Alberta Oil Sands to Increase Production X5

[Catchme]

Shockingly, Canadian are finding out today, that just 2 days after the CPC were elected in their minority government, they had a secret meeting with Oil in Houston Texas and there can be no doubt now that Harper et al are firmly in the pockets of the Oil giants.

Not only think of the environmental impacts, think about the NAFTA implications and what this type of huge export will do to domestic availability of Canadian oil down the road.

U.S. urges 'fivefold expansion' in Alberta oilsands production

The U.S. wants Canada to dramatically expand its oil exports from the Alberta oilsands, a move that could have major implications on the environment.

U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according to minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada...

A fivefold increase would mean the exportation of five million barrels a day, which would supply a quarter of current American consumption and add up to almost half of all U.S. imports.

But the current extraction of oil from the tarsands results in the spewing of millions of tonnes of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere: it's already the biggest source of new greenhouse gas emissions in Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/01/17/oil-sands.html

Now they say they are going greem, too funny, notice what the fund will fund:

Tories scramble to play green game

OTTAWA–The Tories have launched the first act in a weeklong play to gain the upper hand on the environment and ward off opposition parties plotting their strategy before the House of Commons returns.

Natural Resources Minister Gary Lunn yesterday said a $238 million green science fund, to be distributed over four years, will help pay for the research and development of technologies such as clean coal, hydrogen fuel cells and nuclear energy.

The government's new three-pronged strategy also includes cleaning up existing energy sources, like the oil sands and Ontario's coal-fired generators, and boosting energy efficiency in homes, he said.

http://www.thestar.com/News/article/172337

Of course, this "green science fund" will be going to fund nukes in the Tar Sands and not much else. How nice of us Canadian Taxpayers to fund Oil, yet again, by our CPC government giving them money to switch to nuclear power. That's why Lunn is frothing at the mouth over nuclear power these days and nothing else matters but Oil. If it was money for the environment Baird would've been funding it not Lunn :angry:

Lunn said one target area for the research money is "next generation nuclear."

"Nuclear energy is emission-free, there's no greenhouse gases, there's no pollutants going out (with) the energy," he told a news conference.

There is nothing clean about radioactive waste," said Emilie Moorhouse of the Sierra Club of Canada.

http://winnipegsun.com/News/Canada/2007/01...399732-sun.html

Lunn suggested nuclear energy could be an ideal source of power for the massive oilsands project in Alberta. But Moorhouse said that would be problematic because nuclear plants need water for cooling, and high demand for water is already one of the biggest problems in Alberta.

http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/553412.html

[Saturn]

Look forward to a huge mess and a state of disaster in Alberta.

Albertans should very seriously consider separation.

[kimmy]

The oilsands make a massive financial contribution to Canada. You like having a government that can fund healthcare and education and social programs, right?

If greenhouse gasses from the oilsands are going to be reduced, nuclear power is the only way to do it. You do want the government to reduce greenhouse gasses, right?

-k

[Catchme]

Why should Alberta separate over this, or in fact what has this to do with AB separation?

[Catchme]

The oilsands make a massive financial contribution to Canada. You like having a government that can fund healthcare and education and social programs, right?

If greenhouse gasses from the oilsands are going to be reduced, nuclear power is the only way to do it. You do want the government to reduce greenhouse gasses, right?

-k

Apparently kimmy, you are yet another one that fails to read pertinent linked material to the discussion.

Just how do you see nukes being able to work in AB? You going to let OIL have your share of the available water?

Personally, since Oil has made 10's of billions of dollars off of Canadians in just the last fiscal quarter, I think they should pay for everything themselves NOT Canadians yet again.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Catchme could you explain this part of your OP please?

Shockingly, Canadian are finding out today, that just 2 days after the CPC were elected in their minority government, they had a secret meeting with Oil in Houston Texas and there can be no doubt now that Harper et al are firmly in the pockets of the Oil giants.

To me it seems like you are trying to say that the Harper Government took part in this *secret* meeting in Houston, TX, and presumably took part in the planning and organizing of the meeting. (It being so difficult to organize secret meetings on a short schedule and all.)

But this is the quote from the story.

U.S.and Canadian oil executives and government officials met for a two-day oil summit in Houston in January 2006 and made plans for a "fivefold expansion" in oilsands production in a relatively "short time span," according to minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada...

