Alberta oil thirst leading to disaster ?

[jennie]

Alberta oil thirst leading to disaster: author

Updated Tue. Oct. 9 2007 1:07 PM ET

Andy Johnson, CTV.ca News Staff

The author of a new book on the future of Canada's oil industry says Alberta is destroying itself in its rush to extract every drop of fossil fuel from the oilsands.

William Marsden, a Montreal journalist and author of "Stupid to the Last Drop: How Alberta is Bringing Environmental Armageddon to Canada (And Doesn't Seem to Care)," appeared on CTV's Canada AM on Tuesday.

He says Alberta is giving up control of its oil assets to foreign investors and private business, with little effort to ensure its economic or environmental future is protected. ... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071009/alberta_oil_071009/20071009?hub=Canada

Environmental armageddon? pretty strong words.

I can't help but think, though, that if we got over our reliance on fossil fuels we could live more independently.

Solar shingles, micro-turbines, little electric city cars, just a bit bigger than a shopping cart ... it is becoming so doable.

Think about it ... if we had to use electric cars in urban areas (currently under $10,000) we could indulge our fondness for drive-through shopping without guilt!! That would be heaven!

I did the Thanksgiving trek to and from cottage country, stopped at a Tims/gas bar. omigod. Trucks and SUVs idling in lineups everywhere. Wasn't it in "1984" that we were supposed to get electronic highways that you hooked your car into? Cos this is friggen ridiculous!

[old_bold&cold]

What is the point in this, other then another persons view that we are using up our natural resources faster then our own domestic needs are, and we sell all we have left over to foreign countries, without thought of keeping reserves for our own use. The only flaw in that is the fatc that the tar sands hold more oil in there then all the middle east. So it would be generations before they would run out, even at todays consumptions. If anything we will be more in need of technology to make getting all the oil out quicker, then danger of running out.

Also the other law in this is the fact that yes we are quickly changing our views on oil and technology to take the automobile out of the equation will soon be here, and then we will have these huge gluts of oil and refineries will be over flowing. So does it not make sense to make as much as possible now, while we still have the ability to do so. This I am sure will come about in my lifetime. Teslas idea about the world being one giant generator is still valid today. Just not yet developed but we all know that a generator is just an Iron core being turned inside a large magnetic field is what generate electricity. One day we will tap this source and have unlimited electrical power, and oil will only be used to lubricate things. Again all this will happen in the near future. So why is Albertas push for producing more oil to export and sell, a bad thing?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It is a bad thing when corporate governance is successful in driving public agendas. In the case of Alberta, where the energy industry provides a majority of employment there are special considerations. The public is well aware of the impact of messing around with corporate profits, yet they also see record profits and are now asking some tough questions. It seems that a commissioned report does not sit well with the political parties yet resonates well with the public.

The average Albertan would simply prefer to somehow end the boom/bust cycle, but any economist not in the fee of the right wing is tared and feathered by the ruling class in the land of black gold. There is a mindset that permeates our small business folks that serves to protect its corporate masters, who hold all the keys and contracts to the very profitable industry of the oil patch. Any attempt to control the industry has an instantaneous result of investment withdrawl or at least the threat of such action in order to leverage the government into either action or inaction. These tactics have been very successful for the corporate citizens of Alberta.

What is really needed in Alberta is for our citizens to take a freaking stand for once, and elect a slate of representatives that would call out both governments and industries that do not act for the future well being of the province. There is no plan for the windfall that the governments both federal and provincial have stripped from Alberta citizens. Other than being responsible for funding a disproportionate fraction of the cost for the equalization program of the federal government, or forgoing the cheapest utility rates in the nation for a privatization scheme that saw provincial public assets sold at a huge net loss in order to raise the costs to citizens to provide profits to the owners of what were once public assets, our political leadership has been quite beneficial to citizens, not. These folks have made the corporate administrators look like plausible leaders for our people.

