that the natural oil seeps along the river might have something to do with it?
  382. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Anne,

    Did you ever think that the natural oil seeps along the river might have something to do with it? '

    Cardium, you suggested in an earlier post that you had seen oil seeping into the river naturally. How many barrels per day do you figure?

    Did you ever think that the mechanically separated chemicals and pollutants from close to a million barrels per day has something to do with the changes in water quality over recent history?
  383. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: Correction to my last post:

    Alan Burke: I'd be interested to see your correlated data sets. Where is your web site? Be careful extrapolating exponential curve fits, They are only good between limts ... sigh ...
  384. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Anne Peterson, have you read anything on industrial water pollution or treatment? I realize these boards are for short bits that allow people to vent, but your message would be more effective if you could be more specific. What is it from the oil sands plants that escapes into the water that wouldn't be there naturally? The situation that Richard Hawrelak describes is a bit different. For years plants south of Sarnia used the St. Clair River as a toilet. For that matter, I don't believe the city of Sarnia or other towns on the river have storm water run-off containment systems. You'd be amazed at what will flush from city streets after a big storm. The plants aren't the only source of pollution. Anyways, plant cooling water systems must be isolated from the river so that an exchanger tube leak will be detected and sent to a site containment pond. If you can get these systems working well, not too many bad things go into the river. The city road run off might be the bigger problem. BTW, how good is the storm water treatment system at Ft. McMurray? It might be a bigger source of pollution than the plants. So I go back to my first question. Do you have access to test data to show what's in the river downstream of the town and the plants? That would help you in your quest to clean things up. And be happy that there isn't an old chlorinated hydrocarbon chemical plant upstream of where you live.
  385. The Bubble from Canada writes: This nonsense about global warming should be ignored, GlibmHor is simply a one man propoganda machine and everything he says has all been reputed already, he's like having gampy in the living room, just keep the romote away from him. The problem we have is that CANADA exports 70% of the oil it produces mostly to the US. Quebec and the Maritimes uses 90% imported oil and Ontario 40% imported oil. The imported oil comes from the Mid-east. WE don't have to do this if the country was a cohesive unit. We don't have to import. There is lots of room for Alberta and the East to do business and there is room for Newfoundland and Quebec to trade oil and electricity. The solutions are there but When the country can't get past it's childish bickering, we are supporting the problem of the Mid-East wars. The real problem in Canada is that the US is constantly undermining our ability to govern ourselves and the posters who come on this site as an example constantly fuel this old hatred of east vs west when the real troublemakers are the Big USA Oil Interests. As long as the US is allowed to disrupt the Canadian psyche, we'll never become anything. The divisiveness needs to end. Albertans need to remember that Ontario does some of the refinery processes for Albertan oil. Once we take care of our own house, then we can give Americans the extra, under free trade, this process is stifled and Canada will continue to be doomed to being a second or third rate country. For the Americanish Lawyerish types out there, simply Google Canadian oil exports, the numbers I got come from the TD, CIBC and government sources, I looked. The debate should always be framed as to what is good for our country, Canada, those who would change the frame of the argument are very likely Americans who come on here disguised as Canadians such as this ralph klien clown.
  386. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: 'Anne Peterson, have you read anything on industrial water pollution or treatment?'

    http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/story/2007/11/08/water-study.html

    ' 'We looked at things such as arsenic, mercury, methylmercury, a variety of heavy metals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, dioxins, furans, naphthenic acids, et cetera,' he told CBC News Thursday in an interview.

    'We found that there is reason to be concerned that levels of arsenic, mercury and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons are higher than would be considered safe.'

    Those levels are particularly higher in local fish, according to his report. Timoney looked at data from 1970 to the present, focusing on the Peace River, Athabasca River and the Peace-Athabasca Delta near Fort Chipewyan.

    Levels of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons rose between 2001 and 2005 in sediment in the Athabasca Delta, the report says, with current levels considered unsafe to aquatic life.'
  387. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: It looks to me like there is a lot of concern about the waste water just lying there evaporating. I don't know what's in it either.
    Perhaps someone on this thread knows and sees an opportunity to 'make a tonne of money' cleaning that up.

    Check out Petrobank for natural gas saving technology. They claim on their website they can profitably remine SAGD projects.

    http://www.petrobank.com/hea-thaiapplications.html

    It's an oil company with a multiple almost as high as RIM and ops in Venezuela(more heavy oil) and US. Also listed in Norway on the Oslo stock exchange.
  388. Gary Thomson from Surrey, BC, Canada writes: Bubble(11:54): Please allow me to apologize for being cranky with you yesterday. When you stopped posting on this site most of the sensible posting stopped too and the you-know-who's continued unabated. Again, sorry.
  389. The Bubble from Canada writes: Such short sightedness, the argument isn't about the environment here. The oil sands are our way to become self sufficient and in doing so reduce the tension of needing oil in the mid east. The pollution is being worked on and no one can change that at the moment. The real problem is that our politicians won't stand up to Big Oil Interests that demand the stuff from Canada on their terms. The US is addicted to oil, that's George W Bush's words. What we first need in Canada is a strategy for dealing with the stuff that allows us to control our country first and then control the poeple who would rather bring us to the brink of nuclear war than slow down their addiction. Power is never something you ask for.
  390. The Bubble from Canada writes: Hey, I know I get out of hand but the main thrust is to beat down the people who would disintegrate the conversation. I think it's deliberate to confuse Canadians who generally don't like these types of conversations (ie: anything that would cause an argument).
    Anyway, I didn't leave because of your comments, I thought it was funny when I saw it. I left to watch the Skills Competition on CBC. Danielle Alfredsson is the most well rounded hockey player/leader today.
  391. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Richard, the web site is in my 'handle' -