Seems to me that a new Government elected only two days earlier wouldn't have had the time to organize a meeting on this scale. Could it be that this meeting was planned and organized while Paul Martin was Prime Minister?

Or did Martin really see the writing on the wall and plan this meeting before even calling the election just so Harper and the crew could start on their conspiracy with OIL as soon as they took office???

[Fortunata]

I don't care who organized or funded this meeting. The real story is upping production by 5 times the amount it now is. This is not good for the environment. Production already uses the same amount of water per day as the city of Calgary does; in 5 years it was predicted it would use the same amount of water as Toronto does daily. Alberta's water tables are down now. Where is this water coming from and to whose detriment? Burning 5 times the coal they do today? That ought to be good for Steve's new clean air act. What are the royalties being paid to the Alberta government for tar sand product vs. conventional oil production? What is the estimated clean-up cost? Is it worth it? Who is making the most money here?

[Ricki Bobbi]

I don't care who organized or funded this meeting.

There are some people who do care about outright fabrications posted to make the Government look bad with no foundation.

People who believe in fairness and honesty. Yeah, I can see why no Liberals would worry about that...

[Fortunata]

Yeah, and some jerks can't see past superficialities in order to get a fictional or hoped-for something on someone else that they like to label because all round people have to fit in that preconceived square hole of yours. Why don't you get to the substance of the topic which is Alberta Oil Sands to Increase Production X5. Why don't you try to explain the sustainability and the lack of environmental impact that will have on your province?

[kimmy]

Apparently kimmy, you are yet another one that fails to read pertinent linked material to the discussion.

Just how do you see nukes being able to work in AB? You going to let OIL have your share of the available water?

Oh. Is this what you're all amped up about?

Lunn suggested nuclear energy could be an ideal source of power for the massive oilsands project in Alberta. But Moorhouse said that would be problematic because nuclear plants need water for cooling, and high demand for water is already one of the biggest problems in Alberta.

First off, Moorhouse doesn't seem to be very aware of geography. Alberta's a big place.

Fort McMurray and the oilsands are in a different drainage area than Edmonton, Calgary, the vast majority of Alberta's population, and the bulk of the province's farmland:

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

There is lot of water in Alberta. The problem is, most of it is in the north end of the province (ie, where Fort McMurray is.) Water in the Fort McMurray goes north to Lake Athabasca, then to Great Slave Lake and the Arctic Ocean, via the MacKenzie River. It never goes anywhere near Edmonton, Calgary, or most farmers in the province.

And that's somewhat beside the point, anyway. I'm skeptical whether the nuclear plants will use much more water than is already being used by the fossil fuel plants. Why? Because the fossil fuel plants are being used to make *steam* for the oil extraction process.

-k

[Ricki Bobbi]

Yeah, and some jerks can't see past superficialities in order to get a fictional or hoped-for something on someone else that they like to label because all round people have to fit in that preconceived square hole of yours.

Why call names?

It's not superficial at all.

The OP made it seem like the Conservatives are so tied to OIL (I would say that is a witty way of presenting big oil, but I may be giving too much credit.) that they had a secret meeting in Houston only two days after winning election.

That *fact* may seem obvious to you, but it is an outright fabrication. It was the first part of his post.

If he didn't want to get called on it he shouldn't have posted it.

Is it really superficial that the OP lied and tried to misrepresent the actions of the Government?

Who is the square peg? What is the round hole?

[Catchme]

I don't care who organized or funded this meeting. The real story is upping production by 5 times the amount it now is. This is not good for the environment. Production already uses the same amount of water per day as the city of Calgary does; in 5 years it was predicted it would use the same amount of water as Toronto does daily. Alberta's water tables are down now. Where is this water coming from and to whose detriment? Burning 5 times the coal they do today? That ought to be good for Steve's new clean air act. What are the royalties being paid to the Alberta government for tar sand product vs. conventional oil production? What is the estimated clean-up cost? Is it worth it? Who is making the most money here?

Well, in essence I agree with you, it does not matter who organized it, and the largest story is x5 put out and all its ramifications on various levels.

However, the secret nature of it suggests much. And those who think that 2 days after an election is too quick for the CPC to be the ones initiating/launching the x 5 increase as specified in the secret meeting, can think again. In the business and political worlds 2 days is actually a long time.

[Catchme]

Apparently kimmy, you are yet another one that fails to read pertinent linked material to the discussion.

Just how do you see nukes being able to work in AB? You going to let OIL have your share of the available water?