Alberta should be a nation unto itself, with a constitution that defines and limits the powers and authority of government in order to provide controls and limits to any form of leadership not supported by true democratic majority. Alberta has the greatest potential of any province in Canada, yet it is saddled with burdens and obligations beyond the ability of its citizens to control.

[geoffrey]

Think about it ... if we had to use electric cars in urban areas (currently under $10,000) we could indulge our fondness for drive-through shopping without guilt!! That would be heaven!

I know! Coal powered cars! GREAT! Get real. Every green solution has a real world implication behind it. Powering cars by plugging into your house is essientially running them off coal in North America (excluding Quebec East)

-

I'll address the rest later. Basically, oil exploitation in Alberta does not really harm our environment in a quality of life sense out here.

[mikedavid00]

I know! Coal powered cars! GREAT! Get real. Every green solution has a real world implication behind it. Powering cars by plugging into your house is essientially running them off coal in North America (excluding Quebec East)

-

I'll address the rest later. Basically, oil exploitation in Alberta does not really harm our environment in a quality of life sense out here.

That's not true.

Wind and solar could power cars. They would be home units, recharche batteries, and then charge your car over night.

This is completely feasable but too expensive right now and I didn't go to school so I can drive a car than I weigh more than.

Heheh.. I wonder what the gov't would do if citizens started to power their own homes and vehicles from private solar and wind generation? I have a hunch they wouldn't like that very much.

The gov't likes the power grid. It's one of the many ways that they excersize control over us.

[geoffrey]

The gov't likes the power grid. It's one of the many ways that they excersize control over us.

Well, this thread is about Alberta, and Alberta's power grid is privately owned and operated, so that's not really true. Not here anyways.

[fellowtraveller]

The gov't likes the power grid. It's one of the many ways that they excersize control over us.

Yes, every power pole has sensors that control your mind.

I wear a fine mesh of bobby pins under my tinfoil hats, which intercepts all their commands except the odd naughty one. The mesh hairnet is, of course , powered by static electricty that I generate by rubbing balloons on my hair. I pray that I can continue to fight off baldness.

[punked]

I know! Coal powered cars! GREAT! Get real. Every green solution has a real world implication behind it. Powering cars by plugging into your house is essientially running them off coal in North America (excluding Quebec East)

-

I'll address the rest later. Basically, oil exploitation in Alberta does not really harm our environment in a quality of life sense out here.

Unless 50% of Canadian homes are located in Eastern Quebec then you are wrong my friend. Half all electricity used in homes in Canada comes from renewable energy. Ohhhhhh yah you are right we should conserve this cheep form of free energy and not use it in our cars so we can export it at a premium to the US. You are what is wrong with this country.

[geoffrey]

Unless 50% of Canadian homes are located in Eastern Quebec then you are wrong my friend. Half all electricity used in homes in Canada comes from renewable energy.

I don't think so.

Ontario stills relies heavily on coal. Nuclear is non-renewable as well. Alberta and Saskatchewan are purely coal. Manitoba has some hydro, but they also don't even have a million people.

BC has lots of hydro, but still some coal.

Sure the Maritimes and Quebec use hydro, but it's hardly the environmentally happy thing that the Greenies portray.

Ohhhhhh yah you are right we should conserve this cheep form of free energy and not use it in our cars so we can export it at a premium to the US.

Export what? Who? Huh?

Cheap but free? Free exports at a premium?

You sir, are clueless. Or just misled. I prefer misled.

You are what is wrong with this country.

Nah, reality is what is wrong with this country.

[noahbody]

I can't help but think, though, that if we got over our reliance on fossil fuels we could live more independently.

Independently with high unemployment and without the wealth to pay for a health system or any other perks.

[BornAlbertan]

Alberta and Saskatchewan are purely coal.