    http://climatechange.dynalias.com
  392. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: I think if you look back in history there was something called the Pipeline debate that preceded the construction of the the TransCanada Pipeline.

    Oil was to be imported from Venezuela et al for Quebec East and Ontario agreed to accept western Crude at a slightly higher price to establish a market in Canada for Canadian oil.

    I believe sometime in the 80's the pipeline was extended to Montreal on a reversible basis so Ontario was not locked in to just the West for supplies. Maybe in case of pipeline problems for instance.
  393. The Bubble from Canada writes: In the event of a crisis, Canada HAS to give the Americans our oil and natural gas (with only a decade of supply left) because of the clause in the FTA. Even Mexico has a security policy that makes sure they keep their oil for their own citizens before exporting in a crisis. Even Ralph Klien promised 'If we see oil drying up and we see the Alberta supply being threatened and the Canadian supply being threatened, we can do whatever is necessary to ensure that Canada receives its supplies first.'
    Unfortunately because of NAFTA, we can't. Mulroney got us into this mess 20 years ago because the Americans saw it coming. Canadian politicians should renegotiate this clause. We can be as powerful as any Arabian oil cartel, all we have to do is stand up for a change.
  394. D. Carter from Port Credit, Ontario, Canada writes: A comment on Burtynsky's photographs:
    They are, as always, stunning. We are lucky: clearly the world's best photographer of man's impact on nature, available to address one of the biggest, most environmentally controversial projects in the world- both in Canada. He stuns us with beauty where we just know beauty doesn't exist. He makes us reflect on man's need for the materials of existence, and the reality of how that is produced. Few of us will ever see the terrible beauty of how our homes are heated, how are cars are fuelled. His pictures are unforgettable because of the tension between beauty and desolation. It reflects our own ambivalence between the need to live and what we do to the environment in order to do so.

    On a separate topic, I laughed when I looked at both the 'Alchemy' and 'Curious Yellow' photographs printed in the Saturday Globe. Despite the questionable quality of any newsprint picture, I could instantly see Burtynsky's signature palette of colours. Kudos to the Globe for pulling off such a great colour print job. My only big regret is that not all of Burtynsky's photographs were printed in colour, as that is entirely what his photographs are about. He never prints in black and white- a big loss to readers.

    Finally, on a purely technical note, the quality of his pictures is superb, as always. He is a large format photographer (4' x5' negatives), so I have to presume that he put that size camera on a gyroscopic stabilizer as they seem to be taken from a helicopter. There was no comprimise in his defining excellent quality here. I don't think I've ever seen a Burtynsky photograph taken from the air in the past.

    I am (hopefully) presuming he'll produce a 'Tar Sands' series of photographs, and many of us will be able to see them as originals.
  395. Kelly Butz from EdmontonFort McMurray, Canada writes: I encourage everyone to go to GoogleEarth and take a look at the Fort McMurray area. Scroll north up the Athabasca River. First, you will see grey areas that are the Suncor and Syncrude mines and ponds. Then, scroll in any direction until your finger gets tired. The rest of the massive area is largely untouched (or even protected) boreal forest.

    The article states that 460 square kilometers (gasp!) have been developed. Compare that to the over 200,000 square kilometers of boreal forest. You can drive for over an hour between communities, with nothing in between except trees, creeks, and deer.

    Stand at the top of a tower or fly over it, and on the one side you will see an impressive amount of earth moving, and out the other side you will see trees going on forever. Over 1000km of nothing but trees from Fort McMurray to the arctic line. Even with the planned developments, the area of untouched land will be vastly larger than the Oil Sands.
  396. The Bubble from Canada writes: Kelly, what is your point? It is the single biggest source of greenhouse gasses in Canada. How much of the area should be destroyed before you think it's too much.
    Even the Americans aren't sure they want to use this filthy stuff.
    Get real
    You can drive past the nuclear reator in Chalk River and never see it either, this doesn't stop it from being dangerous.
    You can't see the oceans are losing fish from the shoreline
    You can't see god either.
  397. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao, thanks for posting a response to my question. That was pretty specific :-) I suppose the mercury and arsenic are coming from the tailings sand. This should be all natural (although very unhealthy) as it's in what's coming out if the ground. If this is escaping when the sand blows off the pond dikes (can 'Heavy' metal blow away too?), then there should be a way to control this.

