Alberta

[dpwozney]

"Albertans own 81% of the province's oil, natural gas and other mineral resources", according to this "Alberta Energy" webpage.

By what law, or on what basis, is the above claim made?

The "Constitution Act, 1867" refers to "Lands, Mines, Minerals, and Royalties belonging to the several Provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick at the Union".

The "Alberta Act, 1905" refers to "Crown lands, mines and minerals".

The "Alberta Natural Resources Act, SC 1930, c 3" refers to "Crown lands, mines, minerals (precious and base) and royalties derived therefrom within the Province".

Are "Crown lands, mines and minerals" not owned by the "Crown"?

Do "Crown lands, mines and minerals" not belong to the "Crown"?

"Alberta", the "Province of Alberta", or the "Crown", is a different entity than "Albertans", "the people of Alberta", or "Albertans, collectively".

Is oil a mineral? Is natural gas a mineral?

Are oil resources, or natural gas resources, claimed to be "mineral resources"?

Does the "Government of the Province of Alberta" claim that oil is a mineral? Does the "Government of the Province of Alberta" claim that natural gas is a mineral?

[dpwozney]

Is oil a mineral? Is natural gas a mineral?

"A mineral is a naturally occurring substance that is solid and inorganic representable by a chemical formula, usually abiogenic, and has an ordered atomic structure", according to Wikipedia's article for "Mineral".

Wiktionary's first three definitions for the noun mineral state:

"1. (geology) Any naturally occurring inorganic material that has a (more or less) definite chemical composition and characteristic physical properties.

2. Any inorganic material (as distinguished from animal or vegetable).

3. Any inorganic element that is essential to nutrition; a dietary mineral."

Some historical definitions for what constitutes a mineral are provided at this mineral website link.

[eyeball]

All I know is that if Ottawa treated Alberta's oil the way it treats BC's fish....we'd probably be living in a country called Cascadia.

[PrimeNumber]

All I know is that if Ottawa treated Alberta's oil the way it treats BC's fish....we'd probably be living in a country called Cascadia.

And obviously for the better. One day the Doug will fly.

[WIP]

"A mineral is a naturally occurring substance that is solid and inorganic representable by a chemical formula, usually abiogenic, and has an ordered atomic structure", according to Wikipedia's article for "Mineral".

Wiktionary's first three definitions for the noun mineral state:

"1. (geology) Any naturally occurring inorganic material that has a (more or less) definite chemical composition and characteristic physical properties.

2. Any inorganic material (as distinguished from animal or vegetable).

3. Any inorganic element that is essential to nutrition; a dietary mineral."

Some historical definitions for what constitutes a mineral are provided at this mineral website link.

No, oil is not a mineral....neither is tar sands! But, it doesn't matter because it should be left in the ground anyway...even when the present glut of cheap oil runs out. Same goes for the tar sands deposits in Venezuela and India...unless you want to make extinction a certainty.

[bush_cheney2004]

...unless you want to make extinction a certainty.

Extinction is a certainty, and it has nothing to do with oil.

[On Guard for Thee]

Extinction is a certainty, and it has nothing to do with oil.

Oil will just speed the process along much quicker.

[poochy]

Oil will just speed the process along much quicker.

Imagine i there was any real evidence that you could point to that might support your 'argument'. Fortunately imaginations do not make for arguments. Our lifespan and standard of living has done nothing but increase, mostly due to oil.

[PrimeNumber]

Imagine i there was any real evidence that you could point to that might support your 'argument'. Fortunately imaginations do not make for arguments. Our lifespan and standard of living has done nothing but increase, mostly due to oil.

Doesn't air pollution from fossil fuels like oil have the opposite effect on the lifespan of a human? Just ask the 350,000 to 500,000 people that die prematurely every year from air pollution in China, dubbed the airpocolypse. Or you can ask the upwards of 7 million people that die prematurely world wide every year from air pollution, which from some estimates amounts to 1 in every 8 deaths, which would put it at a higher rate than deaths from tobacco. Then come back and tell me that has nothing to do with fossil fuels. Oh wait you can't, they're dead! It's to bad you don't have any real evidence to support your "argument". Or are you going to say that is just in everyone's "imagination".