Uhm...no.

http://www.transalta.com/transalta/webcms....BC?OpenDocument

I usually agree a lot on what you say...but not this time

[Black Dog]

I'll address the rest later. Basically, oil exploitation in Alberta does not really harm our environment in a quality of life sense out here.

If by "here" you mean "Metro Calgary" then, yeah, you're probably right (especially since Compton got kiboshed). Ditto edmonton (though the weekly influx of marauding rig pigs from Fort Mac is a direct byproduct of oil exploration). Otherwise, you're casting your net pretty wide. Oil exploration has quality of life impacts in or near those areas where the exploration is being conducted (think of Fort Chipewyan bizzare increase in cancer rates).

[Hydraboss]

If by "here" you mean "Metro Calgary" then, yeah, you're probably right (especially since Compton got kiboshed). Ditto edmonton (though the weekly influx of marauding rig pigs from Fort Mac is a direct byproduct of oil exploration). Otherwise, you're casting your net pretty wide. Oil exploration has quality of life impacts in or near those areas where the exploration is being conducted (think of Fort Chipewyan bizzare increase in cancer rates).

For the last time this century, there ARE NO RIG PIGS IN FORT MACMURRAY!!! The men and women everyone sees going to and coming from Ft Mac are heavy equipment operators, carpenters, electricians, etc, etc. During any given winter, you might get 10-15 rigs working north of Conklin.

I lived in Ft Mac before the big oil boom up there, and let me tell you, there WAS NO QUALITY OF LIFE until Syncrude and Suncor really got rolling. Ft Chip? The village was almost in the stone age before Nexen and CNRL moved in. The O&G business created a quality of life up north. Same goes for Norman Wells and Inuvik.

And let's not forget, Alberta employs more Maritimers than the Maritimes. You're welcome!

Alberta O&G is the absolute engine of Canada. Want stats? Ask Geoff.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Hydraboss

[Black Dog]

For the last time this century, there ARE NO RIG PIGS IN FORT MACMURRAY!!! The men and women everyone sees going to and coming from Ft Mac are heavy equipment operators, carpenters, electricians, etc, etc. During any given winter, you might get 10-15 rigs working north of Conklin.

Meh. You work in the oil sector, the rig pig sobriquet applies, IMO.

I lived in Ft Mac before the big oil boom up there, and let me tell you, there WAS NO QUALITY OF LIFE until Syncrude and Suncor really got rolling. Ft Chip? The village was almost in the stone age before Nexen and CNRL moved in. The O&G business created a quality of life up north. Same goes for Norman Wells and Inuvik.

I love this argument. There was no quality of life before, so enjoy your freaky cancers!

Alberta O&G is the absolute engine of Canada. Want stats? Ask Geoff.

Who's denying that? The issue is the environmental and health effects.

[punked]

I don't think so.

Ontario stills relies heavily on coal. Nuclear is non-renewable as well. Alberta and Saskatchewan are purely coal. Manitoba has some hydro, but they also don't even have a million people.

BC has lots of hydro, but still some coal.

Sure the Maritimes and Quebec use hydro, but it's hardly the environmentally happy thing that the Greenies portray.

Export what? Who? Huh?

Cheap but free? Free exports at a premium?

You sir, are clueless. Or just misled. I prefer misled.

Nah, reality is what is wrong with this country.

You are so far off base it isn't even funny.

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

As you can see Half of the provinces listed there actually have hydro numbers in the 90% range with out even adding in wind. BC is in the same position as well as the two other territories. PEI hopes to be only wind power in 10 years time. I also do not consider nuclear power to be Coal power, so you are wrong. You have no Data the supports you accept Alberta which BTW is not the centre of the world and is not all of Canada.

Here are the numbers from all of Canada from 2004, as you can see 59% hydro. I will do a little math that is 9% over half. I don't think I was wrong.

http://www.cec.org/files/pdf/ECONOMY/Pres-...yMeeting_en.pdf

As for Power companies they often encourage people to conserve energy generated from these use it or lose it sources of power so they can pump it into the American grid. By doing this they often make twice what they would make if Canadians consumed this electricity themselves.

