Skip navigation

Shifting sands, Part VI

The climatic costs of rapid growth

ERIN ANDERSSEN

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 11:50 PM EST 13/02/08

'We're exploiting this province way too fast,' says one farmer. ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Who pays for the environmental clean up of the Tar Sands when this is all over?

    BTW in the last series, not one poster even mentioned that water may be the limiting factor instead of oil.
  2. Marv M from Canada writes: This is absolutely unacceptable. This is a really good reason why the Alberta Conservative Party will more than likely for the first time ever, lose allot of support in this Province. I am Conservative and I am sick and tired of what the Tar Sands is doing to this Province. Alberta has gone from a nice place to live and call home to the complete opposite. Housing is unaffordable, Rents are the most expensive in Canada, you have to wait for everything because everyone is understaffed. Great you say, there must be lots of jobs! Yes, there are tons of mediocre paying jobs, so mediocre in fact that some people are forced to take 2 just to meet the cost of living in this Province. Crime is through the roof, traffic congestion is ridiculous and the transient laborers from around this country continue to pour in. Suncor is getting rich, the average Albertan is anything but. Take away the large increase in everyones house value and most people are much worse off and have fallen way behind the annual inflation rate. It SUCKS to live in this Province!!! I wouldn't wish bad on anyone but I would not shed a single tear if oil dropped down to 10 dollars a barrel. The Eastern bums would move home, housing and rents would once again become manageable and life would become a little more enjoyable.

    I am not alone in this thinking, I know TONS of Albertans who feel the same. The ones that think it is so great are the ones who are milking it for all it's worth and think that money is all that matters and that quality of life is irrelevant.

    We are destroying the northern part of this Province, all for the sake of greed and most Albertans look the other way or really don't care. That's because they probably do not understand the long term impact of what is happening!!!
  3. 20 20 from Canada writes:
    It was a Jan. 2006 meeting in Houston, Texas between the US Department of Energy, American oil executives, and some Canadian counterparts, that called for a 'fivefold expansion' in Canadian oilsands production in a 'short time span', and 'encouraged' government 'to streamline the regulatory approval process' with a 'one-stop-shop' for project proposals to facilitate that expansion.

    Harper quickly embraced (read: obeyed) this, indicating that he would work to deliver 4 million barrels per day by 2015, a dramatic fourfold expansion in just 9 years, and established the 'Major Projects Management Office' to 'streamline the regulatory system for major resource projects' and 'provide a single point of entry into the federal regulatory process for industry'.

    In Mar. 2006, Harper, with Bush and Fox, created the SPP's NACC: 30 unelected CEOs, 2/3's foreign, to guide (read: direct) our government. The NACC soon issued a report that included 10 recommendations calling for integrating North American energy supplies and distribution.

    Why are the real decisions for our country, with sweeping, long-term consquences, being made behind closed doors by unelected corporate elites instead of by the Canadian electorate? What democracy?
  4. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Marv M from Canada:

    The training and expertise of the Eastern creeps and bums in Alberta is also now needed in their own Provinces to develop their own Provincial economies particularly with Offshore oil and gas now coming ashore in Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia...

    As well as the development of Tidal Power projects in the Bay of Fundy and Hydroelectricity projects in the Upper Churchill...
  5. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Sorry, I meant Lower Churchill Project in my last post... The Upper Churchill Project will remain another regional slight whose consequences the Federal Government may have to live with one day... possibly somewhat like the NEP is today.
  6. Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: We have to quit burning stuff to create energy, period. Never mind the horrors of global warming, the sheer air pollution and water pollution generated by this process of burning stuff to create energy is so dangerous to our health, our planet, it is so late and so short-term greedy. On behalf of my yet to be born grandchildren, this has got to stop.
  7. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: LOL the rightfullness of some of these posters! Yeah Vickky's gonna walk from now on in winter... Marv, you are kidding yourself pal... Go to the Maritimes if Alberta is not a great place... and BEG! The Globe and Mail is with this series of article showing the color of Ottawa; Only Ottawa central power has interest in seeing Alberta losing some steam. Anyone in Alberta should stop buying this rag.
  8. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada:

    The G&M is not the only one showing their true colours.

    I would have to say that this G&M series on the Tar Sands have contained some of the most honest, balanced and well written articles that I have ever seen in the MSM in Canada in quite sometime.

    Kudos to their writers and editors.
  9. the canadian friend from Romania writes: I admit my ignorance of Albertan geography and would appreciate knowing the following: Who relies on the Athabaska river for their water supply? In which direction does the Athabaska flow, and which population centres (if any) does it flow through/by? Thank you.
  10. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Go to the main page where all the stories are located, along with interviews, audio/aerial pictures:
    theglobeandmail.com

    The Athabasca flows north through Fort McMurray, Fort Mackay, into Lake Athabasca(Fort Chipewyan) and eventually reaches the Arctic.

    There is a map link along the toolbar, next to the link for aerial photos.

    The interview with Celina Harpe is worth watching.
  11. joe blow from the boonies, Canada writes: Yup, clear to see where the canadian people are on the food chain.

    Our leaders have (more than ever perhaps) put up the 'open for business' sign on the 49th parallel, and big oil is lickin their chops.

    But fear not fellow canucks! I am sure we can take them ( big biz and big mouths ) at their word that technology will save us all and a cleanup is just around the corner.

    p.s. sorry about our climate, but you can't make an omelet without breaking a few eggs !
  12. Bob Van Derlay from Toronto, Canada writes: The oil companies have made a start on capturing the CO2 from the oil sands. That takes care of about 30% of it. The rest of us should get moving on capturing the remaining 70% that is released when we heat our homes and drive our cars.
  13. Victor Kozen from toronto, Canada writes: Greed ! Greed ! Greed !
    This cancer is way out of control in Alberta and the Conservative government encourages the trashing of the very province that is it's greatest supporter. If Albertans don't wake up soon and do something, future generations can only grieve over the desecration of the land and society.
    As usual the US military-industrial-congressional complex is ultimately making the decisions regarding the rape of this part of the continent.
  14. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: The Canadian friend from Romania:

    There is a good paper of the Proceedings of thye National Academy of Sciences of the United States entitled, 'An impending water crisis in Canada's Western Prairie provinces' by DW Schindler and WF Donahue.

    http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/0601568103v1.pdf

    I am sure that our friends to the South would not reasonably expect Albertans to further exacerbate this fragile ecosystem and threaten human populations in Canada by further acceleration of Oil Sands development...
  15. Dave Jansen - Obama for PM from Canada writes: Cleaning up the environmental mess and dealing. ensuring non-contaminated water for drinking purposes and dealing with high cancer rates will put Alberta's paltry 16 billion heritage fund to rest within half-a-year.

    Did anyone catch the comparisons between Norway and Alberta yesterday??? Absolutely stunning to say the least. That alone should be enough for every Albertan to rise up against the government that squandered away their and their children's future.
  16. Dave Jansen - Obama for PM from Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes:'Yeah Vickky's gonna walk from now on in winter... '

    Typical straw-man arguement set up by the indignant right. No Jean, it's not about giving everything up, it's about investing in R&D for better solutions, it's about the simple things we can do in our everyday life that quickly add up, it's about realizing that once our generation dies, there will be another generation, and another, and another...
  17. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Bob Van Derlay from Toronto, Canada: The tar sand projects are so devestating to the environment that CO2 is practically the last consideration here from a protection point of view, and that's saying something.

    This resource should have been developed slowly with an eye towards taking advantage of future oil prices as well.

    The lack of foresight here is staggering. The average Albertan ought to be ripping mad about this. In twenty years you won't recognize the place.
  18. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: 24 Hours of every day of 365 days of every year since 1960, people, now numbering in the thousands, are working away on making these oil sands operate. The prize for solving problems or even for moving the problem-solving process forward, is huge. Companies motivate and reward. The people themselves are motivated by the same moral values as reporters and readers think they hold. I was only involved directly in the oil sands for ten years - one of them being 2006-2007. In that space of time these worker-bees solved virtually all (not all) of the major problems that defined the business until 1988. Now the public reads a set of articles in an Ontario newspaper and draws the conclusion that they and the newspaper are experts. What a load of rubbish! What irrational behaviour! The problems that are being raised about 'fine tailings' stem back to the origins of the industry. Today there are all kinds of solutions that are close to working. That quickie pass over the use of calcium-sulphur compounds (gypsum) was an example of slanting news. Gypsum is available aplenty in the area as is the material for producing it. It comes from stripping sulphur out of exhaust stacks and then in the tailings ponds it squeezes the water out of the bottom tailings and stabilizes the layer. The water can be reclaimed for use in the plants in a few years rather than many. Incidentally the technology that led to the fine tailings issue was reviewed and approved by regulators with full knowledge of the problem for 40 years. This was done to bolster the economy BUT at that time nobody was making any money by their investments in oil sands. SO KNOCK OFF THE 'GREED, GREED, GREED.' It was 'Survival, survival, survival,' at that time. If anyone and a reporter thinks they can spend 3 minutes in a news article and become an expert, go to Harvard and learn something that will allow you to fix things instead of criticising what others do with all their hearts and minds.
  19. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada:

    Interestingly, your thinking is characterized by alot of us versus them ideas. (Oil industry versus non-oil industry, Alberta versus Ontario, etc.) Your background in the oil industry does give you expertise to comment on the technology that is being to potentially address some of these problems in the future... However, why should accelerated Oil Sands development preceed the implementation of this technology in actual practise?

    As well, a physician in your Province (Dr. John O'Connor) had a complaint to the College of the Physician and Surgeons launched against him by the Federal Government no less for reporting some concerning health issues related to water quality in Northern Alberta.