Edited January 27, 2015 by PrimeNumber

[On Guard for Thee]

Imagine i there was any real evidence that you could point to that might support your 'argument'. Fortunately imaginations do not make for arguments. Our lifespan and standard of living has done nothing but increase, mostly due to oil.

You've obviously never walked to streets of Honh Kong, Port au Prince, Mexico city, Mumbai, etc., etc., etc.

[Smallc]

You've obviously never walked to streets of Honh Kong, Port au Prince, Mexico city, Mumbai, etc., etc., etc.

Are those major Alberta cities? I haven't heard of them.

[overthere]

You've obviously never walked to streets of Honh Kong, Port au Prince, Mexico city, Mumbai, etc., etc., etc.

Mumbai is unquestionably more prosperous than it was a generation ago.

[On Guard for Thee]

Are those major Alberta cities? I haven't heard of them.

I doubt anybody's geography is that bad, but no, it was a response to a comment that air pollution is contributing to a longer life span.

[PrimeNumber]

Are those major Alberta cities? I haven't heard of them.

What would be interesting to see is how places like Edmonton and Calgary stack up per capita to places like Hong Kong and Port Au Prince because it's obvious there's a bit of a population gap. Although I know for a fact many cancer cases have been linked to air quality in Edmonton.

[overthere]

What would be interesting to see is how places like Edmonton and Calgary stack up per capita to places like Hong Kong and Port Au Prince because it's obvious there's a bit of a population gap. Although I know for a fact many cancer cases have been linked to air quality in Edmonton.

Then you can easily find a link to support your claim regarding cancer and air quality in Edmonton. I'd be very surprised if you can find any of it.

Aside from refinery row on the far eastern edge of Edmonton, there is no heavy industry in the city.

There is plenty of it in Fort Saskatchewan which is well to the northeast of the city.

However the prevailing winds are from the south and west, so industrial activity on the east and northeast means those industrial belts are perfectly placed to take any bad air away from Edmonton, not toward it..

I await your link.

[PrimeNumber]

Then you can easily find a link to support your claim regarding cancer and air quality in Edmonton. I'd be very surprised if you can find any of it.

Aside from refinery row on the far eastern edge of Edmonton, there is no heavy industry in the city.

There is plenty of it in Fort Saskatchewan which is well to the northeast of the city.

However the prevailing winds are from the south and west, so industrial activity on the east and northeast means those industrial belts are perfectly placed to take any bad air away from Edmonton, not toward it..

I await your link.

Well I know this for sure because of a co-worker that I worked with in a man camp in Northern Alberta who had at the time just found out he had Cancer which his doctors had linked to air quality and no he was not a smoker. I have not since kept in touch with him so I am not sure how his cancer is doing now. But doing a simple google search...

Here One from a legal battle regarding Air Quality being linked to Cancer in the Edmonton Area

Here is another from The Tyee about the oil Sands and Northern Alberta areas air being linked to cases of rare cancers

Here is another from The Scientific American mostly about water contamination but it also has some information about Air Quality in Edmonton Area as well.

It's not just the heavy industry but the culture of oil in the city. Working up there I can honestly say there are faaaaaaarrrrr more large trucks and SUV's than there are smaller fuel efficient cars.As well as a lot of trucking. I guess it depends where you draw the line for the "Edmonton area" as their are numerous coal fire plants West of Edmonton in the Duff area and winds can easily blow some of that East to Etown as well as a few smaller Natural Gas plants in Fort Sask. Even U of A has their own Natural Gas plant. All of this leads to bad air quality which has been proven to have a negative effect on the human body.

[overthere]

Well I know this for sure because of a co-worker that I worked with in a man camp in Northern Alberta who had at the time just found out he had Cancer which his doctors had linked to air quality and no he was not a smoker. I have not since kept in touch with him so I am not sure how his cancer is doing now. But doing a simple google search...

Here One from a legal battle regarding Air Quality being linked to Cancer in the Edmonton Area

Here is another from The Tyee about the oil Sands and Northern Alberta areas air being linked to cases of rare cancers

Here is another from The Scientific American mostly about water contamination but it also has some information about Air Quality in Edmonton Area as well.