Oh. Is this what you're all amped up about?

There is lot of water in Alberta. The problem is, most of it is in the north end of the province (ie, where Fort McMurray is.) Water in the Fort McMurray goes north to Lake Athabasca, then to Great Slave Lake and the Arctic Ocean, via the MacKenzie River. It never goes anywhere near Edmonton, Calgary, or most farmers in the province.

And that's somewhat beside the point, anyway. I'm skeptical whether the nuclear plants will use much more water than is already being used by the fossil fuel plants. Why? Because the fossil fuel plants are being used to make *steam* for the oil extraction process.

-k

Good article on this kimmy, which has some excelelnt and thoughtful responses:

Water is also going to be a big issue here. Already, prominent scientists like the University of Alberta's David Schindler are warning that Alberta's water table has been seriously depleted — some major river systems are down almost a third since the 1970s — and that there will not be enough readily available water for all the future oilsands projects.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realityc...d/20070111.html

[Ricki Bobbi]

Well, in essence I agree with you, it does not matter who organized it, and the largest story is x5 put out and all its ramifications on various levels.

However, the secret nature of it suggests much. And those who think that 2 days after an election is too quick for the CPC to be the ones initiating/launching the x 5 increase as specified in the secret meeting, can think again. In the business and political worlds 2 days is actually a long time.

If you think it doesn't matter why present the information falsely?

Two days is a long time in politics? Maybe... In Government? Absolutely not. No way representatives from the Ministry of Natural Resources could have gotten new marching orders and presented them at a meeting that quickly.

There couldn't have been political staff from the Minister's office representing the Conservative Government, because there was no Minister yet. Hence no political staff.

Time to put the conspiracty theories away...

[fellowtraveller]

Apparently kimmy, you are yet another one that fails to read pertinent linked material to the discussion.

Just how do you see nukes being able to work in AB? You going to let OIL have your share of the available water?

Oh. Is this what you're all amped up about?

There is lot of water in Alberta. The problem is, most of it is in the north end of the province (ie, where Fort McMurray is.) Water in the Fort McMurray goes north to Lake Athabasca, then to Great Slave Lake and the Arctic Ocean, via the MacKenzie River. It never goes anywhere near Edmonton, Calgary, or most farmers in the province.

And that's somewhat beside the point, anyway. I'm skeptical whether the nuclear plants will use much more water than is already being used by the fossil fuel plants. Why? Because the fossil fuel plants are being used to make *steam* for the oil extraction process.

-k

Good article on this kimmy, which has some excelelnt and thoughtful responses:

Water is also going to be a big issue here. Already, prominent scientists like the University of Alberta's David Schindler are warning that Alberta's water table has been seriously depleted — some major river systems are down almost a third since the 1970s — and that there will not be enough readily available water for all the future oilsands projects.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/realityc...d/20070111.html

Fort MacMurray is at the junction of the large Athabasca River and the smaller Clearwater River. The source of the Athabasca is in the Rocky Mountains some 400 kilometers away to the south. When the Athabasca departs the community of Ft MacMurray, it heads north through uninhabited bush country for a relatively short distance until it dumps into Lake Athabasca, then to Great Slave Lake, then into the Mackenzie River and on to the Arctic Ocean near Inuvik about 2000 km later.

The level of the river at Ft MacMurray has nothing at all to do with the level of the Athabasca in most of Alberta, and nothing to do with the tar sands activities . The Athabasca is low because of a series of winters with a low snow pack. This years heavy snow pack won't make a lot of difference anyway since there are no dams for storage.

[Remiel]

How, exactly, is it to our strategic benefit to deplete one of the most valuable resources in Canada five-times faster? The oil sands promise almost limitless wealth if they can be made to be one of the longest lasting sources of oil on Earth. And the Americans want us to just give that up, for their benefit. The one article from CBC notes a Washington insider saying their goal is 1.5 million barrels less per day from the Middle East by 2015. Current production from the oil sands is 1 million barrels per day. So, why, in God's name, do we need to overshoot their freakin' goal by 2.5 million barrels a day? Because they want to bleed us dry, thats why.

[geoffrey]

Apparently kimmy, you are yet another one that fails to read pertinent linked material to the discussion.

Just how do you see nukes being able to work in AB? You going to let OIL have your share of the available water?

That's why we should burn coal instead. You need that oil, North America can't function without it. Nuclear is a terrible choice. There is absolutely no way to deal with the waste. It's an environmental tradegy to even consider it.