    I have never heard of anything like that happening previously in this country where a government tried to suppress a doctor's medical opinion... Does that not concern you? Shouldn't some of the potential health and environment issues be honestly addressed in Alberta?
  20. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: The dopey comparisons between Norway and Alberta ... Alaska and Alberta ... Again if you want to direct your anger at someone, aim it at the people who present these half-baked articles. Norway is a sovereign nation while Alberta is a province. Alberta has been shipping on average a billion dollars a year to the rest of Canada in transfer payments since 1950. In addition it sends secondary and tertiary benefits to the rest of the country. Federal statistics will show this rate of drainage. If that value had been captured in Alberta as though it were sovereign, and if average annual compound interest of 4% were to have been earned on this money it would today be $220 billion and growing at an all-time record rate of course. New money coming in and interest building on a kingly fortune. What Alberta does have is largely lent at shamefully low rates to other provinces. Alberta jobs have been keeping east coast provinces afloat with the efforts of their citizens for 40 years. Billions of dollars of Alberta oil money has been spent in Ontario where the economic multiplier effect is 12 times (ie each dollar spent leads to a GDP increase of $12) If you don't believe the numbers, lok up the statistics and work out your own sums. No matter how you look at it, Alberta is not to be faulted in any way by comparison to the countries and states that have been masters of their own destinies. Ignorance is a scourge! Uninformed opinions are as common as dog poo. Kindly scrape up yours and then quit spreading it around!
  21. Walker N from Calgary, Canada writes: Rudy Krueger is right.

    Obviously there will always be room for improvement, but in reality the companies operating in the oil sands have made great strides in reducing their environmental impact. The mines recycle most of their water these days, the guys that are using the most water are the SAG-D boys. Many people suggest they use formation water, but this is often quite saline and if you were to boil it into steam you'd be left with millions of tons of salt in the end. What do you do with that? Heck even the Potash companies in Saskatchewan are struggling to figure out how to put all the waste salt back into their mines, let alone take on any more.

    There is no easy answer, and pointing fingers and making unrealistic demands will get us nothing.
  22. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Dr. O'Connor is a fine, moral person - a wonderful humanitarian with more empathy than a thousand of us average persons. We need armies of people like that. This however does not make him perfect in every way. Studying the complex problems of the northern river basin in which the Athabasca flows has occupied scientists for as long as I have been old enough to be aware of such things. It is a damned shame what has happened there. The local First Nations Leaders have told me directly (in the past) that the reason the river and lake system is blighted by low water levels is a combination of low water run-off and the Bennet dam in northern BC. Initially even Dr. O'Connor attributed (in theory) the cancer problems up there to the ill-conceived manner in which the Uranium City mine sites were abandoned. This was done by Federal Crown corporations under the supervision of Atomic Energy Canada and the Federal Environment people as well as agencies that were responsible for navigable waters. All of a sudden one day a year or so ago, the responsibility landed on the lap of the oil sands industry! Why? I have no other information. I am one of many who are very disappointed about all of this. These are troubled waters and justice ought to be done in regard to it all - ALL OF IT. Taking a run at oil sands just because it has the deep pockets is not going to solve anything.
  23. Jean Luft from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax says 'I would have to say that this G&M series on the Tar Sands have contained some of the most honest, balanced and well written articles that I have ever seen in the MSM in Canada in quite sometime.'

    How would you know if the G&M reports are 'honest' and 'balanced'?

    And to The Philosopher King from Ottawa....nobody really cares what you think about this issue. It's none of your business, really.
  24. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Rudy Kreuger from High River, Canada writes:

    'Taking a run at oil sands just because it has the deep pockets is not going to solve anything...'

    I am not really sure that anyone is proposing that --

    However, the unintended consequences that are currently not being addressed by this rush to develop the resources in Alberta is causing alot of problems to Alberta and the rest of the country too.

    For example, my region now faces labour shortages in being able to develop our economy and resources because so many young people have gone to Alberta for employment.

    I think that the G&M is really just trying to show the bigger picture to a wide variety of Canadians.
  25. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada Rudy, you and others seem to take offence at concerns of Canadians living in other parts of Canada about the pace of the oilsands development, its environmental costs, and the poor performance of Alberta's Heritage Fund, suggesting 'go to Harvard and learn something that will allow you to fix things instead of criticising what others do with all their hearts and minds. ' So, I curious what your opinion is of lHarvard trained Peter Lougheed, former Premier of Alberta (1971-1986) who was premier when the Syncrude Plant was approved and built (1973-1978). It seems to me he has been quite outspoken on the very same issues that the G&M has been raising this week, and that other readers have commented upon in this forum. During his tenure, he had a Czar who was responsible for the orderly pace of development of the oilsands, a position that was eliminated in the subsequent Klein gov't. He apparently was appalled at the 'mess' that out of control development had created after a helicopter tour of the region a few years ago, and has incresingly been outspoken about his concerns on behalf of Albertans (and Canadians). Coincidently, (perhaps prompted by the G&M series) he was on CBC Radio'ss The Current yesterday talking about these issues. I will post the link to the interview once it is updated on their website. Is he allowed to raise the same issues? It seems it would be tough for you and others Albertans to discount his criticisms as easily as you do others'.
  26. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Labour mobility is seen in Canada as a major accomplishment. We have tax supports, Federal agencies that promote it, our immigration rules facilitate it. We cannot in Alberta go abroad to get workers without showing a reasonable effort to attract Canadians from elsewhere. We have studies this issue to death and in fact the shortages of skilled labour in Alberta come from two main sources. First the companies using them refuse to work together to deploy scarce workers efficiently. They hord them in their thousands for fear that when they need them the workers won't be available. This has been the key reason for cost over-runs on mega projects. The government sends in studies and consultants to look at the problem but it does nothing to address it. The modles for successful skill deployment can be imitated from Europe but nobody wants to do it! Second we did not run our apprenticeship programs properly. In 1962 one of the heads of the Kennedy administration in the USA observed (Harvard convocation address) that 'Because we honour our philosophers for the nobility of their pursuit and disparage our plumbers for the servility of theirs, by 2000 we shall have neither pipes nor theories that hold water.' When Alberta stoked up its apprenticeships a few years ago it disregarded the highly valuable role that the Building Trades Council (Unions) traditionally play in sustaining these programs and deploying workers. It also looked at the wrong statistics. The absolute numbers of apprenticeships went way up but not amongst the traditional trades on which construction depends. The Alberta and Federal governments could have re-furbished the Northern Alberta Railroad as rapic transit but instead they paid a small fortune to have it ripped up and spent fortunes instead on polluting diesel trucks and busses as well as re-surfacing highway 63 every three years. There is lots to get mad at here but the oil companies are the wrong targets.
  27. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Rudy Kreuger from High River, Canada:

    Since you seem to know Dr. O'Connor, you might be interested to know that he has moved back to Nova Scotia. His story is quite fascinating, really -- As you have indicated, truly one of those quiet Canadian heros that doesn't get much notice.

    If you are interested, here's a recent story on Dr. O'Connor:

    http://www.nationalreviewofmedicine.com/issue/2008/0115/5patientspractice021.html
  28. Rudy Krueger from High River, Canada writes: Labour mobility is seen in Canada as a major accomplishment. We have tax supports, Federal agencies that promote it, our immigration rules facilitate it. We cannot in Alberta go abroad to get workers without showing a reasonable effort to attract Canadians from elsewhere. We have studies this issue to death and in fact the shortages of skilled labour in Alberta come from two main sources. First the companies using them refuse to work together to deploy scarce workers efficiently. They hord them in their thousands for fear that when they need them the workers won't be available. This has been the key reason for cost over-runs on mega projects. The government sends in studies and consultants to look at the problem but it does nothing to address it. The modles for successful skill deployment can be imitated from Europe but nobody wants to do it! Second we did not run our apprenticeship programs properly. In 1962 one of the heads of the Kennedy administration in the USA observed (Harvard convocation address) that 'Because we honour our philosophers for the nobility of their pursuit and disparage our plumbers for the servility of theirs, by 2000 we shall have neither pipes nor theories that hold water.' When Alberta stoked up its apprenticeships a few years ago it disregarded the highly valuable role that the Building Trades Council (Unions) traditionally play in sustaining these programs and deploying workers. It also looked at the wrong statistics. The absolute numbers of apprenticeships went way up but not amongst the traditional trades on which construction depends. The Alberta and Federal governments could have re-furbished the Northern Alberta Railroad as rapic transit but instead they paid a small fortune to have it ripped up and spent fortunes instead on polluting diesel trucks and busses as well as re-surfacing highway 63 every three years. There is lots to get mad at here but the oil companies are the wrong targets.
  29. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Since it's pretty well impossible to forecast all future ramifications from any activity there is always risk associated with it. There is also a responsibility that the benefits of the risk taking be shared with those by whom the risk is born.
    Over 2 million people in Alberta benefit from the oil business in Alberta without bearing any of the physical risk of living near production or refining or large diameter pipelines.
    It seems to me that oil production and field personnel involved in the drilling and completion carry extra risks to their health and safety and face a great deal of risk in exchange for wages.

    Looking over the posts on these boards I think it would be a good idea if there could be a way to get people out of their critical armchairs and onto the floor of a sour well hitting the target.