It's not just the heavy industry but the culture of oil in the city. Working up there I can honestly say there are faaaaaaarrrrr more large trucks and SUV's than there are smaller fuel efficient cars.As well as a lot of trucking. I guess it depends where you draw the line for the "Edmonton area" as their are numerous coal fire plants West of Edmonton in the Duff area and winds can easily blow some of that East to Etown as well as a few smaller Natural Gas plants in Fort Sask. Even U of A has their own Natural Gas plant. All of this leads to bad air quality which has been proven to have a negative effect on the human body.

Dude, you ned to actually read the links.

The first (Huffpost) actually says scienteists have no causual links between air quality and cancer. I don't even bother opening anything from the broken record and frequent pack of self serving bullshit that is The Tyee. And the SA article is about water quality in the oilsands, not air quality in Edmonton.

Sorry about your acquaintance, but an anecdote means not much.

Now post some actua information or move on. Thanks.

[PrimeNumber]

Dude, you ned to actually read the links.

The first (Huffpost) actually says scienteists have no causual links between air quality and cancer. I don't even bother opening anything from the broken record and frequent pack of self serving bullshit that is The Tyee. And the SA article is about water quality in the oilsands, not air quality in Edmonton.

Sorry about your acquaintance, but an anecdote means not much.

Now post some actua information or move on. Thanks.

Bud, obviously you did not read aaaannnnything. The first post, which is not huffpost at all??

http://www.ernstversusencana.ca/air-pollution-and-cancer-spikes-linked-in-alberta

Not sure what link you clicked but I don't see huffpost in that link, though they are mentioned in the article. Are you referring to this link within the article??? I don't understand what you're getting at here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2013/10/23/edmonton-air-carcinogens-levels_n_4150670.html

And if you actually read the 3rd article you would find that it indeed does have information about air quality tests of course you probably just passed that link of as self serving as well. I don't see what your trying to refute here because it's pretty well documented both in this country and around the world that pollution causes cancers.

I'd try to use a news source a partisan right winger would consider not "self-serving" such as Sun News but the article they published about Air Pollution due to fossil fuels being the leading cause of Cancer world wide found on this page : http://www.torontosun.com/topic/cancer

published on April 17, 2013 seems to have magically disappeared. Could that be because Sun removed it for some self-serving purpose? That's okay though because with a simple google search you can find other articles about the same WHO study posted allll around the internet from webmd to reuters and pretty much all other major news sources across the internet and the world.

So now that I have proven my point, with numerous links you can kindly move on. Thanks.

[overthere]

Not sure what link you clicked but I don't see huffpost in that link, though they are mentioned in the article. Are you referring to this link within the article??? I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Article? It is a website posted by a litigant in a case about water quality over 300 kms from Edmonton. Air? No. Edmonton? no.

Where are your links indicating air quality in Edmonton being directly responsible for increased cancers. Post now or button up.

[WIP]

Mumbai is unquestionably more prosperous than it was a generation ago.

It is for those who are rich and can afford to live in the highrise condos. It's not for the poor slum-dwellers forced off the land, who move there and do the menial jobs, and have to live in shacks and live surrounded by garbage, dirty water and pollution.

[WIP]

Article? It is a website posted by a litigant in a case about water quality over 300 kms from Edmonton. Air? No. Edmonton? no.

Where are your links indicating air quality in Edmonton being directly responsible for increased cancers. Post now or button up.

Your past comment claims the prevailing winds take air pollution away from the City....I'm not sure if you are claiming that the wind never changes direction or the winds are always blowing...but regardless, do you have a source for that claim?

The claim does show a clear disregard for the simple fact that someone has to be downwind of the City's air pollution. Sounds like the typical nimby attitude of 'as long as it doesn't affect me, I don't care.'

Even if you did,

[overthere]

It is for those who are rich and can afford to live in the highrise condos. It's not for the poor slum-dwellers forced off the land, who move there and do the menial jobs, and have to live in shacks and live surrounded by garbage, dirty water and pollution.