    The Pembina institute likes to go after the oil sands plants. Have they published anything identifying the source and possible solutions. I'd be more concerned about water contamination in the short term, than AGW. Also, since the arsenic and mercury are naturally occurring, what is it about the handling of the tailings that would be concentrating these in things escaping from the site? In other words, why don't these stay in the low level concentrations of un-disturbed oilsand and over-burden soil?

    BTW, the items you identified can be filtered and removed using water purification processes. They can be removed from the tailings pond water. Unfortunately, once it's in the river everything ingesting the water or bottom sediments will be affected.
  398. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes: I thought Kelly's point was well made. People make it sound as if the Oil sands development is tearing up the whole northern part of the province. Its actually a fairly small area.

    Sure it would be nice if it was none of it from an environmental perspective but it would be rather hypocritical for any user of resources in the country to suggest that you can develop without impact.

    The alarmists will tell you we are turning Alberta into a moon scape. No different than Ontario's mining operations or any development. It doesn't look as good as mother nature but it isn't the end of the natural ecology either.
  399. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Bubble, are you sure about the oilsands plants being the single biggest source of GHG in Canada? Stats I've seen the title given to OPG's Nanticoke coal fired power plant.

    You might be able to say that the combined emissions from Syncrude, Suncor, and the others would be greater than Nanticoke's, but I doubt it. There are also more refineries and chemical plants in Sarnia that would be major GHG emission sources. Then if you look at industry wide statistics, the electrical power and heat generating industries put out nearly double the GHG's that the fossil fuel industry put out. Source:

    http://www.ec.gc.ca/pdb/ghg/inventoryreport/2005/2005summarye.cfm

    Not to say that GHG emissions from the oil sands aren't a concern, but you have to look at coal fired plants too (if not first).
  400. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'GlynnMhor, the sustained rise in northern hemisphere temperatures (measurements, not models) is 0.032 degrees per year since 1965 and 0.048 degrees per year since 1992.'

    Which tells us that the climate was warming, not that it is warming. It's quite clear that there has been warming in the recent past, and I've never tried to dispute that fact, so why you keep trotting out stuff of this nature is beyond me.
  401. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Bubble, you've posted a lot comments about what's in Canada's best interest. Please remember that Canada is a Federation. When Alberta entered Confederation, they negotiated ownership of their natural resources. That's the deal they signed up for and please figure that into your vision of the best way to make Canada work.

    From their point of view, arguments about how to share their resources with the rest of Canada look a lot like arguments for Canada sharing its resources with the USA - a partnership with an un-equal partner. In the mean time, how are the Americans 'taking' our oil? By paying top dollar for it! Something Central Canada resisted for as long as they could.
  402. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'I have posted four new graphs on my website of NOAA temperature measurements...'

    Did you fix your arithmetic errors stemming from improper weighting of the monthly averages yet? Or are you still allocating the same weighting to each month to get the annual averages?
  403. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes:' Rocky Zhao, thanks for posting a response to my question. That was pretty specific :-) I suppose the mercury and arsenic are coming from the tailings sand.'

    That and perhaps from the overburden as you mention that needs to be removed before they get to the paydirt. So, you could have leaching or run-off from those areas (mine area and where the overburden and processed sands are deposited) as well as leaching from the tailings ponds if they are not completely integral. This is all just speculation on my part.

    I think the plants also release some nasty chemicals from their flare stacks, although these would be more dispersed and show up in the pristene boreal forest and lakes far downwind. Local aviators refer to the 'Syncrude Smog' when approaching town if the wind is in a northerly direction.

    But, to many, as a couple of other posters might suggest, 'out of sight, out of mind'.

    I'm not sure whether Pembina offers any solutions on water treatment or containment.
  404. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Bubble's idea of shipping western oil and gas to the east instead of selling it to the yanks just doesn't work. The pipeline costs would be too great, and the resulting price in the east would be considerably more than the price from Venezuela, whence most of the east's oil comes. Eastern Canada isn't about to pay higher prices for Canadian oil when they can get foreign oil more cheaply.
  405. The Bubble from Canada writes: Visionless colonialists, or desperate Americans, both are dissapointing.
  406. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky, in investigating the reports of elevated nasty bits in water, it was actually determined that the samples were taken downstream of a natural landslide of oilsands that had recently occured..
  407. lynn H from Canada writes: The better environmental argument is the one concerning water pollution. This type of pollution can be contained and treated through good pond design and proper water treatment. It is relatively easy to monitor and improvement is measurable. No one would propose buying pollution credits from another 'pristine' water system instead of cleaning up the real damage.
  408. The Only Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    Who is going to clean up the mess already made ?
    The oil sands are now the worst polluted area in Canada.

    In Alberta, polluters are now called 'emitters'
  409. The Only Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    You can put lipstick on a pig...........
    Alberta is still the dirtiest province in Canada
  410. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky, in investigating the reports of elevated nasty bits in water, it was actually determined that the samples were taken downstream of a natural landslide of oilsands that had recently occured..