    The farm industry also gets a lot of criticism from arm chair jockeys. If it's so easy why don't you all give it a whirl?
  30. Doug - from Canada writes: You can't have it both ways. People want to ship refined or at upgraded heavy oil then you have to but that 2 billion $ refinery somewhere. OR you can ship heavy oil directly to the States and lose the jobs of building that 2 billion $ refinery. You also end up shipping the refinery GHG emissions south too, plus the operating jobs plus the 6000 man years of construction jobs.???? ============================== I think the water issues are way over stated by the water types. I'm sure they are using the 2.5 ratio which doesn't include recycle which makes it 25. Dividing things by 10 makes a difference. And long term there are only going to be so many mines. You can only mine close to the river where the oil is close to the surface. Most of the production in furture will be SAGD or some other well process. So far I haven't seen any aerial shots of a SAGD site. Why because its not that visual. trees , swamp , trees , swamp , pad with pipeline above ground, trees, trees another pad, central plant , more trees , swamp, pad more trees. = The SAGDs take no surface water and no close to surface well water. They look for crapy water > 4000 TDS. I was on a project where for a very big SAGD we were going to use a mines waste water.
  31. Doug - from Canada writes: You can't have it both ways. People want to ship refined or at upgraded heavy oil then you have to but that 2 billion $ refinery somewhere. OR you can ship heavy oil directly to the States and lose the jobs of building that 2 billion $ refinery. You also end up shipping the refinery GHG emissions south too, plus the operating jobs plus the 6000 man years of construction jobs.???? ============================== I think the water issues are way over stated by the water types. I'm sure they are using the 2.5 ratio which doesn't include recycle which makes it 25. Dividing things by 10 makes a difference. And long term there are only going to be so many mines. You can only mine close to the river where the oil is close to the surface. Most of the production in furture will be SAGD or some other well process. So far I haven't seen any aerial shots of a SAGD site. Why because its not that visual. trees , swamp , trees , swamp , pad with pipeline above ground, trees, trees another pad, central plant , more trees , swamp, pad more trees. = The SAGDs take no surface water and no close to surface well water. They look for crapy water > 4000 TDS. I was on a project where for a very big SAGD we were going to use a mines waste water.
  32. Doug - from Canada writes: You can't have it both ways. People want to ship refined or at upgraded heavy oil then you have to but that 2 billion $ refinery somewhere. OR you can ship heavy oil directly to the States and lose the jobs of building that 2 billion $ refinery. You also end up shipping the refinery GHG emissions south too, plus the operating jobs plus the 6000 man years of construction jobs.???? ============================== I think the water issues are way over stated by the water types. I'm sure they are using the 2.5 ratio which doesn't include recycle which makes it 25. Dividing things by 10 makes a difference. And long term there are only going to be so many mines. You can only mine close to the river where the oil is close to the surface. Most of the production in furture will be SAGD or some other well process. So far I haven't seen any aerial shots of a SAGD site. Why because its not that visual. trees , swamp , trees , swamp , pad with pipeline above ground, trees, trees another pad, central plant , more trees , swamp, pad more trees. = The SAGDs take no surface water and no close to surface well water. They look for crapy water > 4000 TDS. I was on a project where for a very big SAGD we were going to use a mines waste water.
  33. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Luft from Canada writes: '...And to The Philosopher King from Ottawa....nobody really cares what you think about this issue. It's none of your business, really...'

    That's why you chose to address me of course, because you care so little about what I say. Uh huh.

    This debate is everybody's business.

    Unless you think Alberta exists in a bubble? I might accept that argument.
  34. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Marv M from Canada writes: This is absolutely unacceptable. This is a really good reason why the Alberta Conservative Party will more than likely for the first time ever, lose allot of support in this Province.

    Sorry Marv but I think you will be disappointed.

    The potential opposition to the PCs is dismal at best; and once Stelmach announces he plans to cut health care premiums he'll get the support he needs to win.
  35. BC Refugee in AB from Canada writes: Robert..... There are a few things you don't know about Dr O'Connor. 1/ His hatred of Fort McMurray and all things associated with it began the day after his son got beat near to death by some idiot in a downtown pub. Not a valid reason to hate an entire city but I can understand his anger. 2/ He made claims that many true researchers (he is 'only' a family doctor) had proven wrong in the past. Sickness among our First Nations is a complex issue, combining the effects of low education, unemployment and most importantly the near destruction of their traditional culture by the West in the last century. This is a nationwide embarassement that cannot be fingered to one industry in one town. 3/ There is debate in town as to the real reason he left town (you do know that he bailed from here once before only to come back.....). Many folks figure he was run out of town by a few angry husbands...... Having said all that, there are still many issues about the industry that need to be addressed, and that needs to happen in a reasonable and fact based manner, not by comments about left-right nutcases, or oil lovers or tree huggers. This industry will define much of Canada for the next century and we've got to do it right so that we can set up future generations to benefit from the gains we made. PS: How's the weather down East today?
  36. BC Refugee in AB from Canada writes: Unfortunately Go Oilers is right....who are you going to vote for....the NDP is a joke, the Libs have come out in favor of a national cap and trade system (which like it or not plays as the Libs taking orders from Dion and sending a bunch more of our money to QC because they were blessed with water while AB was blessed with oil). As for the right wing Aliance partys....all I can say is scary, religious radicals!
  37. Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: The G&M article is written for maximum sensationalism, “4000 sq km of wilderness is stripped of boreal forest another 35,000 could be sliced up for in situ development. This leads one to believe that 35,000 ha will be clear cut which is blatantly incorrect as the slicing requires a steam plant and cut lines with all of the other production in horizontal wells 500 – 800m under the ground drilled off pads..
    And if you believe C02 injection is years away then the G&M needs to check out the largest carbon sequestration project in the world in Weyburn Sask rather than writing articles about pumping C02 under the desert. The world is coming to Canada to study our leading edge green technology lets cover that.
    Move the G&M to the tabloid section next to the Natl Enquire
  38. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: Dave Jansen: It's not a straw man argument; it's simply calling out the critics out on their empty rhetoric and hypocrisy. Blabbing away in the comments section does not lead to change, nor does continuing your lifestyle and consuming the things that you complain about.

    While the other tar sands article was quite good, this one is clearly biased. From the get-go they interview some guy who is anti-oil and then they don't present the viewpoint from those who did sell their land. Next article: interview Greenpeace and they will tell you how evil everything is.
  39. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: BC Refugee in AB from Canada:

    Sunny and relatively warm as usual in Halifax today.

    Thanks for asking so I didn't have to come out and say it.

    My point was that physicians are entitled to hold medical opinions if they have evidence to support their opinions. It is not for the government to decide what a physician can and cannot say. I would have thought limitations on freedom of speech would have been a big issue to Albertans.

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

    Go Oilers Go:

    Do you really think so? Stelmach doesn't seem to really have very much on the ball. I read Marv M posts again -- He seems pretty upset to fall for any suggestion to vote PC again.
  40. Theodore Lichacz from Kawartha lakes, Canada writes: I would caution many posters to this comment board. To those of you whom live in the 'golden horseshoe ' of southern Ontario. A weekend drive around the area should make one aware of the enviromental devastation thrust on us in the unrelenting growth of the past twenty years. For those areas south of the ridge, growth has literally DESTROYED huge tracts of some of the most productive,richest agricultural land in Canada.
    A relentless bulldozer of pavement, housing and industrial development.
    So before you comment against Alberta's development I suggest some calm reflection on whats happening in your own backyard.
  41. Brian Wincherauk from Yellowknife, Canada writes: Iam so glad to be out of Alberta. I managed to escape the insanity back in July. We sold our house in Calgary for almost double what we paid for it two years earlier. It was on the drive north to Yellowknife I realized how crazy Alberta has become you drive thru kilometer after kilometer of dead or dying forest then there are places like Fort Mac. where all sanity is lost as the land is strip of everything. All for the love of crude. By the way if you call it the tar sands you are seen as anti Alberta and anti development the correct term is Oil sands.
    iam sure in a few years Alberta will set it glaze on the vast water supplies up here in the NWT. Two of the largest lakes in the world are here, and we do not have the population to stop Ottawa and Alberta from raping this amazing place.
  42. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: 20 20 - The goal of 5 million barrels a day was determined by our previous Premier ever since the oilsands were recalculated to show how vast they were in 2003. Once investors caught wind of the recalculation, the money started flowing in. You make it sound as though there was some sort of secret meeting where the US told us what to do which is the farthest thing from the truth. Albertans knew about the goal of 5 million barrels a day for years, it's just that it took a while for the rest of the country to catch up with the news. Sorry, but there's no conspiracy here. Just thought you should know lest the uninformed take your words as gospel.
    Cheers.
  43. Jean Luft from Canada writes: Brian Wincherauk from Yellowknife....and we in Alberta are equally glad that you are gone. By the way, how are all those enormous diamond mines up in your neck of the woods going? Gee, I'll bet those are absolutely pristine and have no environmental effect, eh? Sounds like you are already being raped, but you are too stupid or blind to know it.
  44. Jean Luft from Canada writes: The Philosopher King from Ottawa....the debate doesn't involve you. By all means, make all the noise you want, but you see, Alberta is pretty sick and tired of people like you telling it what it must do. We had quite enough of that under the Liberals with the NEP and other money thieving schemes. This scam is no different.....just different lipstick on the same old pig.
  45. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: BC Refugee in AB writes: '...the Libs have come out in favor of a national cap and trade system (which like it or not plays as the Libs taking orders from Dion and sending a bunch more of our money to QC because they were blessed with water while AB was blessed with oil)...'

    First of all, this idea that Quebec will sell credits from Hydro dams is false. The GOC has no plans to give them any such thing. Hydro Dams are considered to be carbon neutral AT BEST.

    Secondly, cap and trade is a better choice than a carbon tax which would place an over all drag on our economy.

    Thirdly, cap and trade awards credits based on besting set targets of CO2 on an intensity basis so that we don't punish industry for people's consumption habits.

    Fourthly, cap and trade allows progressive companies to actually recoup investment costs which rewards their efforts.

    Like it or not either a carbon tax or cap and trade are coming. If I were you I'd be advocating for the latter.
  46. Brian Wincherauk from Yellowknife, Canada writes: I always get a kick out of people who think they know everything ,and they seem to go straight for the gutter where they belong.

    How they send MP's to Ottawa who for years ranted and raved about political appointments . And how the MP's now sit there with their yaps shut as record patronage appointments are being made. Seems Aberta had a whole group of MP's two years ago now they have just One who does all the talking. very sad. Seems Albertians like living in a One party state.
  47. John Stewart from Eden, Ontario, Canada writes: Mr Groot

    Take the money and run. Canada values oil not agriculture.

    If you really, really want to farm, come to Tillsonburg, ON and I will make you a deal on a sandy tobacco farm with unlimited water.
  48. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: Jean Luft from Canada: Weak Jean. Really really weak.
  49. globefan EH from Canada writes: How sad this piece of the series is

    Small farms are dying, it doesn't matter the reasons, there are always economic reasons, but it is sad that Alberta has been forever changed and not necessarily for the better. We are sold the mantra development is good...but at what cost?
  50. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Doug - from Canada writes: “I think the water issues are way over stated by the water types. I'm sure they are using the 2.5 ratio which doesn't include recycle which makes it 25. Dividing things by 10 makes a difference.”-------------

    Doug, I’ve had this same discussion in an earlier article comment section with someone who works/has worked at the Syncrude Plant who made the same claims as you. It matters not how many times you recycle the water – it depends upon how much you draw from the river and how much you discharge to the tailings ponds.---------

    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

    From Suncor:

    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.

    http://www.suncor.com/links_popup.aspx?cid=3093-3095
  51. Counterspinner tells the truth from Canada writes: Is it just me or is this story very negative about Alberta. So, people have theri land taken out of agriculture. This also happens when cities grow. How much farm land has Toronto or Montreal taken out of production for their subdivisions? How is this different?
    I hope the next story in this series positively talks about how the wealth from the Alberta oil sands provides health, educaction and welfare payments for Eastern Canada.
  52. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: I find it humorous when some posters from Alberta don't like what they read in the G&M, and then refer it to as a "Toronto based newspaper" or a "rag".

