Environment, oilsands

[Topaz]

A new report is out and says that the past report on the oil sands aren't true and that the oil companies are more behind the report than the truth of how it will affect the environment, which most Canadians knew and how the Tories were also part of it. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Oilsands+hidden+truths+revealed+documents/2418818/story.html

[ZenOps]

All I know is that Britain got half a metre of snow, which very well may trigger a mini-recession.

And Florida is on the edge of losing another Orange crop due to freezing.

The world needs a couple degrees of global greenhouse warming right about now.

[Hydraboss]

Well, if

Environmental Defence, a Toronto conservation group

says it's so, it must be so. Who else could know more about the Alberta oilsands?

[Michael Hardner]

Well, if says it's so, it must be so. Who else could know more about the Alberta oilsands?

Well, the original report came from Ottawa so... So much for criticizing things based on where they're from.

How is it that we have one government department criticizing another ? Isn't there already a process whereby the Natural Resources Department documents are reviewed ? Why do we have to manage natural resources through press leaks and intrigue ?

I would rather have the original paper, and the review be done above board - otherwise it all stinks of politics.

[waldo]

Well, if says it's so, it must be so. Who else could know more about the Alberta oilsands?

is Environment Defence's commentary a reflection of the Environment Canada report... or not? If one of 2 government departments appears to contradict the other over tarsands impacts, does that invalidate any 3rd party commentary on those apparent contradictions... particularly since those contradictions only came to light via the said 3rd party FOI request?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

is Environment Defence's commentary a reflection of the Environment Canada report... or not? If one of 2 government departments appears to contradict the other over tarsands impacts, does that invalidate any 3rd party commentary on those apparent contradictions... particularly since those contradictions only came to light via the said 3rd party FOI request?

I really don't give a damn what the feds say about ALBERTA'S natural resources.

[Michael Hardner]

I really don't give a damn what the feds say about ALBERTA'S natural resources.

I like how you bolded Alberta there to make the point that Alberta has complete control over them. Very clever.

It tells me that you believe that the province of Alberta - not the corporations who own the rights to the oilsands projects, or the federal departments that have jurisdiction over them.

Got it.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I like how you bolded Alberta there to make the point that Alberta has complete control over them. Very clever.

It tells me that you believe that the province of Alberta - not the corporations who own the rights to the oilsands projects, or the federal departments that have jurisdiction over them.

Got it.

Yup. The feds and the corporations can say what they like. Those resources belong to the people of Alberta.

[Michael Hardner]

Yup. The feds and the corporations can say what they like. Those resources belong to the people of Alberta.

"Say what they like" includes saying that the project will be shut down, of course.

[ZenOps]

I don't think the people of Alberta actually own it either. Remember - Constitutional Monarchy - not Democracy.

http://www.servicealberta.ca/pdf/ltmanual/FOL-1.pdf

If someone understands full legalese, feel free to explain.

The Crown corporation of course has control of the "Crown in Right" over Crown land. Mines and minerals are considered different, IE: Surface rights are different laws, which of course allows farmers to farm, but they usually must get a seperate mining permit.

Homesteaders (1800's) were given homesteading rights, but not water or mineral rights. Which is also why you cannot build a fence on a beach.

I'm not sure if British mineral rights were ever repealed for Canada. I would laugh my ass off if someone built a 10 billion dollar pipeline only to have the British take it a few years later. Or setup a wireless network only to have to shut it down.

Much like the GG, I believe the Queen has a public trustee representative which has power of taxation in the Queens stead (usually a provincial magistrate of some sort) But I don't think the resources are actually owned by Albertan citizens.

Edited January 8, 2010 by ZenOps

[ToadBrother]

All I know is that Britain got half a metre of snow, which very well may trigger a mini-recession.

And Florida is on the edge of losing another Orange crop due to freezing.

The world needs a couple degrees of global greenhouse warming right about now.

And once again folks; weather is not climate, and climate change is a statistical study. What counts is the trend, not the odd dips and peaks.