    By whom?
  411. Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao, I have never been involved with an application for a permit to operate a flare stack in Alberta. I have participated in this process in Ontario. The provincial environment ministry looks at the things you'll be flaring and the expected combustion products. They have to OK these before you get a permit to operate. As your plant expands, you have to make sure you don't exceed the maximum permitted combustion rate. At any rate, the provincial regulatory authority should know what's leaving the stack and accept the level of pollution it creates. If anyone wants to challenge the amount of pollution, they should go after the regulator first. As for the ground water leaching, that should be controllable. Sand can make a nice filter, so water run-off passing through it might lose some of the nasty things in it. It should also be possible to capture or contain leaking water. About the tailings sand: Current practice might be different, but my understanding is that sand remaining after the extraction process is pumped in a slurry to the tailings ponds. The slurry is thick enough to be used to build up the tailings pond dikes walls. Note that when a tailings line pipe brakes you see more sand than water. I would expect the bottom of the tailings ponds to have the highest concentrations of toxic things. When the ponds are drained, this would have to be carefully handled. This had not yet been done when I was there, but would have to be done eventually. They want to mine the oilsand lying under the pond. They have a plan to rotate mine sites and ponds. When they take down the pond, its contents and the dike wall are supposed to go back into the old mine. I'm sure there's people walking around who know how the river is being contaminated. I'd like to see if they also have a plan for stopping this. Unfortunately what's in the river will stay there for a while. Sort of like the bottom of Hamilton Harbour.
  412. The Only Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    lynn H ...............
    good pond design and proper water treatment requires science.
    You forget Alberta is controlled by rednecks and conservatives.
  413. Hendrick Larose from Calgary, Canada writes:
    Honest Conservative,

    Are you suggesting Albertans don't lead the way in the areas of science and technology. On what do you base that perspective?

    You indicate we are rednecks and conservatives yet your handle suggests you are a conservative (apparently a honest one). Again what are you trying to say?
  414. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Alberta Environment looked into the claims made by a consultant hired by the First Nations and determined tha tthe samples showing elevated levels were taken just downstream of a naturally occuring landslide in the bank of the river that consisted mainly of oilsand...
  415. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Woody Forrest from Out in the Sticks, Canada writes:'The provincial environment ministry looks at the things you'll be flaring and the expected combustion products. They have to OK these before you get a permit to operate...At any rate, the provincial regulatory authority should know what's leaving the stack and accept the level of pollution it creates.'

    I think that's part of the issue. The regulations have been somewhat lax in the past, and arguably need to be tightened up. I think it was you that pointed out that the tailings ponds are a relic of the past when the operations were uneconomic.

    For example, to test gas wells (to determine their deliverability and size of the reserves) up the mid 90's, regulations allowed flaring of gas for a couple of days on new wells - now that has been reduced significantly - and regulations are especially tightened for venting and flaring of sour gas (H2S).

    Changing regulations (tightening up allowable emissions which may include CO2 capture) is a political decision that will cost O&G companies money. Right now there is not the political will to do so. But public awareness of the issues is increasing.
  416. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Alberta Environment looked into the claims made by a consultant...'

    Yeah, I'd be a bit skeptical of their objectivity, frankly. But, at least there is acknowledgement that there are nasty things in that soil (overburden and oil sands) to be concerned about when they enter the water system, whether naturally or through industrial development. I tend to believe the latter is more likely the main culprit.
  417. Jake Smith from Saskatoon, Canada writes: The oil sands detractors from eastern Canada should back-up their self-righteous whining by refusing to cash their equalization cheques. They should also imagine what their unemployment situation would be if all those people who moved out west returned home. Either way the west would be a better place.
  418. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Regarding the strip mining process I believe there is an implied error in the discussion about the area to be strip mined. Of the 'area the size of Florida' probably 90% or more would be developed by underground SAGD or fire flooding or other yet to be revealed technology as opposed to strip mining.
    There is lots of good examples of reclaimed land around Alberta's coal strip mines. A small section was left to show the original state of the just mined area. In many areas of the Forestburg Halkirk area mine, the land reclaimed is of higher productivity than the unmined area due to the development of drainage in the previously near impermeable sandstone and shale bedrock.
  419. ralph klein from Canada writes: The Only Honest Conservative from Western, Canada writes:
    You can put lipstick on a pig...........
    Alberta is still the dirtiest province in Canada
    .
    .
    dude , use spell check...
    ,
    richest is spelt just like it sounds---' Alberta is the RICHEST province in canada '.....
    ............. :)
  420. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: ralph klein from Canada writes:' Alberta is the RICHEST province in canada '

    Say, wasn't Alberta also once the richest province in Canada for wild buffalo?

    I wonder what the province will look like when today's modern buffalo hunters move on...
  421. ralph klein from Canada writes: ??

    two or three hundred years from now ????

    i dont think i care .

    ............. but i am sure we'll still be happier and wealthier
    than y'all
  422. Robert McLean from Calgary, Canada writes: The front page picture suggests a serious environmental commentary will follow. However the substance of any commentary is greatly weakend by labelling the Suncor Plant as Syncrude. It suggests to me an editorial bias using any data to spin a story.
  423. Walker N from Calgary, Canada writes: Cardium Crude

    It's nice to see there's at least one person on these boards that has some knowledge of the industry, unfortunately when it comes to a topic such as this you just can win an argument. I agree with you whole heartedly, but you're wasting your breath.