    The fact of the matter is that, for years, the Alberta based media has not adequately covered this issue (I'm talking the Calgary Herald in particular , but also the Suns and the Edmonton Journal), and turned a blind eye to what was happening under Klein.

    Listen to what a NY Times reporter had to say about his trip to Fort McMurray in Jan 2006, and the dearth of media coverage about the oilsands in Canadian mainstream media:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K0DUJBAK8gI

    Now, the naysayers will say "What does he know - he's an American!", or "Who cares. It is none of his business." But, if you follow what is going on in the US these days , and efforts to legislate against importing "dirty oilsands crude", you should be concerned...
  53. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes:"Like it or not either a carbon tax or cap and trade are coming."

    If such economically destructive taxation can be avoided for a few more years, it will have become more widely evident that the response of global temperatures to GHGs has been greatly exaggerated. Which means we might be able to escape such taxes entirely.
  54. OAK ! from Canada writes: "extracting one barrel of synthetic crude from a mine requires roughly two to four barrels of fresh water from the nearby Athabasca River"

    The Greenpeace Guy in the previous article from yesterday is claiming 3 to 5 barrels of fresh water. There is a HUGE difference between 2 and 5 barrels considering production will be 5 million barrels per day (based on the Greenpeace projection).

    The Greenpeace Guy should get his numbers straight before going public.
  55. Brian Wincherauk from Yellowknife, Canada writes: Rocky you got to watch it. Attacking klein will get you into trouble. You have to be from the east? Klein , he was the greatest leader this country ever had. he could belly up to the bar and drink anyone under the table, and he knew how to deal with welfare trash. he was a 'GOD'to Albertians. Plus he had a sound ecomomic policy take in money and spend it like there was no tommorow. And if they question you give them all a cheque for 400$ to keep them happy. oh yea and never say no to development! No mater what it does to the land!
  56. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada: I'd be perfectly happy were this to be true, but have no faith that it is. Even a single bonafide study showing how adding carbon to the atmosphere doesn't accelerate climate change would be nice, but you won't find one.

    Even the most vocal detractors who've actually done studies are merely arguing the amount of influence mankind is having.
  57. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Two things to point out at this juncture...

    The indignant cry of NEP (although dead for 16 years) has again been raised, and NEP must be a code word to bring GlynnMohr in from "Cyberspace" into the conversation to really try to start polarizing people and opinions...

    GlynnMohr pretends he is posting from Canada.... so take it away, GlynnMohr...
  58. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: 1% is economically destructive, GlynnMhor?

    Not into the general coffers but directed to solutions.

    But then, you want the short term gain to pass on the long term pain, don't you.
  59. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Do you have better ideas than the "Stern Review", GlynnMhor?

    Not criticisms. Solutions.

    Oh, you think that there's no problem. Silly me. Forget the question.
  60. Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: I checked out the You tube interview. A NY Times columnist interviewed on radio by the CBC for a 2 min and 27 seconds. Now I completely understand, the interview was full of facts, figures, data, everything one needs to make fully understand the oilsands. This reporter actually went all the way to Ft McMurray and saw it WOW if thats the standard the G&M has to live up to then there is no hope for them.
  61. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor: Even a single bonafide study showing how adding carbon to the atmosphere doesn't accelerate climate change would be nice..."

    Carbon has been being added to the atmosphere for a long time, but the temperatures waver up and down independent of GHGs. Look at the last six full years, for example. In the face of ever faster increases in CO2 and other GHGs, temperatures have stubbornly refused to cooperate with the prevailing AGW paradigm.

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

    And temperatures similarly refused to cooperate for some thirty years from 1940-1970 or so.
  62. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: "1% is economically destructive, GlynnMhor?"

    ANY tax is economically destructive, Alan. And 1% is way WAY lower than the rates proposed.
  63. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes

    See what I mean. Kevin, you fool. He writes reports in the NY Times. This was a small portion of a very general interview on a wide range of issues.

    Go search what had been written by him in the NY Times, and also other articles by reporters in the Washington Post, and the San Francisco Chronicle prior to Jan 2006. Then compare them with what you find in Canadian media.
  64. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: "Do you have better ideas than the "Stern Review", GlynnMhor?"

    Yeah. Don't take unreliable temperature modelling, extrapolate from that shaky basis the even less well understood modelling of the weather effects of temperature, and then from that wildly speculative base extrapolate even more modelling, this time economic.

    Any honest appraisal of the above process will lead to the conclusion that the cumulative error margin is greater than any predicted effects.
  65. Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: So you would agree the you tube post is useless and not worth linking to
  66. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: That's bull, GlynnMhor and you know it. Damn but you're a persistent idiot, aren't you. I've tried to give you outs, vehicles for discussion but you persist with the same old sources and unjustified assertions.

    Yes, your favourite link shows some very recent changes. Globally. They are statiscally insignificant. The changes don't follow the longterm trends and ignore polar regions, continental effects, the impact of oceanic currents and a whole host of other factors but when challenged you trot out a school of red herrings.

    You're a charlatan.

    You didn't even have the guts to post the NOAA equivalents. Oh yes, too "local" for you. Northern hemisphere, southern hemisphere, land, ocean.
  67. freelix the cat from Canada writes: about 10 yrs. ago i met a friend in edmonton and we drove (i wanted to take a flight-it's quite a drive). it's a very hilly drive, but on the way it looked like a forest fire had raged through the region, but he told me it had been a few years before, but the land takes longer to recover.
    ft. mcmurray looked like any other town of about 35,000 which surprised me as i thought it would be a lot more wild west. i liked the town.
    to make a long story short, when i saw them MINING for oil, i remember laughing with my buddy saying that i had never seen anything like this in oil extraction.
    i'm not an environmentalist but when i saw the incredible destruction of the environment and mentioned it, my friend squinted at me - "hell,
    you know making money can be a dirty business, besides nobody was living in this empty bush. there's going to be a lot of jobs for those who want it."
    i don't have any answers, but i think maybe environmental impact should be more closely studied.
  68. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: So you would agree the you tube post is useless and not worth linking to

    No, I would conclude that you have an economical short term interest in their continued development and don't really care otherwise, and so like close-minded individuals like you should avoid reasoned debate.
  69. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: I've had enough of this idiocy. You'll get the same old crap from GlynnMhor, refuted many times before.

    Have a happy weekend folks, I have better things to do than respond to an idiot.
  70. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: GlynnMhor - good job. Thanks for holding their feet to the fire.
  71. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada: All energy related dynamics demonstrate a tendency to form waves. We employ averages to recognize the shift in the wave, which is why until the average approaches the margin of error I can't agree with you.

    This coupled with mountains of studies detailing the affects CO2 on the environment leave me no choice but to agree with them.

    Even the most optomistic studies peg our influence at roughly 20%.
  72. Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes No, I would conclude that you have an economical short term interest in their continued development and don't really care otherwise, and so like close-minded individuals like you should avoid reasoned debate.

    With leaps of logic like that, let me go to You Tube and get my facts straight before I try to match wits with you.
  73. freelix the cat from Canada writes: i meant to include in my previous posting that i think the globe&mail should be congratulated on critical reporting which we could use a lot more of. seems some of you guys enjoy going after anybody who has a different opinion. why don't you hang around a saloon, then you could get into a real crap kicker.
  74. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: "That's bull, GlynnMhor..."

    I'm not sure if you're complaining about everything I just posted, Alan, but it is what it is.

    "...you're a persistent idiot, aren't you?"

    I'm patient, persistent, and not easily swayed by flashy arguments and data manipulations.

    "The changes don't follow the longterm trends and ignore polar regions, continental effects, the impact of oceanic currents and a whole host of other factors..."

    And all those factors add up to generate temperature changes. The medium term thirty-year trend is not followed by the recent changes, but cooling now would certainly fit in with the long term (since 1880) trends. Cherry-pick just the 1970-2000 trend all you like, Alan, I'm not going to cleave unto it to the exclusion of all others.

    There are enough available data to cast serious doubt on assertions that GHGs are the sole or even the dominant factor in temperature changes, and that's all I've tried to argue.
  75. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: "With leaps of logic like that, let me go to You Tube and get my facts straight before I try to match wits with you. "

    I'd suggest a grade 5 reading comprehension class might serve you better. Go back and read what my initial post said preceeding the YouTube link.

    He was commenting on the lack of media coverage on the oilsands development (environmental in particular). You seem to have expected a PhD dissertation with "full of facts, figures, data, everything one needs to make fully understand the oilsands".
  76. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: I understand trying to make money off the tar sands. I don't begrude them this at all. Heck, we've been waiting 20 years for this to be viable.

    I just wish this was being done more sustainably and that more money was being put into technologies to mitigate the damage.
  77. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Alan Burke... writes: "I've had enough of this idiocy. You'll get the same old crap from GlynnMhor, refuted many times before."

    Rebutted, perhaps, but not refuted. There's a subtle difference beyween the two words.

    Meanwhile I've managed to keep to discussing the facts and the data, without sinking into insults and personal vitriol. Whatever my opinion of you might be, for example, I've never called you an idiot.
  78. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor: We employ averages to recognize the shift in the wave, which is why until the average approaches the margin of error I can't agree with you."

    This makes no actual sense, PK. Maybe if you rephrased it I could recognize the concept you're trying to put across.

    "Even the most optimistic studies peg our influence at roughly 20%."

    At that level, and given the declining marginal effectiveness of increasing GHG concentrations, the Earth's temperature is exceedingly safe from disruption and the Kyoto-ite hype entirely unjustified.
  79. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor: We employ averages to recognize the shift in the wave, which is why until the average approaches the margin of error I can't agree with you."

    "This makes no actual sense, PK. Maybe if you rephrased it I could recognize the concept you're trying to put across."

    You don't understand this but want to argue against climate change?