Ummm, I have been there twice, most recently 2 years ago and it is far more prosperous now than then. Larger too.

That applies to India overall, not just Mumbai.

do you have a source for that claim?

Yes, me. I live nearby. The prevailing winds in Edmonton are from the west and south. Of course they occasionally come from any direction, but those are the prevailing ones. The only heavy industrial close to the city is in Strathcona County on the east side. You figure it out. The heavy industry at Fort Sask is too far away, and the prevailing winds there would also take it away from the city. Buy a map.

You can also google 'winds in edmonton'.

So far, no cancer in Edmonton caused by air quality links, eh?

[PrimeNumber]

Article? It is a website posted by a litigant in a case about water quality over 300 kms from Edmonton. Air? No. Edmonton? no.

Where are your links indicating air quality in Edmonton being directly responsible for increased cancers. Post now or button up.

Woooooooooow, must I do all the work.

The area, 30 kilometres northeast of Edmonton and adjacent to the town of Fort Saskatchewan, now holds Canada’s largest concentration of petrochemical processors. More than 40 companies, including majors such as Shell and Imperial Oil, are spread out over nearly 600 square kilometres

A newly published study says air downwind from a cluster of petrochemical plants northeast of Edmonton contains pollutants at levels equal to some of the world’s largest cities. Other pollutants, including some known to cause cancer, also measured well above normal. And cancer rates linked to those chemicals were found to be higher in communities closest to the so-called Industrial Heartland

http://news.uci.edu/press-releases/uci-led-study-documents-heavy-air-pollution-in-canadian-area-with-cancer-spikes/

Our study was designed to test what kinds of concentrations could be encountered on the ground during a random visit downwind of various facilities. We’re seeing elevated levels of carcinogens and other gases in the same area where we’re seeing excess cancers known to be caused by these chemicals,” said UC Irvine chemist Isobel Simpson, lead author of the paper in Atmospheric Environment. “Our main point is that it would be good to proactively lower these emissions of known carcinogens. You can study it and study it, but at some point you just have to say, ‘Let’s reduce it.

The team compared the Alberta plumes to heavily polluted megacities. To their surprise, the scientists saw that levels of some chemicals were higher than in Mexico City during the 1990s or in the still polluted Houston-Galveston area.

“For decades, we’ve known that exposure to outdoor air pollutants can cause respiratory and cardiovascular disease,” Batterman said. “The World Health Organization has now also formally recognized that outdoor air pollution is a leading environmental cause of cancer deaths.”

For example, Simpson said, it appeared in some cases that the companies were not reporting all of the tons of chemicals they release. She and her colleagues documented high levels of 1,3-butadiene that could only have come from one facility, but she said the company had not reported any such emissions.

I'm pretty sure it says Air up in that 2nd paragraph. Just because the scientists that reported this study "did not definitively link the two" deosn't mean that they aren't linked. Come on OT, it's called common sense, use it. If people around the world are getting rare cancers from their air pollution, and people in Edmonton are getting the same rare cancers "not definitively linked" to air pollution. It's pretty obvious what is happening here. If you can't put two and two together than I really truly and deeply feel bad for you. And please never attempt to become a detective.

[PrimeNumber]

Ummm, I have been there twice, most recently 2 years ago and it is far more prosperous now than then. Larger too.

That applies to India overall, not just Mumbai.

Yes, me. I live nearby. The prevailing winds in Edmonton are from the west and south. Of course they occasionally come from any direction, but those are the prevailing ones. The only heavy industrial close to the city is in Strathcona County on the east side. You figure it out. The heavy industry at Fort Sask is too far away, and the prevailing winds there would also take it away from the city. Buy a map.

You can also google 'winds in edmonton'.

So far, no cancer in Edmonton caused by air quality links, eh?

Fort Sask is not too far away. Where are you drawing this imaginary border at??

[PrimeNumber]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1436636/oilsands-cause-food-contamination-and-higher-cancer-rates-report/

We definitively know Fort Chipewyan has had Cancers related to Oilsands polllution. Only a matter of time before the truth "definitively" comes out about the Edmonton as well so OT can finally be satisfied.