    What's really funny about this is that the oilsands mining operations are in a way cleaning up the world largest natural oil spill, c'mon the surveyors 200 years ago realized that the water systems in that area had oil leaching into them.....And to the guy that said the Lord put it there...hahaha.

    FYI the sand that is mined can is cleaned and can be returned to backfill the mine sans the bitumen, throw some soil over it and watch the trees grow... moon landscape my a$$

    And to those in Ontario that hate us so much, maybe we should stop buying equipment manufactured there and import directly from China, would that make you feel better about yourselves? NE way that's my rant I'll shut up now.
  424. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robert McLean from Calgary, Canada writes: '... labelling the Suncor Plant as Syncrude. It suggests to me an editorial bias...'

    Or maybe it's just eastern ignorance at work. The G&M is a Toronto paper, after all.
  425. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Ralph Klein:

    Where are you and the boys from the Fraser Institute exactly going to go after you have destroyed your own Province?

    I know that your Board members, Black and Radler, are going to jail so you need not speak for them...

    Are the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change of the World Meteriological Organization, the National Academy of Sciences of the United States, the Government Department of Cornell University, etc., etc. delusional?

    Or is just you and the folks at the Fraser Institute that are?

    Your last answer indicates that you know what Alberta's future holds, but you don't really care...

    Nice, Ralph! I will really be sure to tell my grandkids about you when they ask why there is a massive toxic tar pond with a 'firewall' around it in Western Canada...
  426. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: I would suggest that anyone here who is making these fantastic claims about the terrible polution of the Athabasca river go read the reports from the RAMP project, to get a better understanding of what is going on uo there. Each report is readily available for download at http://www.ramp-alberta.org/
  427. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: I think that that we are going to be in for some lazy reporting here in this feature with lots of quotes from Pembina et al. I'd be really suprised if they were to actually look into some of the public data on water quality measurments, or the flow levels etc in the river, that would be to easy, instead they will quote Schindler and the Fort Chip natives, it will probably sell more papers that way.
  428. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: 'I would suggest that anyone here who is making these fantastic claims...'

    Do you mean like claiming that you can produce 3 barrels of oil for every barrel of river water, yet when I provide the evidence from Suncor directly disputing your claim, you quickly change the topic?

    Upon reviewing the membership list of RAMP, this appears to me to be an industry based association - hardly what one would consider objective or unbiased.

    Their reports no doubt are issued under these conditions outlined in their 2005 terms of reference:

    '11.0 DECISION MAKING
    11.1. Members of RAMP shall strive to reach agreement by the process of consensus. If circumstances arise such that consensus cannot be reached, then a 75% majority decision by all members in good standing at that time shall prevail.'

    Their latest report, 2006, predates the study released as noted above. And even then, doubtful they would have undertaken similar testing, 75% concensus or not.
  429. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: 'Cardium Crude: ... when I provide the evidence from Suncor directly disputing your claim...'

    Does CC work for Suncor? If not, then posting aboput their plant and their process does not refute anything CC says about other plants and other processes, or even about the overall water usage efficiency in all the operating plants.
  430. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky, sorry I missed yor previous post, that data I was quoting was from Syncrudes plant...
  431. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: 'Rocky, sorry I missed yor previous post, that data I was quoting was from Syncrudes plant... '

    Thanks for the clarification. From Syncrude:

    'Water intensity was 2.26 cubic metres per barrel [sic -should be per cubic metre - see chart below] of production, an improvement of nearly one per cent over 2005.'

    http://sustainability.syncrude.ca/sustainability2006/environmental/water.html

    It must be difficult eating your words for a second time. Perhaps you can ask the other zealot GlynnMhor of Skywall to join you while dining.
  432. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor, what is it about the word 'sustained' that you don't understand?

    Sustained: maintained at length without interruption or weakening; 'sustained flight'

    Look at the graphs and observe the longterm trends.
  433. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky, see it is not 4:1 ratio it is more like 2:1. I am glad you are taking the time to visit the sites and do some reading.... Could you quote how much % of the annual flow from the Athabasca is actually used. I recall Suncor uses .03%, and syncrude is similar.. All told oilsands uses only around a fraction of the rivers annual flow for use.. compared to many rivers in the south the Athabasca has one of the lowest alotments around..
  434. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor asked:

    'Did you fix your arithmetic errors stemming from improper weighting of the monthly averages yet? Or are you still allocating the same weighting to each month to get the annual averages?'

    Comparing to the NOAA published annual numbers, the RMS error calculating an annual unweighted average is 0.00036 while that for a weighted average (based on month lengths as the weighting factor) is 0.00998. The unweighted number has 3.62% the RMS error of the weighted. Clearly NOAA is using a different mechanism in converting from monthly numbers to annual.