    You observe a thirty year cycle but ignore that the top and bottom of this wave is trending upward. How is that?
  80. The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada: Let's say you have a thirty year cycle where the average ranges 10 degrees.

    What you're saying is that despite the fact that the average temperature is higher, the fact that it still ranges 10 degrees means there's been no change.
  81. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: No, I retract the statement. GynnMhor is not an idiot, just a charlatan. His claims do not stand up to scrutiny.
  82. r b from Calgary, Canada writes: Robbie Miller : try clicking on the Globe graphic for "in-situ" extraction: an interesting little chart showing that water demand has actually fallen from the 1970's.

    I cannot vouch for the accuracy of this chart, other than to say if it appears in the Globe, it must be true.

    I can say however that water recycle rates even on SAGD's (the preferred in-situ method) are improving rapidly: two recently commissioned facilities boast almost 98% water recycle rates.

    98%.

    Imagine. Two more percentage points and it would match the percentage of Haligonians with below normal IQ's.
  83. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: r b from Calgary, Canada writes: "two recently commissioned facilities boast almost 98% water recycle rates."

    Got a reference for that, or can you identify the facilities? I'd like to see the raw data.
  84. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: "“We're exploiting this province way too fast,” says Mr. Groot. “In 50 years, we will know a lot more about what this has done. But then there won't be any more land left.”

    This shows to me that things have not changed in Alberta much in the last 50 years.

    The city folks who have developed the province and the farmers who are in the most part so myopic they cant see past the next farm.

    The best thing that ever happened to Alberta was when the city folks got control of the government.
  85. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: The Philosopher King from Ottawa
    If you did a bit of research you would find that the methods used and technology involved today are not the same as it was 15 or so years ago.

    Thes companies spend billions on new technology . They have to because they are there to make money and the way to do that is to produce a barrel as cheaply as possible and as cleanly as possible.
  86. Neil Fiertel from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: I live in one of the earliest oil fields developed in Canada and most of the people who moved here thought that development was dwindling and in a few years all that would be seen were a few old spuds sticking up on a farmer's field. The land is beautiful and near Edmonton. Then came the energy crisis invented by our "friends" at OPEC and everything changed. Suddenly the price went up and abandoned oil and gas deposits were "re-discovered" and the first oil boom and various cycles of expansion has taken place ever since.
    Here is a classic scenario that happened in my area. A gas well is drilled with permission of the Energy Resources Board of AB. which by the way nearly always approves. Okay the nearby residents say, "What can you do?" Not so bad..gas wells are pretty innocuous now that they are not permitted flaring just everywhere. Then another well is drilled somewhere maybe a km or more away and the same scenario is repeated. Then the company that owns the gas that these wells are drilled to asks the ERB to permit a small "innocuous" separator to remove excess water.."Sure!" says the ERB and then the company wants to contain all the separation at one facility and further after connecting a certain number of wells to this one locale, they apply to separate sulphur from sour gas they have "encountered" at some or all of the wells. What a surprise! The ERB after the usual pat process approves that and before you know it, from a single innocuous well near many lovely acreage homes one has a full scale mini plant with 24 hour klieg lighting, a continual foul sulphur dioxide emission which when the wind goes toward me, makes me cough continuously and must be hell for the immediate residents. What? sulphur emissions? That can't be legal! Wrong! These guys all know the law and build right below maximum emissions guidelines and just build lots of little plants and pollute and ruin one's quality of life. This is the Alberta Advantage... Spare me!
  87. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Neil Fiertel from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: I live in one of the earliest oil fields developed in Canada and most of the people who moved here thought that development was dwindling and in a few years all that would be seen were a few old spuds sticking up on a farmer's field

    You moved there and now you complain because of the development?

    Isn't that kind of like moving into a house beside an airport and then complaining about the noise?
  88. forty sum from Canada writes: No wonder Stelmach left the climate change meeting, he went to pick up the cheque from Steve and the rest of Canada.

    $2B carbon capture and storage plan released
    Last Updated: Friday, February 1, 2008 | 11:08 AM MT
    CBC News

    Taxpayers should not have to pay to reduce the pollution created by industry, said John Bennett, executive director of Ottawa-based environmental group ClimateforChange.ca when asked about the recommendation
  89. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Robert Miller why don't you clean YOUR tar pond?
  90. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: "Thes companies spend billions on new technology . They have to because they are there to make money and the way to do that is to produce a barrel as cheaply as possible and as cleanly as possible."

    Actually Rick, the way it really works is that most O&G companies will only undertake investments in new technologies that will meet their internal rate of return (say 15%). So this does not necessarily lead to producing "as cleanly as possible".

    If it was "as cleanly as possible" Syncrude would not have been ordered to clean up its SO2 emissions to the tune of $600 million plant upgrade, we wouldn't have those huge tailings ponds, and carbon capture and sequestration would already be well underway.
  91. Watcher of the skies from Montreal, Canada writes: Does anyone here work during the day??? Why can't we just ship trainloads of tar sands to the US and let them take care of refining...?
  92. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Of course the graphics are truly misleading: SAGD doesn't need clearing out the boreal forest. But hey That's the Globe and Mail... and Ontario reelected McGouinety so they love taxes!
    All this is to portrait Alberta under a bad light just to save the beef of these Ontarians and Quebecers... Throw in the maritimers who wants their usual handout...
    Hey Alan P. Burke from climatetoilet.com, what about your military pals? How are they going to fly their toys without oil? Perhaps your hot air might help if it was not contributing to Global Warming!
    Fortysum, don't worry taxpayers soon won't be able to pay anything because they'll be unemployed and then you'll complain that the government should do something about it!
    Rocky Zao, CO2 is not a poison: everytime you exhal 15,000ppm are released... CO2 doesn't create climate change, climate change is not the AGW-GHG-BS.
  93. Ray Richards from West Vancouver, Canada writes: If it were my land I would lease it to them for 99 years with the lease rate adjustable every 20, 25 years at 5% of the market value. Effectively a good return for Mr Groot, good financing for the lessee, and continuity for the Groot family. The Duke of Westminster has done this with land in London. RR
  94. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Neil Fiertel, sure let's grow patatoes and close oil fields so the "wonderful little houses in the pariries" will be freshly painted and beautiful... Sure your property value will go up!
  95. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Did someone just hook up a wireless network at the St Louis, or has it already been demolished?

    Must be the free internet access at the Calgary Library around the corner.
  96. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada

    I guess you must be out of the loop.

    How do you propose they recycle the water they use without tailing ponds? Do you know their purpose?

    Carbon dioxide has been used for over 10 years now , captured and used in wells to inhance production.

    Certainly the companies must limit the amout they spend on research. The government does subsidize it to a large extent but the companies must spend their own cash.

    I guess it might just get down to whos yardstick do we use to measure progress.
  97. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Rick Drysdale from Canada writes:

    "How do you propose they recycle the water they use without tailing ponds?"

    I don't know. How do they clean-up the water they use in in-situ? I would think using a flocculant, centrifuge, filtration, pipeline it over to the in-situ folks, dispose down wells into other geological zones.Give me some money and I'll find you a solution pdq.

    "Carbon dioxide has been used for over 10 years now , captured and used in wells to inhance production."

    Yes, I'm quite familiar with the operations in Weyburn Saskatchewan. If I'm not mistaken, the CO2 is imported from the North Dakota US via pipeline. It is based upon an economic benefit (ie 15% ROR). And I believe it is not carbon capture from CO2 emitting operations. It is generated specifically for this use by DGC's Belulah, North Dakota Coal Gasification Plant.

    Not sure what loop I'm out of. Corporate apologists'? Please elaborate.
  98. Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: Commercial "Bitumen" production has been underway since 1967 under Alberta goverment enviromental controls, these controls have been improved over the years for each & every approved project. Environmental impact assesmnets were performed for each one with input from local people & environmental organizations including the "Pembina intitute". Production is only allowed through strict Air & water regulations to minimize any pollution & emissions. There are 3 large Oil Sand Mining plants in production today with the 4th (CNRL) coming on stream in Sept. 2008 to replace our declined commercial Oil production. American thirst for our stable Oil supply has demanded approval of increased production. With increased focus on our massive Oil supply here in Alberta we have had far to many (Oil) experts, environmentalists, publishers etc speaking counterproductive & negative about the issues. We have thousands of Canadians, professionals & Institutions working to improve issues involving the Oil Sands. Examples of individuals in the anti Tar Sands crusade & cynical league are Nikiforuk, Schindler, Al Gore, Suzuki, Tree huggers & Green Peace. Reclamation, reforestation, reduced water use are all part of each approved project. We should commend the people & personnel that work round the clock to produce the Bitumen. Shut it all down & we will have to import from offshore & look for jobs. Oil Sands production will decline very quickley like Leduc & Turner Valley as these high grade oil miners are done, 80 years is a very short time in the focus of "Planet warming". New forests with better trees & vegetation may look a lot better & produce more down the road. The Athabasca river will still be there with less Bitumen flowing into it on a hot day.
  99. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Environmental impact assesmnets were performed for each one with input from local people & environmental organizations including the "Pembina intitute . Production is only allowed through strict Air & water regulations to minimize any pollution & emissions." Good timing BQ. Suncor just announced its $20 billion expansion (Voyageur) a couple of days ago. An Edmonton Journal columnist (your city), Gary Lamphier suggests this is election related: "If you had any lingering doubts about whether rookie Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach is poised to call a snap election -- some say as early as next week -- your skepticism should be allayed by now. By trumpeting for the umpteenth time its $20.6-billion Voyageur oilsands megaproject early Wednesday, mere hours after cutting the ribbon on a new royalty deal with the province, Suncor is clearly playing its part in the Tory government's carefully choreographed pre-election script. Suncor's massive investment north of Fort McMurray is expected to boost the energy giant's already significant oilsands output by nearly 60 per cent by 2012, to 550,000 barrels a day." http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/columnists/story.html?id=116cf3da-e7f5-4352-a73b-659200654066 Now, since you mentioned the Pembina Institute, it might be instructive to recall what they said about the Voyageur Project when it was before the AEUB: http://www.pembina.org/media-release/1256 "Under cross-examination this week, company executives confirmed that their proposed project will significantly increase Suncor's total greenhouse gas emissions as well as emissions per barrel of oil produced, but declined to take on a voluntary target to offset or capture any of the new emissions the Voyageur/Steepbank project will produce." Always nice to have "input", apparently, to folks like you.
  100. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: From an earlier Pembina Institute press release on the Voyageur Project suggesting Suncor is not employing the latest technology:

    Degradation of air quality from increased emissions of other pollutants

    Rising air pollution from current and proposed oil sands operations over the next two decades will expose people and the environment to increased risk of adverse health and ecological impacts. Over the past 5 years OSEC members have worked collaboratively with industry, government, and Aboriginal groups to put in place an acidifying emission management framework designed to prevent acidification of the region's soil and water bodies. The framework calls on industry to use best available demonstrated technology for new and existing emission sources to slow the rise of acidifying pollutants in the region.