[ToadBrother]

I'm not sure if British mineral rights were ever repealed for Canada. I would laugh my ass off if someone built a 10 billion dollar pipeline only to have the British take it a few years later. Or setup a wireless network only to have to shut it down.

Where do people get these idiotic ideas from. The Crown holds that land. Since the Statute of Westminster in 1931, the Crown in Canada is not the same as the Crown in the UK.

Edited January 8, 2010 by ToadBrother

[eyeball]

All I know is that Britain got half a metre of snow, which very well may trigger a mini-recession.

And Florida is on the edge of losing another Orange crop due to freezing.

Of course you also know that more extreme weather like this has long been predicted by the theory of AGW.

The world needs a couple degrees of global greenhouse warming right about now.

What have you got against Britain and Florida?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Of course you also know that more extreme weather like this has long been predicted by the theory of AGW.

What have you got against Britain and Florida?

Oil companies come and go and so does the boom and bust economy in Alberta. Folks just can't seem to figure out how and why we get played the way we do. The reason is very simple and that is we are just messing around with primary resources and a large part of that development is foreign owned and controlled development. Alberta needs to grow a pair and start domestic development with provincial crown corporations designed to take advantage of existing opportunities and seek the value added production capacity that serves the publics best interest.

[waldo]

I really don't give a damn what the feds say about ALBERTA'S natural resources.

oh...my! How controversial!

are you ok with pipeline decisions... that route "ALBERTA's" natural resource to post-processing/market... being made/influenced by "feds"?

are you ok with "feds" working to secure new markets for "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

are you ok with "feds" investigating and working to mitigate watershed water quality impacts brought about by "ALBERTA's" natural resources?

do you have concerns over "fed" responsibilities for carbon capture and storage... re: the transboundary nature of deep saline aquifers?

do you accept recognized constitutional "fed" jurisdiction in regards waterways, fisheries, Indian lands, and environmental assessments... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

are you ok with the "feds" involvement to ensure the availability of freshwater sources to support tarsands water consumption does not (continue to) negatively impact watershed stakeholders?

are you ok with the "feds" recent shift away from GHG "intensity based targets", particularly as it contradicts the Alberta government's tarsands "planning"... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

are you ok with the "feds" financial support for research into carbon capture... vis-a-vis the Alberta government's tarsands "planning"... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

etc.

etc.

etc.

[Riverwind]

Of course you also know that more extreme weather like this has long been predicted by the theory of AGW.

BS. That is crap AGW hacks just made up to sell their half baked religion. There is not one shred of evidence to support that claim. BTW - IPCC climate models do NOT have the resolution required to produce weather systems. For example, storms and hurricanes do not show up in the simulations so you can't use them to say that warming will cause more severe weather. Edited January 8, 2010 by Riverwind

[Jerry J. Fortin]

oh...my! How controversial!

are you ok with pipeline decisions... that route "ALBERTA's" natural resource to post-processing/market... being made/influenced by "feds"?

are you ok with "feds" working to secure new markets for "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

are you ok with "feds" investigating and working to mitigate watershed water quality impacts brought about by "ALBERTA's" natural resources?

do you have concerns over "fed" responsibilities for carbon capture and storage... re: the transboundary nature of deep saline aquifers?

do you accept recognized constitutional "fed" jurisdiction in regards waterways, fisheries, Indian lands, and environmental assessments... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

are you ok with the "feds" involvement to ensure the availability of freshwater sources to support tarsands water consumption does not (continue to) negatively impact watershed stakeholders?

are you ok with the "feds" recent shift away from GHG "intensity based targets", particularly as it contradicts the Alberta government's tarsands "planning"... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

are you ok with the "feds" financial support for research into carbon capture... vis-a-vis the Alberta government's tarsands "planning"... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

etc.

etc.

etc.

Lets see.....

NO to all of the above! I am an Alberta separatist.

[waldo]

Lets see.....