    In light of this, I am continuing to use unweighted numbers to calculate an annual average from monthly numbers. NOAA provides hemispherical breakdowns only on a monthly basis so I am forced to use one of the two averaging mechanisms, clearly the better one.

    Brian Klappstein pointed to an error earlier which I made because some of the data were missing for certain months - I corrected that error within a few hours of having been advised of it, as I noted publicly here.

    It seems to me that you are implying shoddy data handling on my part, quite contrary to the reality. My precision and accuracy are orders of magnitude better than your cherry-picked eyeballing of a single graph. But I'm not surprised - you tend to resort to personal attacks when you are shown to be wrong.
  435. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes:'It seems to me that you are implying shoddy data handling on my part...'

    Something is making your results differ from the NOAA annual figures to the extent of moving 2007's ranking from the fifth warmest to the second warmest. I've suggested one possible source of error, but if that's not it, then something else must be.

    As that song goes 'Two men say they're J@sus, one of them must be wrong'.
  436. Kim Morton from Canada writes: Trust the ecoterrorists to find a down side to everyone erning a good living. Wonder where their paycheques come from? And how they power their cars?
  437. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Cardium Crude, you must be back from dinner break at the Syncrude canteen. Did you have a large helping of crow pie? So, good to see you admit your earlier statement was a complete fasehood: 'ONCE AND FOR ALL THEY DO NOT USE 2-4 BARRELS OF FRESHWATER FROM THE RIVIER FOR EVERY BARREL PRODUCED!!!!* In reality they only use about 20% fresh make up water through the plant. the plant circulates around 4000 m3 of water per hour and produces around 350,000 barrel of oil per day. this gives roughly *3 barrels of oil for every one barrel of water consumed!!! ' I wonder what else you post here that is a complete fabrication, or are you just simply ignorant? As far as the percentage of total annual flow, this is typical industry spin you so readily embrace. Let me try to put it in terms even you could understand. Have you ever considered whitewater rafting down the Red Deer River, or noticed how the Bow River through Calgary swells in the spring? Yes, winter melt and run-off can increase water flow significantly. So, to somehow include these anomylous extreme flow periods to calculate an annual river flow, and expressing Syncrude's or Suncor's use in percentage terms against that annual total is deliberately misleading. The overuse of water by oil sands operators becomes an issue during low flow periods (in the middle of summer or the middle of winter). Btw, did you know that the Cardium zone throughout Alberta can be a source of salt water for waterfloods? I know firsthand. Cut the B.S. ok? Unlike others, I happen to know the industry well, and for quite a long time now.
  438. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: 'GlynnMhor:Look at the graphs and observe the longterm trends.'

    Temperatures from 1880 go down and up and down and up and now it's looking like down again. Long term and short term trends tell us that we can now expect cooling. Only extrapolating the 1970-2000 trend would give a different result.

    And that's not the result we're seeing, now is it? Global temperatures just aren't rising, in a manner sustained or otherwise, at present.
  439. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: I don't understand what you're saying here GlynnMhor:

    'Something is making your results differ from the NOAA annual figures to the extent of moving 2007's ranking from the fifth warmest to the second warmest. I've suggested one possible source of error, but if that's not it, then something else must be.'

    While my graphs clearly show that the 2007 northern hemisphere land temperature was the highest on record and the combined northern land and ocean number the second highest, the global both hemisphere both land and sea number is exactly what NOAA lists, at 0.5493 degrees. On what are you basing your statement that I've misrepresented the 2007 number? You must be misreading my graphs.
  440. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky,

    If you new the industry well then you might also know that they have large storage impoundments to assist during low flow and that Alberta Environment has in their power to limit water use during low flows.....
  441. Josh K from Edmonton, Canada writes: Jake Smith from Saskatoon writes 'The oil sands detractors from eastern Canada should back-up their self-righteous whining by refusing to cash their equalization cheques. They should also imagine what their unemployment situation would be if all those people who moved out west returned home. Either way the west would be a better place.'

    This kind of moronic, petty, west vs east drivel helps no one (and it's particularly ridiculous coming from a resident of Saskatchewan, a province that until recently has been cashing equalization cheques with just as much vigor as those good-for-nothing easterners). Alberta's problems are Canada's problems, and attempting to deflect legitimate criticism of the development in Alberta by invoking this childish us vs them rhetoric only diverts attention from the pressing issues that every one can agree that we face.
  442. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan, the NOAA's own global annual figures leave 2007 as the fifth warmest, not the second warmest. I'm not misreading your graphs, I'm looking at what theirs say:

    1998 0.5764
    1999 0.3947
    2000 0.3629
    2001 0.4933
    2002 0.5572
    2003 0.5564
    2004 0.5333
    2005 0.6045
    2006 0.5393
    2007 0.5493
  443. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Everyone decries the 'dirty money', yet they still cash the cheques. You've GOT to love human nature :)

    Bitchandmoan 'til the cows come home - these projects aren't stopping - they're not even going slow down.
  444. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: I know that's what their numbers say, GlynnMhor; I'm working with them. Don't be obtuse; I asked why you believe that I claimed something else. How do you justify this statement: '...to the extent of moving 2007's ranking from the fifth warmest to the second warmest...'? Their numbers clearly show 2007 warmest for the northern hemisphere land and second highest for the combined land and ocean northern hemisphere measurements. It's the southern hemisphere numbers, especially the oceanic ones, that bring the global average down to fifth.