    "Contrary to the acidifying emissions framework, the proposed Suncor project would use standard pollution control technology,"commented Myles Kitagawa, Associate Director of the Toxics Watch Society of Alberta. "Utilization of best available demonstrated technology to minimize growth of acidifying emissions should become an EUB condition for any new oil sands project."

    http://www.pembina.org/media-release/1252
  101. Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes: Rocky Zoa: the pembina institute, climateaction etc... what's next Suzuki and Gore?
  102. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: You just get back from the Second Floor children's section? Don't put any crayons on the keyboard. Put them behind the ears for posterity.
  103. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao
    Am I right in thinking that last years "best available demonstrated technology " becomes this years "standard pollution control technology" ?

    If it is true and I think it is , there is no way to please people like Myles Kitagawa. as the yardstick is continually moving.
  104. R. M. from Regina, Canada writes: Right Mr. Farmer: "We are exploiting it way too fast. Where do I sign to get the obscene amount of money for my farmland? I sure hope I can sleep at night. Yes indeedy. Such a shame. Honey, would you please pass me the keys for the Hummer.
  105. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: "If it is true and I think it is , there is no way to please people like Myles Kitagawa. as the yardstick is continually moving."

    I'm not sure what the answer to that might be, but clearly, Suncor made an economic decision, picking technology to meet regulatory approval, not best available technology to produce "as cleanly as possible" as your earlier post suggested.

    This is why imposing a cost on water withdrawal, or pollution will drive the corporation's internal economics in a certain direction (to using better technology than they would otherwise use with no external cost).

    The public has a role in this through the political process. I have no doubt that companies can afford to pay for many of these measures if they are forced.
  106. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Neil Fiertel from Spruce Grove, Canada writes: A gas well is drilled with permission of the Energy Resources Board of AB. LOL! First off you dough head it's the AEUB...as in Alberta Energy and Utilities Board. If you worked in the industry you would know they don't always approve. The public just never hears about the projects that are not approved. Then you babble on about how a wellsite transforms into a production facility...again not knowing what you are talking about. Most wells are sweet; not sour. Water and Hydrocarbon liquids might have to be removed to meet dewpoint spec for the pipeline; but that would be done at a facility not a wellsite. You then add "these guys all know the law and build right below maximum emissions guidelines and just build lots of little plants and pollute and ruin one's quality of life." Again completely wrong. You don't get to pick your gas composition and "build" right below the maximum emission guidelines. You have a gas composition and a flow rate determined by the formation. IF the gas is sour and IF the absolute value of sulphur flowing through the plant is < 2T per day no tail gas clean up (ie sulphur plant) is required. IF you are over the limit you put in tail gas clean up (ie sulphur plant) that suits the facility. Companies don't build multiple plants to avoid going over the 2T limit for the simple fact that you would spend considerably more money building multiple gas plants instead of just slapping on a tail gas clean-up unit on one. All your post did is highlight the fact you know jack sh*t about the industry.
  107. Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: Vickky Angstrom from Canada writes: We have to quit burning stuff to create energy, period.

    Then come up with a viable alternative instead of b*tching about it.
  108. David J. Parker from Edmontarsands, Canada writes: Occasionally sectors of the human race go crazy - during wars, like the former Yugslavian breakup or Iraq or Vietnam (forgetting all the earlier ones) - we convince ourselves that the costs are worthwhile.
    We destroy ourselves with what we eat, smoke or drink and even continue when we know it will take our lives very soon. We tolerate mass carnage on our roads because we cannot conceive another way and Americans allow thousands to die due to their love of weapons.
    The Alberta Tar Sands are just the same: we all think "surely if they were that bad the powers that be wouldn't let them proceed". Dream on, those who can do something about the problem are saying the same thing almost "surely if they were that bad there would be a massive public outcry".
    The worst feature of human nature is to sit back and do nothing while the devil does his dirty work.
  109. Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao
    I really wonder if you really have a clue about the economics of these projects.

    You seem to think , it appears to me anyway from your posts, that the companies must do whatever they are told by people who have no real interest in these projects other than to beat the "clean up the oil sands or close them down " drum.

    Sure it's easy to say they should use the latest technology but what is the latest technology? When do they alter the plans to shoehorn in some new technology that didn't exist last year?

    Do you know how many years ahead these things are planned?

    This is not some penny anty little manufacturing plant that can use seat of the pants planning.
  110. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor: You don't understand this but want to argue against climate change?"

    You misunderstand my post, PK. What you wrote actually makes no sense. '...the average approaches the margin of error'? Say what?

    "You observe a thirty year cycle but ignore that the top and bottom of this wave is trending upward. How is that?"

    How is it not? I've never suggested that the climate has not been warming, only that the human contribution has been exaggerated, likely grossly so. The fact that the temperature shows ups and downs independent of the continually increasing GHG concentrations seriously undermines the IPCC assertion that GHGs dominate temperature changes.

    Solar activity, I should reiterate, has been increasing throughout the last two centuries, and is at its highest level in over 1000 years.

    http://tinyurl.com/33m5ao
  111. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Go Oilers Go! from Canada writes: "First off you dough head it's the AEUB...as in Alberta Energy and Utilities Board"

    Hey Pita head, I'd say Neil Fiertel from Spruce Grove is more informed than you, no doubt a Captain of Industry (in your mind):

    Effective January 1, 2008, the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB) has been realigned into two separate regulatory bodies:

    the Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB), which regulates the oil and gas industry, and

    the Alberta Utilities Commission (AUC), which regulates the utilities industry.

    http://www.eub.ca/eub/index.html
  112. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: The Philosopher King from Ottawa, Canada writes: "GlynnMhor:... the fact that it still ranges 10 degrees means there's been no change."

    If I construe this post of yours aright, you seem to be under the misapprehansion that I've somehow argued that the globe has not warmed.

    The globe has warmed, and from the data it can be seen that it has done so (recently) from 1910-1940, and again from 1970-2000. The issue that disturbs me is that the IPCC and its ilk among the AGW proseletysers assert that the latter warming is entirely due to GHGs, while admitting that the former, almost identical, warming is due to natural causes that they are apparently unable to model.

    My point is that the models provide no way to distinguish in the latter warming a repeat of the factors that caused the earlier warming. And their models do not include those factors for the earlier warming either.
  113. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Rick Drysdale from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao
    I really wonder if you really have a clue about the economics of these projects.

    You seem to think , it appears to me anyway from your posts, that the companies must do whatever they are told by people who have no real interest in these projects other than to beat the "clean up the. oil sands or close them down " drum.

    I think it would be a stetch to suggest that we don't all have an interest in these projects.

    Suncor's costs on their Voyageur Project recently increased from $10 billion to $20 billion, a 100% increase. Yet they recently "report" that @$60 oil, they can still earn 15% ROR with the new royalty structure in Alberta. It would seem to me that, using these conservative forecasts for oil prices, there is lots of room for additional investment in these types of technologies without closing them down, recognizing the unique 1% / 25% royalty scheme for capital investments.

    There is lots of room to clean up the industry without shutting it down, notwithstanding what fear mongering CAPP etc. may undertake.
  114. D. G. from Burnaby, BC, Canada writes: Rudy K;

    For the record, you are one of the most knowledgeable posters on this rag's comments page, but stop wasting your time on these clowns. You can "explain" it to them, but you can't "understand" for them.

    Hopefully they try another Liberal/NDP led national campaign for NEP II and Alberta can finally hold a referendum and be done with this. I don't mean separate from Canada, no not that, because we are as Canadian as anyone (and I like cheering for Team Canada Jrs. during Christmas). But more like the old PQ version of "sovereignty association", a great idea really (ol' Rene was ahead of his time), which will allow Alberta to withdraw from equalization payments. Dare to dream baby.
  115. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: D. G. from Burnaby, BC, Canada writes: Rudy K;

    D.G., Rudy disappeared a long time ago after I asked him what he thought about Peter Lougheed's comments, which paralleled much of what the G&M has written.

    Btw, Alberta does not pay "equalization payments". This was also something Ralph Klein used to rally the other Buffalo Hunters, (including NEP II), some of whom apparently have now moved on to better climates.
  116. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes:"Alberta does not pay 'equalization payments'".

    The fact that we do not collect any such payments means that we pay more net ($tax minus $EQ) than others in Canada.

    It's just arithmetic semantics to argue over whether we pay equalization or not.
  117. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall

    I thought you were outed some time ago as living in the US, so I'm not sure what you mean by "we". Yes, Americans also do not pay equalization to Canada, granted.

    Our Federal Gov't collects taxes through GST, Fed personal and corporate taxes. You basically pay the same rate wherever you live in Canada. Yes, true, if you make more money, you pay more taxes.

    Only the petty or small minded would equate this to "Alberta" paying equalization.
  118. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Dave Jansen - Obama for PM from Canada writes:

    Did anyone catch the comparisons between Norway and Alberta yesterday??? Absolutely stunning to say the least. That alone should be enough for every Albertan to rise up against the government that squandered away their and their children's future.

    You DO realize how much the cost of living in Norway is, right? It's ASTRONOMICAL. If it's so freaking great to live in Norway, you should move there at your earliest opportunity.
  119. John Cameron from Red Deer, Canada writes: Equalization, via the Federal Government tax take including the gst, just spends money assymetrically. ie The so-called "have" Provinces get less Federal tax spent than is collected there.

    On a per capita basis Alberta's deficit is by far the largest.
    I am not sure but it probably is because the two largest industries in Alberta are two very capital intensive industries in oil and gas and agriculture.