Cleaner burning coal and more carbon sinks can mitigate any additional GHG from ramped up production.

Personally, since Oil has made 10's of billions of dollars off of Canadians in just the last fiscal quarter, I think they should pay for everything themselves NOT Canadians yet again.

Your lack of understanding of basic economics is astounding. Canadians made a fortune off oil last year.

You need to learn to see companies profits as money into the bank accounts of retirees and in general everyone. When public companies do well, we all do well. Not to mention the huge amounts of tax these companies pay.

How, exactly, is it to our strategic benefit to deplete one of the most valuable resources in Canada five-times faster? The oil sands promise almost limitless wealth if they can be made to be one of the longest lasting sources of oil on Earth. And the Americans want us to just give that up, for their benefit. The one article from CBC notes a Washington insider saying their goal is 1.5 million barrels less per day from the Middle East by 2015. Current production from the oil sands is 1 million barrels per day. So, why, in God's name, do we need to overshoot their freakin' goal by 2.5 million barrels a day? Because they want to bleed us dry, thats why.

Great. The Americans can give us lots of cash. What's the problem? At 5x the current rate, the Alberta would still likely have oil for another 150 years.

[Catchme]

Apparently kimmy, you are yet another one that fails to read pertinent linked material to the discussion.

Just how do you see nukes being able to work in AB? You going to let OIL have your share of the available water?

There is lot of water in Alberta. The problem is, most of it is in the north end of the province (ie, where Fort McMurray is.) Water in the Fort McMurray goes north to Lake Athabasca, then to Great Slave Lake and the Arctic Ocean, via the MacKenzie River. It never goes anywhere near Edmonton, Calgary, or most farmers in the province.

And that's somewhat beside the point, anyway. I'm skeptical whether the nuclear plants will use much more water than is already being used by the fossil fuel plants. Why? Because the fossil fuel plants are being used to make *steam* for the oil extraction process.

Water is also going to be a big issue here. Already, prominent scientists like the University of Alberta's David Schindler are warning that Alberta's water table has been seriously depleted — some major river systems are down almost a third since the 1970s — and that there will not be enough readily available water for all the future oilsands projects.

The level of the river at Ft MacMurray has nothing at all to do with the level of the Athabasca in most of Alberta, and nothing to do with the tar sands activities . The Athabasca is low because of a series of winters with a low snow pack. This years heavy snow pack won't make a lot of difference anyway since there are no dams for storage.

I do not think anyone, or any article said or implied that the Tar Sands had anything to do with lowering water tables of the Athabaska.

Unless of course one includes GHG and global warming it's contributing to.

[Catchme]

Personally, since Oil has made 10's of billions of dollars off of Canadians in just the last fiscal quarter, I think they should pay for everything themselves NOT Canadians yet again.

Your lack of understanding of basic economics is astounding. Canadians made a fortune off oil last year.

You need to learn to see companies profits as money into the bank accounts of retirees and in general everyone. When public companies do well, we all do well. Not to mention the huge amounts of tax these companies pay.

Really, your lack of awareness/knowledge is astounding, you do realize the alleged fortune, is nothing to what it should have been, and be, do you?

Plus, my observations that Canadian taxpayers should not be footing Oils business costs has nothing to do with economics.

Personally, I have issue with Oil making 8.4 billion dollars a quarter off of Canadian's oil because AB chooses to shaft their province by having ridiculously low royalities. And no I am not going into a discussion on royalties make a new thread.

Nor are you considering what x 5 means to Canadians because of NAFTA, nor would the tar sands be lasting a 150 years. Try about 15 at that rate.

[Remiel]

Well, according to Wikipedia, at the 5x rate the Athabasca Oil Sands will last about 80 years. Of course, there are two other Oil Sands areas as well. But, if the pace of oil consumption continues to increase (and with the industrialization of China and India, it surely will), then who is to say that production won't rise again, to 10 billion barrels a day? And higher. It only gets harder and costlier to extract.

Of course, that still doesn't solve the environmental impact... The longer we stave of higher production, the better chance we have of discovering a cleaner, more efficient extraction process. How badly is 5x production going to impact the health of the people in Fort McMurray?

Anyway, point to you I guess, geoffrey. Beware though, I'll be back for my revenge! Muahahahahaha!

[August1991]

Shockingly, Canadian are finding out today, that just 2 days after the CPC were elected in their minority government, they had a secret meeting with Oil in Houston Texas and there can be no doubt now that Harper et al are firmly in the pockets of the Oil giants.