    From my point of view you appear to be trying to discredit me by misrepresenting what I said. That is unethical. My attacks on you are justified and direct; you seem to rely upon insinuation and I'm guessing it's because you know the frailty of your own claims, trying to create 'blame' where none exists.
  445. Cardium Crude from Calgary, Canada writes: To see some pictures I took of the natural oil seeps long the banks of the Athabasca River banks go to www.flickr.com and under people search for 'oilydunes' enjoy.

    I tried a direct link but G&M would no let post through
  446. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Water consumption has changed greatly in 40 years. In the original operations the rate of draw from the river was huge. Much of it remains in the big old ponds and can be re-used when the old kind of tailings has been solidified. It does evaporate however. 'Tailings' is a generic term. It is like 'leftovers.' It can contain all sorts of things or not much of anything. The tailings of old at the original plants carried a lot of bitumen which slowly rose to the surface and has been skimmed off to be processed. It also used to contain sulfur, naphtha. The two of these would raise a real stink in the summer. Most of the bitumen (and remember that it came from the same ground originally) was embedded in fine clay particles that the extraction process could not deal with. It was called 'fine tailings' and a lot of less flattering names but it was going in the way it came out. New technology - not fully proven but close - eliminates fine tailings. There are huge deposits of limestone calcium under the mines once they have been stripped clean. This is used along with some outcroppings of limestone in the vacinity, to draw sulfut from the exhaust gasses. It makes gypsum, which is stable and has the effect in the ponds, of pressing out the water from the fines to let them settle quickly and firmly. If enough of that is done, the ponds will be reclaimed to original. The ponds are made of the mined-out portions of deposit so there is no bitumen underlying them except what is held in the tailings. I do suspect that the fine tailings will be processable one day. There are huge quantities of rare metals naturally occuring in the ore. Attempts to remove them commercially have not succeeded but the prize is large enough to continually attract new technical investment. Who knows one day? All forms of emissions have been or can be addressed today whereas when I was there, this was the biggest quandry of the business.
  447. Gerry Stephenson from Canmore, Alberta, Canada writes: Your article focused on recovery of bitumen by mining shallow sands, transporting it to a plant, removing bitumen and upgrading it to synthetic crude. This requires huge operations for economies of scale and disturbs vast surface areas for pits, tailings ponds and plants. There is a proven method which disturbs only 2.5 % of the area disturbed by mine based recovery, reduces emissions considerably by using less energy, but is NOT being considered by operators. This method utilises tunnels in the solid limestone immediately below the reservoir, pairs of wells drilled from the tunnels and sloping up into the base of the reservoir where the wells are drilled for 1000m. The upper well is heated by steam or electricity, the bitumen becomes mobile as it's temperature rises, flows by gravity into the lower well and to a pipeline system in the tunnel for pumping to the surface. The method was proven in the early 90's at the Underground Test Facility, or UTF, in Ft. McMurray, an initiative of AOSTRA, a Provincial Government organisation. They were joined, but only when the method had been almost proven, by nine oil companies. None of these companies have since employed this system though they have adopted some of the technology by drilling wells from the surface and abandoning the benefit of gravity drainage. Surface based drilling uses more energy, creates more emissions and disturbs eight times more land than the tunnel system. Like many good ideas the tunnel sytem depends on two basic principles; 1) Heat rises, and 2) Liquid flows downhill. Why are operators ignoring a proven system and why is the Provincial Government not forcing them to consider it?. I was Project Director for construction of the UTF and have been crusading since for adoption of the system, without success!. I am also on the Board of OSUM Oil Sands Corp. a private company with extensive leases who are considering a tunnel based system, partly because of it's environmental advantages.
  448. gordon scott from Lotus Land, Canada writes: Back when I was attending grade five at a school in Calgary, I recall that one of the courses we studied was the Geography of Alberta. I distinctly remember being taught that this particular region was known as the Athabasca Tar Sands.

    Just when and how has it now become the Alberta oil sands?