    The whole concept is very unfair to the lower levels of wage earners in Alberta and that alone would be good enough to scrap the whole thing.
  120. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall

    You basically pay the same rate wherever you live in Canada. Yes, true, if you make more money, you pay more taxes.

    Only the petty or small minded would equate this to "Alberta" paying equalization.

    I'd invite you to AB, but you wouldn't like it here, Rocky. You can make a lot of money, if you're willing to work for it. I figure that "lets you off the bus", right here.

    The easy test is to stop all this equalization payment nonsense, and let the "chips fall where they may". I live in a province with tons of oil...what have YOU got?
  121. bruce riley from spruce grove alberta, Canada writes: The Economic Development Minister of Ontario was on Rutherford today and admitted that Alberta Oil Industry contributes to the Ontario economy 40 per cent of its gross economy, 110 billion dollars. Technological advances and environmental advances are blossoming here in Alberta, me thinks Ontario would be happy to contribute to these advances instead of what most of the critics here seem to want. Oh and by the way lets shut down the Canadian Auto Industry too. Yeah, that'll make us all happy.
  122. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: "I'd invite you to AB, but you wouldn't like it here, Rocky. You can make a lot of money, if you're willing to work for it. I figure that "lets you off the bus", right here."

    Hey Tony, got news for you. I moved to AB in 1982, and have lived through the NEP etc. as well as all the other ups and downs in the O&G industry. Yes, I worked in the oil patch, and know spin and B.S. when I read it.

    When did you jump off the turnip truck?
  123. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: You should move to Norway, Rocky.
  124. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Tony Conner from Edmonton

    You should go back to the one room schoolhouse where you honed your intellect and rebuttal skills.
  125. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Tony Conner from Edmonton

    Never had to take it. I guess that's what happens when you get above manual labour.

    Say, how difficult is it to pee into the cup, really? One hand or two?
  126. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: You must have been working at Starbucks a long time Rocky - EVERYBODY takes the test.
  127. 20 20 from Canada writes:
    Terry F, I don't doubt that there were all kinds of estimates floating around for how many million barrels per day were feasible. For sure there were. What I wrote about was a formal meeting that involved the US Department of Energy, the US oil industry, and oilsands executives, and that took place in Houston, Texas - not Alberta. It was a meeting that was kept secret from the Canadian public until Radio-Canada got a hold of the meetings and spilled the news. It was a meeting that even key Canadian cabinet members in highly relevant positions were not informed about. It was a highly significant proposal that Conservative natural resources minister Gary Lunn failed to inform the Commons Natural Resources Committee about when he appeared before them to discuss the oil sands in the fall of 2007.

    http://www.politicswatch.com/oil-jan18-2007.htm

    It's also one thing to have estimates that 5 million barrels per day would one day be feasible, and quite another to have an official "proposal" (read: directive) to quickly ramp up production by five-fold in a short time span. The negative environmental, economic, and political costs arise from the number of million barrels per day, but even more from the rate of that increase.
  128. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Maybe in your bathhouse.

    I'd check with head office, if you ever have occasion to be invited there by Mom or Dad (or an unwilling neighbour) for Family/Career Day.
  129. Tony Conner from Edmonton, Canada writes: Poor Rocky - The best he can aspire to is to work at the Oslo Starbucks. Good luck, and don't take any wooden Krone. It'll come off your cheque, if you do.
  130. Harold Wilson from Port Moody, Canada writes: "In 2006, researchers at Simon Fraser University found that the mining and upgrading of oil sands bitumen created five times as many greenhouse-gas emissions as would come from producing oil from a conventional well."

    What study was this?

    The quote implies that the total CO2 emissions from synthetic oil are much higher than from conventional crude oil. This must refer to the energy consumed producing the synthetic oil from oil sands in extraction plants and upgraders. However, the environment only cares about the total CO2 emissions, which includes the emissions when the refined products are burned. Every reference that I have seen indicates that extracting and upgrading 1 barrel of synthetic oil from the oil sands requires between about 0.15 and 0.30 BOE in natural gas consumption. (You can find lots of references on the web.) This means that the total carbon emissions from a barrel of synthetic crude from the oil sands is at most 30% more than the emissions from conventional oil (less actually because natural gas produces more energy per unit of CO2 emitted, and most oils sands plants are well below 30%). However, such comparisons ignore the non-negligible petroleum costs of searching for conventional oil, gathering it in a huge network of pipelines, and then transporting it long distances to markets.

    Result: synthetic crude for the oil sands produces negligibly more CO2 than conventional crude. With all the other environmental problems in the oil sands, why do people even mention the CO2 issue?

    I took particular notice of the fact that the people who developed the extraction process missed the fact that the clay does not settle out of the waste water for 500-1000 years. They say that they are working on a solution, but is this problem receiving even a small fraction of the funding that is being directed to the construction of new mining and extraction operations? Probably not.
  131. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: Jean Malice from Calgary, Canada writes:

    Robbie Miller, why don't you clean YOUR tar pand?

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

    Well, Jean, first let me compliment you for raising the bar on the level of this discussion with some of these posts of yours--

    Jean, it's not really in my field of expertise to clean the toxic tar ponds in Sydney, however, that being said the least that I can do as a citizen is not cheerlead the creation of any new ones...

    I certainly wouldn't want to be mixing my baby's formula in the extract of the Sydney Tar Ponds, however..

    Forty Sum from Canada : Is that another $2 Billion of Federal Money into the Oil Sands? God bless Alberta's "free market" for showing us, "creeps and bums", the way to short-sighted prosperity...

    Nova Scotia has had European civilizations living in this province for over 400 years -- I wonder if Alberta will one day be able to make that same boast.
  132. Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes: D G from Burnaby, BC:

    Withdrawing from equalization payments sounds fine to me.

    Can we also withdraw from the multi-billions in Federal subsidies and corporate welfare to the Oil Sands and other industries?

    Since the fact that the current Federal government is posting a $55 billion employment insurance surplus, let's withdraw from that EI too...
  133. Michael Banfield from Vernon, BC, Canada writes: Do we, as a collective voice in this, people with children and grandchildren, have no say in what is happening to this once pristine and wonderful country? Perhaps the politicians at all levels should slow down a bit-give some thought to what happens in Latin America, Myamar, Nepal, and other places in which the voices of the populace are no longer listened to. They began to vote with guns. Bullets over ballots. Do we want to se that here? And are we collectively naive enough to think that it may never happen here?
  134. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor: You basically pay the same rate wherever you live in Canada."

    If everyone received in 'equalization payments' in proportion to what they contributed, or in the provincial sense if each province received in EQ proportionate to what its citizens had paid in tax, then this would be true.

    Since Alberta and Ontario receive far LESS than the proportion of tax that their citizens pay, we do indeed pay equalization.
  135. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Robert Miller from Halifax, Canada writes:"... multi-billions in Federal subsidies and corporate welfare to the Oil Sands and other industries?"

    While some industries receive federal subsidies, the oilsands are not among them.
  136. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: "GlynnMhor: I thought you were outed some time ago as living in the US, so I'm not sure what you mean by "we"."

    In the context of the discussion, and from the quoted extracts of your posts, it's quite obvious that 'we' means 'Albertans'.

    In contrast, what you might think you mean by 'outed... as living in the US' is entirely unclear. 'Out' isn't even a verb, for example.
  137. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall "In contrast, what you might think you mean by 'outed... as living in the US' is entirely unclear. 'Out' isn't even a verb, for example."

    Canadian english is different than American english:

    v., out·ed, out·ing, outs.

    v.intr.
    To be disclosed or revealed; come out: Truth will out.

    v.tr.
    1. Sports. To send (a tennis ball, for example) outside the court or playing area.
    2. To expose (one considered to be heterosexual) as being gay, lesbian, or bisexual: a tabloid article that outed a well-known politican.
    3. Chiefly British. To knock unconscious.
  138. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Well, Rocky, I'm not a tennis ball, not homosexual, and not unconscious.
  139. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: No, in the context of my original comment, I was thinking in terms of the intransitive ("To be disclosed or revealed").

    This is not to be confused with intransigent ("Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising") which ironically would probably also apply.
  140. Fog Hat from Canada writes: When Albertans fully understand the extent of the damage, they'll blame Ottawa.
  141. Peter Sitaras from Montreal, Canada writes: I do not know how many of you out there realize that the oil and gas industry invest millions of dollars to downplay, disprove, and or delay action on climate change. After reading Margarete Wente"s article "Yes, Virginia, there is a polar bear" in yesterday's Globe (Feb.2) I wonder if the scientist she interviewed for the article, Prof. Anderson, is one of those being greased by the oil companies involved in the highly polluting tar sands oil bonanza. I am also wondering who is backing Ms. Wente. The article ends by not only questioning the scince behind global warming but staing that there is "extreme uncerrtainty" among scientist. In fact, there is near unanimity around the scientific world (99.9 %) that climate change is happening...and at an increasing rate. There are so many changes happening up North that its really scary just ask the First Nations people living up there. One other climate change scenario that scientist are concerned about is the shut down of the Gulf stream which brings warm air up to the nothern latitudes. If that ever shuts down then we are looking at another ICE AGE. This would be great for the polar bears but not too good for the rest of us up here ! Ms Wente deserves A FOSSIL AWARD for yesterday's article
  142. Alan Burke from climatechange.dynalias.com in Ottawa, Canada writes: Oh, but Peter, that would be global cooling not global warming.

    The North Atlantic conveyor and slipping ice from Greenland don't hold much sway in most discussions here.
  143. Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Rocky Zhao" Since the 60s we have had proffessional institutions & personnel in Canada & abroad working with research & pilot projects all over to develop better technolgy to reduce emmissions & environmental impact from bitumen production. It's accererating even faster with more demand for our Oil. Technolgy has greatly improved since 1967, emissions of all types are being reduced as new processes are adapted. Solvent extraction, dry tailings, processing at the face, low temperature processing, IPS use to name a few, have greatly reduced water use, reduced tailing ponds, improved recoveries & reduced immissions. Bitumen production will continue, the process is ongoing. So "Rocky" get a ticket to the positive side of this show, your negativity & from others like you does nothing to improve anything. How much real knowlege & experience have you really had with anything to do with the Oil sands............
  144. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Bitumen Queen from Edmonton,

    You sound like someone one would find at the Corporate Visitor Centre for the tour of the Suncor or Syncrude facilities, or maybe at the Chamber of Commerce in Fort McMurray. Playing in the background, Bobby McFerrin's "Don't worry. Be happy". In other words, you provide a very saccharine view of the situation. Yes, there is a story to tell, but there is much more to the story than you care to acknowledge.