NO to all of the above! I am an Alberta separatist.

at first read I thought you were being sarcastic... possibly showing a degree of frustration... yet, you continue with this gem:

Keep laughing! I for one hope that little Trudeau gets a cabinet post very soon. Once that happens separatism in Alberta will be seen very clearly.

good luck with your tight hold on, as you say, "ALBERTA's natural resource"... how's that lack of Alberta diversification positioning you given the non-renewable nature of your tightness? How's that tightness going to feel as the world, itself, begins to accelerate it's movement away from your carbon based sources? How's it feel to have had your past/current governments literally piss-away your revenues... embarrassed by your lofty Heritage Fund's relatively minimal savings? How's it feel to be running a deficit? How's it feel to be so-heavily infrastructure challenged - enjoying that Alberta Advantage in your debt free wake? How's it feel to have more people, today, leaving the province than coming to it? Oh... how the mighty have fallen!

[Hydraboss]

oh...my! How controversial!

are you ok with

are you ok with

are you ok with

do you have concerns over

do you accept recognized constitutional "fed" jurisdiction in regards waterways, fisheries, Indian lands, and environmental assessments... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

are you ok with the "feds" involvement to ensure the availability of freshwater sources to support tarsands water consumption does not (continue to) negatively impact watershed stakeholders?

are you ok with the "feds" recent shift away from GHG "intensity based targets", particularly as it contradicts the Alberta government's tarsands "planning"... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

are you ok with the "feds" financial support for research into carbon capture... vis-a-vis the Alberta government's tarsands "planning"... vis-a-vis "ALBERTA's" natural resource?

Uh...ya sure. It's about time the feds did something to earn the billions upon billions we have and continue to send to them to support their needy children.

at first read I thought you were being sarcastic... possibly showing a degree of frustration... yet, you continue with this gem:

good luck with your tight hold on, as you say, "ALBERTA's natural resource"... how's that lack of Alberta diversification positioning you given the non-renewable nature of your tightness? How's that tightness going to feel as the world, itself, begins to accelerate it's movement away from your carbon based sources? How's it feel to have had your past/current governments literally piss-away your revenues... embarrassed by your lofty Heritage Fund's relatively minimal savings? How's it feel to be running a deficit? How's it feel to be so-heavily infrastructure challenged - enjoying that Alberta Advantage in your debt free wake? How's it feel to have more people, today, leaving the province than coming to it? Oh... how the mighty have fallen!

Actually, yes...we are all enjoying this stuff. How are you enjoying the Alberta Handouts you get? How's it feel to be on Alberta Welfare? How are you with us sending back your kids, husbands, uncles, etc now that we don't need them for the moment? How's it feel to know that Alberta pays far, far more to the welfare state of Canada than it will ever receive? How does it feel to know that every time someone says "Canada's oil and gas reserves" that they really mean "Alberta's oil and gas reserves" and that the rest of the world knows it too? How's it feel to know that there's a growing number of people in Alberta that TRULY DON"T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE REST OF CANADA ANYMORE? How do you like the fact that Albertan's can bitch about the Heritage Trust Fund and whether or not it's growing, knowing that you are from a welfare province?

Just wondering.

[waldo]

Uh...ya sure. It's about time the feds did something to earn the billions upon billions we have and continue to send to them to support their needy children.

Actually, yes...we are all enjoying this stuff. How are you enjoying the Alberta Handouts you get? How's it feel to be on Alberta Welfare? How are you with us sending back your kids, husbands, uncles, etc now that we don't need them for the moment? How's it feel to know that Alberta pays far, far more to the welfare state of Canada than it will ever receive? How does it feel to know that every time someone says "Canada's oil and gas reserves" that they really mean "Alberta's oil and gas reserves" and that the rest of the world knows it too? How's it feel to know that there's a growing number of people in Alberta that TRULY DON"T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT THE REST OF CANADA ANYMORE? How do you like the fact that Albertan's can bitch about the Heritage Trust Fund and whether or not it's growing, knowing that you are from a welfare province?