    It seems that for humankind $$$ means absolutely everything; the health of the Planet means little to us.
  449. D. G. from Burnaby, BC, Canada writes: Actually the Alberta Oilsands can rightfully be considered the Greatest Environmental Clean-up Project of all Time. You have a naturally occurring 'toxic' substance 'contaminating' the soil, oozing into rivers, and all we are doing is cleaning the oil off of the sand, and selling the oil. The sand and water is stored for future and eventual treatment, and the land is eventually returned in better condition than it was before, pollutant removed! The treatment plants for reclamation are part of the environmental permit. Canada has some of the best mining environmental standards in the world, this is not China. The energy/electrical supply will come mainly from state of the art high efficiency natural gas burning utility boilers. The exhaust will be scrubbed to removed pollutants, even Co2, which is not a pollutant, can eventually be captured and piped away for storage in the very same under ground geological formations that the natural gas came from. For perspective, the annual pollution from these plants will be negligible in comparison to what is produced by China and India each and every day. Its reported China starts up a new COAL fired electrical plant every 4 days! This land up in Fort McMurray is barely below the tree line, its virtually muskeg, barely supporting mangy dwarf spruce, unsuitable for agriculture. This is not the Amazon rain-forest, teaming with biological diversity, there is no ecotourism here. Its interesting how alarmed people seem to get over seeing an aerial view of an 'industrial' plant site, Ooooo scary stuff! When in comparison the amount of prime farmland that is 'scorched' to supply Southern Ontario suburbia on an annual basis, would dwarf anything the oilsands could produce. You want to see an industrial plant site, fly over Sarnia and tell me what you see. You can see that 'from space' as well, hell with Google Earth you can see your own backyard!
  450. D. G. from Burnaby, BC, Canada writes: The oilsands will drive the Canadian economy for decades, steel, concrete, trades people, manufacturing plants, all benefit, across Canada. Not to mention the corporate/wage/GST taxes generated from every single oilsand dollar, that goes to the Federal government every year. The billions in Federal budget surplus we have seen recently are the direct result. Then there are the Billions in transfer payments from Alberta to there at of Canada. The list of economic benefits to Canada as a whole are endless.

    Canadian business and industry outside of Alberta just have to wake up and realize the opportunities waiting. Its amazing how all Canadians have been forced to continuously lend/subsidize $ billions to companies that can barely survive year to year, such as Bombardier airlines, which benefits just a few hundred people, and small region, and here we have the GREATEST Economic engine this country has EVER seen, stimulating the economy from coast to coast, and petty provincial jealousies want to kill it. Truly pathetic.

    If you are feeling left out, do what most of Alberta's ancestors did, jump in a truck, on a train, head West and take part, or get out of the freaking way.
  451. KAT Man from Fort McMurray, Canada writes: The article is so filled with errors regarding the area around Fort McMurray, it is almost laughable. Did the writer actually come to here or simply relied on the phone and read the junk most others have written?

    The current open pit mines are actually quite small when you think about the number of years mining has gone on. On the highway between the two major mines you pass through an area that was part of the original mining done in the mid 70's and has been reclaimed. The forest is essentially identical to any other around the area.

    We go out to the bush surrounding the city and can go for miles in almost any direction and see nothing but forest, a thin ring of trees? I don't think so.

    Fort McKay is listed in the story as being two hours drive from Fort McMurray. By dog sled perhaps...would you say 55 km is a two hour drive?

    I could go on, but it is sufficient to say a better job needs to be done to get the facts straight!
  452. Silent Majority from Canada writes: D.G.,

    Well said. The typical self righteous Canadian cannot see the forest for the trees.
  453. Peak Everything from Canada writes: Math is everything. Rough calculations indicate that at North America's (US and Canada) present rate of oil consumption (~8 billion barrels/year) and a 2% rate of increase annually, the 175 billion barrels of oil reported in the oil sands will last approximately 18-20 years. If we remove the US from the picture, we would still only be able to stretch it about 50 years. Our global gas supply is dwindling, and will probably run out in 30 years. I can't imagine what the country will look like in 5 years, let alone 20 or 30 years. Our way of thinking will most certainly contribute to our demise. This is a finite planet, with finite resources. Just wait until fuel supplies become threatened. Everyone should also become familiar with the "Limits to Growth Study" from the early 70's (recently update to 2004). Big wakeup call. We are entering into an era of multiple resource depletion, and rapid population growth. Oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are in decline, amidst increasing demands world wide. Something has to give when you have continued consumption of a finite resource. The main stream media (of which I consider most of what people access) are not reporting the real and pertinent information that a modern, educated society requires if we are to survive. Search the web for articles, and interviews, from Dr. A. Bartlett, and begin to understand the real limits we are facing. Go to http://www.globalpublicmedia.com and look for Dr. David Hughes as well to get a picture of what our world gas supply is like. People need to be enlightened, and should seek out the other news or information sources.
  454. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: For those of us who have spent 35 years in the oil/gas industry, we just sit back and smile at the arm chair quarter backs.

    It's good that the Globe and mail are trying to educate all Canadians, yes errors will be made in reporting, but that is human.
  455. david pereira from Kw, Canada writes: Why the hate for ontario Walker N.. How do you think you got by before oil became profitable.. i think Ontario's done a lot for Canada and take exception to what you said... We're one country and we stay united regardless...
  456. Peak Everything from Canada writes: I wonder what a person having worked in the oil/gas industry knows after 35 years. I would doubt they know very much based on the response, which didn't contain any information, just the pretense that they may know something that nobody else does, and they aren't going to share ....like a school girl secret.

    I worked in the oil/gas field for many years back in the first boom (as a technician - in the field), and I can speak from that experience and knowledge that I have gained since then, and that the oil companies are as big a propaganda machince as any government or other large conglomerate.

    It is ok to bite the hand that feeds you, especially if they have been feeding you a lie.

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top