Shockingly?

WTF?

CBC’s sensational "newly uncovered report" has been public for almost a year

Jan 18, 2007

Other Canadian news sources are now also playing up a story today according to minutes of the meeting obtained by the CBC's French-language network, Radio-Canada."

Guy Gendron's report for Zone Libre exclusive offered the impression of a seemingly secret meeting in Houston between oil executives, oil sands interests and representatives of the governments of Canada and the US regarding the need to expand Canadian oil sands production.

The problem with that?

Well for starters, the "obtained document" by Gendron has been available both on the conference USEA (United States Energy Association) website and on the US Department of Energy website since March 2006 for anyone who has wanted to view it.

CBCWatch

This is just shockingly shoddy journalism, in several ways.

----

What is it about the CBC recently? I have the impression that they're getting ready for an election or something. Weird.

[geoffrey]

Personally, I have issue with Oil making 8.4 billion dollars a quarter off of Canadian's oil because AB chooses to shaft their province by having ridiculously low royalities. And no I am not going into a discussion on royalties make a new thread.

Of course you have a problem with Alberta being wealthy, every other person in every other provinces does too, hence why Harper is letting them attack our constitutional provisions about natural resource revenues.

Why do you care what Alberta does, your not from here? Let us enjoy our wealth and you enjoy your socialism and let us run things the way we want to. Alberta has a fantastic track record of economic success, even in times of $15/bbl oil. We're doing something right.

Nor are you considering what x 5 means to Canadians because of NAFTA, nor would the tar sands be lasting a 150 years. Try about 15 at that rate.

You know nothing on the topic. Please do some research then yap about it. No expert believes that you could have 5x production within 50 years of today. So really, your full of it.

[Catchme]

Well, according to Wikipedia, at the 5x rate the Athabasca Oil Sands will last about 80 years. Of course, there are two other Oil Sands areas as well. But, if the pace of oil consumption continues to increase (and with the industrialization of China and India, it surely will), then who is to say that production won't rise again, to 10 billion barrels a day? And higher. It only gets harder and costlier to extract.

Of course, that still doesn't solve the environmental impact... The longer we stave of higher production, the better chance we have of discovering a cleaner, more efficient extraction process. How badly is 5x production going to impact the health of the people in Fort McMurray?

Geoffery said 150 years, I said 15, we were both wrong it seems.

The environmental impact with nuclear power could be huge and go straight to the Artic Circle. However, if they used coal and natural gas they would be defeating their purpose, as they would be using up other fossil fuels at a greater rate than they were producing oil.

It boggles my mind that Albertans do not realize how much money they are giving to Oil by low royalties.

If they are taking 1 milion barrels out a day, and if the royalties are 12 dollars a barrel lower than the rest of the oil producing nations, they are losing 12 million dollars a day! If it was 5 million a day they would be losing 60 million a day. I think Oil wants to get the oil out ASAP before Albertans wake up and realize they are giving away their future. They will have nothing in 80 years, I guess they don't care about their grandchildren.

[geoffrey]

However, if they used coal and natural gas they would be defeating their purpose, as they would be using up other fossil fuels at a greater rate than they were producing oil.

You simply don't get it. Oil is worth more for a reason.

It boggles my mind that Albertans do not realize how much money they are giving to Oil by low royalties.

Who is Oil? Oh right, all the Canadians that own the companies! Sure they have American owners too, but we couldn't build anything without the American capital and Alberta would be poor like the RoC.

If you own a mutual fund, you likely get a share of oil profits.

If they are taking 1 milion barrels out a day, and if the royalties are 12 dollars a barrel lower than the rest of the oil producing nations, they are losing 12 million dollars a day! If it was 5 million a day they would be losing 60 million a day. I think Oil wants to get the oil out ASAP before Albertans wake up and realize they are giving away their future. They will have nothing in 80 years, I guess they don't care about their grandchildren.

Not happening in the near future. There isn't the ability to just increase production 5x. We don't even have the people for what we are doing right now. The giant machinery they use takes many years to even assemble. If they really really wanted to increase to 5x (which the Alberta government likely wouldn't allow to happen without major concessions) it would take many decades to do so.

[scribblet]

Wasn't Dion environment minister at the time Martin would have been talking about this? If he wasn't involved then he must have been ignored and kept out of the loop.