    But, don't take my word for it. Listen to someone who has "much real knowlege & experience... with the Oil sands":

    Ex Alberta Premier (1971-1985) Peter Lougheed on the oil sands development and its affects.

    CBC Radio's The Current, Jan 31, 2008

    http://www.cbc.ca/thecurrent/media/200801/20080131thecurrent_sec1.ram
  145. david mathews from St. Petersburg, Algeria writes: It seems that people of Canada are willing to sacrifice their own country's future for the sake of today's easily squandered profits. The forces of greed can defeat a nation's own survival instincts -- see the United States of America, locked in a neverending war in Iraq which has already killed 4,000 soldiers and 150,000 Iraqis. Who cares about dead bodies when Americans really want to drive SUVs? Americans cannot leave Iraq, ever. That's the price that America is willing to pay in order to maintain its oil addiction. Canada, on the other hand, has thoroughly surrendered all of its resources to these same SUV-driving Americans. Canada is sacrificing its own future for the sake of Americans. Fancy that ... you people will have a mess which will linger for thousands of years, and Americans will enjoy driving for a few years longer (until America's economy collapses ... because the expense of war and the excesses of capitalism are driving America bankrupt). So, Canada, what will you do when America's appetite for oil becomes so great that it excludes Canadians from burning your own oil? Mexico's oil production is collapsing (Cantarell's production has peaked and is now in a steep decline), perhaps desperation shall lead America to insist that Canada deprive herself of her own oil. Although this might seem impossible (Americans are the good people of this world, aren't they?) the people of Canada should keep in mind that America has already deprived 150,000 Iraqis of their lives. The future ain't pretty. Canada's future is bleak.
  146. Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: Rocky Fort McMurray has done well for itself, so have all the people that live & work there & they will continue to do so. Peter's problem was that he never took the time to stay in touch with the developments in the Oil Sands, anyone that stays away for any amount of time as he did would also be amazed by all the developments going on. He blew all the money from our commercial Oil industry in Alberta & now wants to be a critic. Just like yourself, you'r a Johnny come lately like all the other negative environmentalists, you provide nothing benifical to the process. I didn't see you around McDougall school in Calgary or see you tagging fish on the Athabasca in the 60s, Rudy Krueger earned his strips up there way back, so appreciate what he has to say. There are far to many tourists like yourself that have become quick proffessional Oil Sands critics with nothing positive to contribute. There truly are stories to tell, mostly good for Albertans & Canadians about McMurray & the Oll Sands. If you and your naysayer's had your way you would shut the Oil Sands down & eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs. Mining & processing of Oil sand is a short term overall project in the big picture of Bitumen Supply, in less than a life time there will be few mines around McMurray, SAGD or some new more environmentaly friendly process will be in use with greatly reduced emissions. I agree that if we would have retained some form of NEP here in the province we would have restricted the rapid development of the resource & had longer term suppy for ourselves. Americans want our Oil & they now have it.
  147. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Bitumen Queen from Edmonton,

    BQ, I don't care to argue whether you or I tagged more fish on the Athabasca R. or whether or not I walked past the Macdougall school in Calgary. And frankly, who cares?

    But, to be accurate, when you gratuitously claim: "He [Peter Lougheed] blew all the money from our commercial Oil industry in Alberta & now wants to be a critic." I think you are confusing him with his successors Don Getty (1985-1992) and Ralph Klein (1992-2006).
  148. Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Rocky" Like I mentioned before, get more experience, check into the massive history of Oil Sands development & most of all get some real experience so that you can contribute something positive.....

    Ernest, Don, Peter & good old Ralph all failed to provide the proper funding & infrastructure for Fort McMurray. Fort mcMurray will now get caught up when the construction boom is over. But that's politics.......
  149. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada

    Quit navel gazing and being so provincial. There is a whole world outside of Alberta. Don't be so parochial.
  150. Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Rockey Zhao"- Albertans have been managing their own resources for a long time now, untill you get yourself re-educated & finish your apprentiship about Alberta, Canada & Canadians (limit your feedback & analysis)
  151. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada,

    Learning about the rest of the world involves more than just booking a different room each week at Fantasyland Hotel at West Edmonton Mall.
  152. Dick Garneau from Canada writes: I have spent 35 years in the oil/gas industry. Including some minor contribution to the Oil Sands.

    We have overcome great problems and will have more to overcome.

    And yes it costs a lot to live in Alberta but so does it in Toronto or Vancouver. Rural Alberta has more affordable beautiful communities, as does Nova Scotia. Folks should seriously consider relocating to areas of Canada that better meet their needs or expectations.

    That is one of the beauties of Canada, lots of choices.
  153. Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: Mr Mathews your analysis is on the right track. We are suffering from a combination of many things along with what you indicate, over production , Free trade American controlled & manipulated, everything that was Canadian is now American owned, lack of a Canadian National Energy Policy, to add a few more. So why do all the Naysayers blame the Oil Sands for everything ? What about the Canadian goods, Natural gas, Coal, Lumber & logs, Uranium & Nucleur power, water & Hydro across Canada (BC,Quebec,Ontario,Manitoba being exported south at rock bottom prices?) Maybe we require a wholesale change in our Federal Politics & Goverment to really make an impact, or do we just let the Americans complete their takeover.... We shall see..... The ongoing issue of pollution & global warming will continue here as it will in China, India, Russia & the US. We must continue to work with what we have in a positive manner & improve as we go along. We are dealing with the issues. Green Peace is now on the scene in Edmonton creating their own organized coercion to save the world as if we needed them in Alberta.

    As Dick indicates you can move back to many other nice locations in Canada if you don't like it here.
  154. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: BQ is extremely naive in thinking that the problems of Alberta's oilsands are solved by having its critics "move back to many other nice locations".

    From the Times (UK) Feb 1, 2008:

    Big Oil vs Bad Oil
    There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but Shell must stop drilling tar sands
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leadingarticle/article3285461.ece

    And a Peter Foster column in response:
    Dirty oil tricks
    http://www.nationalpost.com/todays    paper/story.html?id=296069

    If I was a betting man, I'd say the Times editoria was a result of the G&M series. And note the effort of the environmental groups in the US - only the ill informed would suggest it is a local Alberta issue being adequately managed by industry/gov't (if there is a difference in Alberta).
  155. Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: See you all at the "Canadian Petroleum Discovery Centre"
    9:00 - 17:00 hrs tomorrow...
  156. Sophie Swiderski from Redwater, Canada writes: Mr. Wayne Groot hits so many right notes in his interview. We are his neighbours and are being inundated in this area by up to twelve upgraders, either approved or in the process of, with more to come. This area according to Dr. David Schindler is "already remarkable polluted" so how is this rampant development allowed by the EUB without due care and diligence? A simple question asked repeatedly by area residents, in particular, to Dr. Predy, Vice President, Public Health and Medical Officer of Health at Capital Health, "At what distance is it safe to live from an upgrader?" Dr. Predy was unable to answer this, in correspondence, and referred our community spokesperson back to heavy industry itself for the answer. Is this not the fox looking after the chicken coop? No further development should happen in Fort McMurray, Peace River, Fort Saskatchewan, or any developing Petro-chemical facilities anywhere in Canada, until this question is completely researched. Cumulative effects have only just begun to be looked at and this is the yardstick for generations to come. Public health should be tracked by postal code, observing strictist privacy issues, to give a heads up in the future of any cancers, respitory diseases and other chronic health issues associated with the proximity of heavy industry to cities, towns, hamlets, villages and individual residents. It goes without saying that farming practices must reflect the distance that airborne V.O.C.'s affect the vicinities' air. Organic farmers can no longer call themselves organic under this toxic umbrella nor should any crops or meat enter the human food chain. You can expect a lot of Christmas trees to be grown in this area.
  157. Rocky Zhao from Canada writes: Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: See you all at the "Canadian Petroleum Discovery Centre"
    9:00 - 17:00 hrs tomorrow...

    As I earlier wrote: "You sound like someone one would find at the Corporate Visitor Centre for the tour of the Suncor or Syncrude facilities, or maybe at the Chamber of Commerce in Fort McMurray."

    I was not far off. BQ obviously is just a gov/industry flack who believes far too much of the biased exhibitions she promotes.

  158. Bitumen Queen from Edmonton, Canada writes: "Sophie" During the life of the Redwater Oil field, it emitted some of the highest CTPV, VOCs & H2S etc which was greatly reduced when all flaring was restricted through stricter emission controls. Several other plants have recently closed in this (Edmonton-Fort Sask) area. The fertilizer & nickel plants have their own emissions as does the Steel Mill just West & upwind of Sherwood Park. The Shell Upgrader at Fort Sask is new to the area & is a differant unit as it processes a paraffinic solvent diluted bitumen & could emit C3s & C4s. Of concern there has been several incidents involving excessive releases of gases involving large fires at the present Shell & Edmonton Upgraders. Bitumen upgrading is much more intense, Upgrading here or in your area will bring many more emissions, Sulphur, Coke, particulates, & VOCs of many types, most of which can be controlled or mitigated through strict regulations & process controls. Inversions on Hot, Calm, days already cause very poor air quality in this large area & East all the way downwind to Tofield & Andrew, along with the near zero visibility situations & artificial snow during very cold weather. The greater Edmonton area itself is a large emmitter. We already have very high respiratory disease rates in Sherwood Park & centres East of Edmonton, so your concerns are certainly very valid. You will never see twelve Upgraders approved and or built, it's just not possible or feasable. There are people who have lived for the past 35 years within a stones throw of the Esso upgrader in Gold bar in Edmonton, I personally wouldn't live within 1 mile of a Bitumen Upgrader. Some Upgraders may be approved by EUB one at a time under very strict controls. I have concerns too, but should we kill our developing industry? or should improve on it as we go.. Dr. Schindler is a good arm chair critic however he cannot really tell you or anyone just how much this area is in fact polluted? .

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