If I have been misled it wasn't by you cause I am calling shanagians on your entire post.

[Hydraboss]

Meh. You work in the oil sector, the rig pig sobriquet applies, IMO.

I love this argument. There was no quality of life before, so enjoy your freaky cancers!

Who's denying that? The issue is the environmental and health effects.

So by your definition; sobri...sobrik...sobriquet...nickname (big words not good for rig pig!), all the doctors, lawyers, engineers and waitresses that followed the oil money north are rig pigs huh? Impressive. I guess the oil patch has more people in it than I thought.

Freaky cancers. Exactly what part of oil and gas exploration causes cancer? Cite, please.

So nobody's denying that Alberta O&G powers the country (no pun intended), but it's fine for some know-it-all, anti-O&G, self appointed, almost research scientists to say that O&G is causing adverse environmental and health effects. Wow, you must be smart. Billions and billions of dollars made every year, and no posted research on how drilling a well or digging the oilsands is killing people. Maybe you should publish your findings (I hear the New England Journal of Medicine is always looking for cutting edge stories.)

[geoffrey]

Who's denying that? The issue is the environmental and health effects.

Environmental effects up North? Perhaps, but no one used that land anyways. The possible effects on the watershed effect so few people compared to those that benefit from development that it can't even be considered.

This cancer nonsense is simply that. You sound like those that protest EMF from transmission lines. There is simply no evidence to back those arguments. It's a NIMBY issue bottom line. No science involved. Cancer from oil and gas=intelligent design.

As for Power companies they often encourage people to conserve energy generated from these use it or lose it sources of power so they can pump it into the American grid. By doing this they often make twice what they would make if Canadians consumed this electricity themselves.

The electricity market is hugely complex, and while I believe you are most correct, it's far more elaborate than you give it credit for. I work in Canada's only deregulated electrical market and I understand your point of view here. Market complexities however generally prevent what your saying on a large scale outside of a few markets (US NorthEast).

If I have been misled it wasn't by you cause I am calling shanagians on your entire post.

I admit when I am wrong, and I was on the ratios of electricity in other provinces. Do note however that Ontario's coal industry, specifically Naticoke, is among the largest industrial polluters in Canada.

[punked]

I admit when I am wrong, and I was on the ratios of electricity in other provinces. Do note however that Ontario's coal industry, specifically Naticoke, is among the largest industrial polluters in Canada.

Agreed and causes huge health risks, Nova Scotia is also very depend on coal. I would rather nuclear is a viable sustainable option is too far out of reach. Coal=Bad, I also would like to point out deregulation also =Bad but whole other can of beans.

[geoffrey]

I also would like to point out deregulation also =Bad but whole other can of beans.

I beg to differ. It employs me.

I also differ on the nuclear option. With no reasonable means to dispose of waste, it's trouble. Not to mention, the world's supply of uranium would not last a decade if all power was derived from nuclear.

[Hydraboss]

My concern with deregulation (and I doubt it's JUST me) ends with cost. When my power bill tripled, I learned the "deregulation bad" mantra. I could care less about the politics of it, just the outrageous cost to keep the lights on.

[Black Dog]

So by your definition; sobri...sobrik...sobriquet...nickname (big words not good for rig pig!), all the doctors, lawyers, engineers and waitresses that followed the oil money north are rig pigs huh? Impressive. I guess the oil patch has more people in it than I thought.

You were right about English not being your strong suit. "Following oil money" /= "working in the oil sector".

Freaky cancers. Exactly what part of oil and gas exploration causes cancer? Cite, please.

Dunno, the issue hasnt to my knowledge been explored too much. But there's funny stuff going on up there.