Just wondering.

there always have been... there always will be... fringe separatist wingnuts - like you. Albertan's have shown a strong desire to remain in Canada - an overwhelming allegiance to Canada. In your most optimistic over-the-top dreams... how would you treat towns/cities within Alberta... citizens of Alberta... that refused to be a part of your separatist split - would you allow the city of Edmonton, for example, to remain within Canada?

[fellowtraveller]

Some folks are very unhappy that the oilsands are seen to pollute. Some folks are unhappy with the $8 or $9 billion that Alberta contributes in equalization payments alone, plus untold billions more in jobs and economic spinoffs to the country.

Here is a solution: Alberta will keep every penny of the money from such an undesirable industry, and commit to spending at least $8 billion per year in environmental remediation. This has the added bounty that Ontarians and Qubecois won't have to feel that their souls are tainted by the Alberta dirty money. It will make for some really tough times in Central Canada, but I heard from Copenhagen that both provinces have huge green technology initiatives underway and don't want Alberta involved anyway.

It's a win-win.

[Keepitsimple]

there always have been... there always will be... fringe separatist wingnuts - like you. Albertan's have shown a strong desire to remain in Canada - an overwhelming allegiance to Canada. In your most optimistic over-the-top dreams... how would you treat towns/cities within Alberta... citizens of Alberta... that refused to be a part of your separatist split - would you allow the city of Edmonton, for example, to remain within Canada?

As usual Waldo, you're missing the point. You, and many other enviro "wingnuts" - to use your terminology - are biting the hand that feeds you....and dripping with arrogance as you do it. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As long as there are Waldo Wingnuts around, there will always be a counter balance of people who push back. Your attitude smacks of a second coming of Trudeau - this time cloaked in "renewable doctrine" - but it amounts to more of the same....Screw the West. Well, once is enough, thank you.

[Hydraboss]

Some folks are very unhappy that the oilsands are seen to pollute. Some folks are unhappy with the $8 or $9 billion that Alberta contributes in equalization payments alone, plus untold billions more in jobs and economic spinoffs to the country.

Here is a solution: Alberta will keep every penny of the money from such an undesirable industry, and commit to spending at least $8 billion per year in environmental remediation. This has the added bounty that Ontarians and Qubecois won't have to feel that their souls are tainted by the Alberta dirty money. It will make for some really tough times in Central Canada, but I heard from Copenhagen that both provinces have huge green technology initiatives underway and don't want Alberta involved anyway.

It's a win-win.

I think this would actually be a very reasonable solution. That said, in addition to us spending the $8 billion, I think Alberta should restrict it's payments in all way, shape and form to net zero. We get back what we put in. The money no longer sent east will be put into provincial green initiatives. We'll have the cleanest industry on the planet (spending about $15 billion per year on it), still be competitive in exports, with the added bonus of cutting off the ROC from our welfare donations. We'll pay our share (national defence, debt, etc) but not a red cent to the ROC under equalization. THEN we can afford the possibility of an International Greenhouse Gas Guilt and Blackmail Scam (IGGG-BS) quite easily.

We'll just charge the ROC more for their oil and gas. Simple.

Good idea.

Edited January 8, 2010 by Hydraboss

[Wild Bill]

As usual Waldo, you're missing the point. You, and many other enviro "wingnuts" - to use your terminology - are biting the hand that feeds you....and dripping with arrogance as you do it. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. As long as there are Waldo Wingnuts around, there will always be a counter balance of people who push back. Your attitude smacks of a second coming of Trudeau - this time cloaked in "renewable doctrine" - but it amounts to more of the same....Screw the West. Well, once is enough, thank you.

Exactly! Folks like Waldo keep jamming Albertans in the eye, constantly reminding them of how they are taken for granted and openly mocked for their values.

This more than anything ensures that the Liberals and the NDP don't have a hope in hell of improving their seat count in that province! I mean, you keep kicking a dog in the teeth and then you wonder why it won't lick your hand?

They put Dale Carnegie back about 100 years!

[Hydraboss]

They put Dale Carnegie back about 100 years!

Ha!

Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain - and most fools do.

- Dale Carnegie