Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

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 EDT 13/02/08

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

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

  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. 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...
  52. 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.
  53. 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.
  54. 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!
  55. 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.
  56. 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...
  57. 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.
  58. 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.
  59. 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.
  60. 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.
  61. 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.
  62. 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.
  63. 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.
  64. Kevin Go Riders from Canada writes: So you would agree the you tube post is useless and not worth linking to
  65. 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.
  66. 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.
  67. 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.
  68. 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.
  69. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: GlynnMhor - good job. Thanks for holding their feet to the fire.
  70. 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%.
  71. 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.
  72. 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.
  73. 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.
  74. 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".
  75. 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.
    • Posted 01/02/08 at 3:07 PM EDT |