So nobody's denying that Alberta O&G powers the country (no pun intended), but it's fine for some know-it-all, anti-O&G, self appointed, almost research scientists to say that O&G is causing adverse environmental and health effects. Wow, you must be smart. Billions and billions of dollars made every year, and no posted research on how drilling a well or digging the oilsands is killing people. Maybe you should publish your findings (I hear the New England Journal of Medicine is always looking for cutting edge stories.)

Well, I'm no scientician, but I stil don't see the connection between the billions made and the potential negative effects on the environment and human health. That's like arguing slave labour in China keeps the price of goods low so it's okay.

geoff:

Environmental effects up North? Perhaps, but no one used that land anyways.

So, the earth is ours for the raping provided no humans are effected?

[Hydraboss]

So if following the oil money /= rig pig, exactly which workers do qualify for that moniker? Only if they get their hands covered in hydrocarbons?

So there's no medical proof, but there's freaky cancers? That is what you said, correct?

As for slave labour in China, at least there can be objective proof of negative effects. No so with the rest of your argument. What about rice? Does the multi-billion dollar O&G industry in Alberta have any effect on the price of rice in China? (If you don't get it, don't worry about it.)

Raping of the Earth???? What exactly do you do at those pubs on Whyte Ave?

[geoffrey]

My concern with deregulation (and I doubt it's JUST me) ends with cost. When my power bill tripled, I learned the "deregulation bad" mantra. I could care less about the politics of it, just the outrageous cost to keep the lights on.

That's fine, but you now pay the real cost of electricity. Before, you got a subsidy from the government. Market prices will be more sustainable long term, and not to mention they are better for the environment.

The electrical generation industry does not make excessive returns in Alberta. They generally make pretty reasonable money, and it's fully competitive... if you believe you can do it cheaper, you can, tomorrow.

Distribution is regulated, transmission is regulated.

Retail sales is deregulated, and has given consumers many options to best suit their needs. The $0.07/kWh deal Enmax had on was great, lock in at that rate and all is good. People don't trust it so they don't, but in fact, you could have left at any time.

Sucks for them. The option is there to save money in a non-distorted market. It will be back.

geoff:

So, the earth is ours for the raping provided no humans are effected?

Why would we care if no one is affected? Rationality over emotion there BD. That said, I see no evidence that reclaimation isn't a priority of oil and gas exploration.

[Hydraboss]

Actually Geoff, I pay the deregulated rate as set by the AEUB. Keep in mind that the "approved profit margin" the power companies get to collect is after all expenses, including wages, marketing costs, bonuses, and donuts in the coffee room. So, no, it wasn't subsidy. It was power companies having to survive like every other company in the world. If they hedged their bets and were wrong, they simply apply for an increase in charge. It is the only operation I am aware of that is legislated not to lose money. It's physically impossible.

Of course, if I had a few billion dollars I would probably do the same thing. Fair's fair.

[August1991]

Flipping through this varied thread, I seem to get two basic ideas.

That's fine, but you now pay the real cost of electricity. Before, you got a subsidy from the government. Market prices will be more sustainable long term, and not to mention they are better for the environment.

Do Albertans pay the "real" cost of electricity?

Or is BD right?

So, the earth is ours for the raping provided no humans are effected?

----

The earth offers us resources and we can use them as long as we use them in a way that is "sustainable". We chop down trees and catch fish such that we cull no more than an amount which will allow the population to reproduce. In the case of hydro-electricity, we dam rivers in a way that does not critically alter the planet. (Keep in mind that the Great Lakes are a huge, natural hydro-electric project. The world still turns.) In the case of oil and gas, non-renewable resources, what do we do?

I don't know exactly but it seems to me that we generally underprice the environment and non-renewable resources. BD is closer to the truth than Geoffrey.

Incidentally, Quebec truly underprices its electricity and in effect subsidizes its use. This is tragedy on a grand scale and belies any claim of Quebec to Kyoto political correctness.

Edited October 26, 2007 by August1991