While there were many points of contention, surely the most salient one for all Canadians is the use of one fossil fuel, natural gas, to create another fossil fuel, oil. Right now they are reported to be using enough natural gas to heat all of Calgary. And in a few years, it will be enough gas to heat all of Toronto. And the gas is ONLY be used to extract the oil from the sands.

quote:

---

While there were many points of contention, surely the most salient one for all Canadians is the use of one fossil fuel, natural gas, to create another fossil fuel, oil.

---

quote:

---

And the gas is ONLY be used to extract the oil from the sands.

---

I had to check with this before I posted for sure... In the industry there is a bit of a running joke... The Alaskan pipelines may as well end at Fort MacMurray.

One of the major extraction methods currently being used is to drill 2 parallel horizontal wells, one right above the other. The top well has hot steam pumped into it... The steam casues the oil to become less viscous and then drip into the well beneath it. The oil is then harvested out of the well.

quote:

---

The Alaskan pipelines may as well end at Fort MacMurray.

---

There is only one proposed Alaska pipeline and it will transport Alaskan gas to the US,not to Ft Mac

quote:

---

surely the most salient one for all Canadians is the use of one fossil fuel, natural gas, to create another fossil fuel, oil.

---

quote:

---

More salient than the ecological destruction?

---

most definitely. When one looks at ecological damage it is, invariably, only those who live near to and who are witness to that damage that become concerned about it. Sad to say, t'is always thus.

quote:

---

There is only one proposed Alaska pipeline and it will transport Alaskan gas to the US,not to Ft Mac

---

Hehe, as I mentioned.. Tis a industry joke. Fort Mac uses such a tremedously high amount of gas that it alone would likely consume everything coming through that pipeline (note the joke ^^).

quote:

---

More salient than the ecological destruction?
snip
But all Canadians are potential users or beneficiaries of our natural gas reserves and, therefore, the loss of so much of the nations reserves would have far more meaning to far more people.

---

meh, not really... The ecological damage and changing climate will kick in long before Canadians even notice how much natural gas is used in Fort Mac, as much as anything due to the abundance of it. Simply put, the reserves will remain high enough to sustain our rate of consumption for a long enough time that we will completely destroy our natural environment before we run out of the natural gas reserves.

North shore has an interesting proposal... I'm not even sure if thats been considered. For this production all they need is steam, the source of the steam can be readily changed. Mind you a natural gas powered steam generator (fancy term for a hot water boiler) is a bit more portable then a nuclear plant would be. I wonder how far that possibility has been investigate.

[ 17 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

But all Canadians are potential users or beneficiaries of our natural gas reserves and, therefore, the loss of so much of the nations reserves would have far more meaning to far more people.

---

quote:

---

I would also suggest most (not all) Albertans could care less about the environment so long as there are dollars to be counted.

---

still disagree with that ... Most (not all) Albertans are generally unaware of the environmental disaster that is the oil sands, and the ones that are aware are generally opposed (Green is the second party of choice for alot afterall... Some of them are voting green principles). Unfortunately ignorance presides and the leaders do as they plz.

Educating the peeps regarding the disaster is a better approach as opposed to critisizing the general populace. You critisize, and you know the response you receive... You've seen it a million times (and usually includes the phraise 'shutup ya ever-righteous upper canadian').

eddited to clarify

[ 17 August 2006: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

still disagree with that ... Most (not all) Albertans are generally unaware of the environmental disaster that is the oil sands

---

I've heard that before only it wasn't ecocide. It was a different cide.

I don't buy it. They know. How can they not? You can't have an economy founded on infinite consumption and the destrcution of the land base replete with the toxifying of air and water and not know.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Not true. Just about all of it is for export.

---

This is the part that will really hurt in the future.Under NAFTA,exports cannot be restricted unless domestic consumption is reduced accordingly.

If Canada (or more precisely,Big Oil) uses domestic natural gas to create synthetic crude,that gas cannot be replaced for consumers at the expense of US exports.

Present technology requires 1 barrel of NG Oil equivalent to produce 3 barrels of synthetic crude.

If synthetic crude is used as an energy input,the ratio is reduced to I barrel in for 2 barrels produced.

This ratio does NOT include the energy inputs required to upgrade the crude to a product that refineries can utilise.

quote:

---

I don't buy it. They know. How can they not? You can't have an economy founded on infinite consumption and the destrcution of the land base replete with the toxifying of air and water and not know.

---

Until I hit this board I wouldn't have been able to tell you what 'an economy founded on infinite consumption' is. Most don't know, and sadly... Don't care to know, as long as we can continue on with the happy lil consumer lives. The political climate that most of us were raised in here tends to be conservative or don't care. Is it a surprise why Alberta has the lowest voter turnout? Most of us have chosen don't care.

I wouldn't raise this as an issue if I didn't think it had an impact... Same result (not caring bout the ecocide) mind you. But efforts to change the norm need to be towards
1. Education of whats really going on
2. Promoting people to use their voice and stand up in numbers.

I have written a couple articles on this problem, based on interviews with union members working in the oil patch. While everyone is glad to be working, many working folks are worried about what's going to happen in the future, both economically and environmentally--especially for those who live in the region.

There have been some efforts, thanks to some good public pressure, to enforce some clean-up measures. But the folks I spoke with say they are half hearted and grossly inadequate at best.

One would think that the government of Alberta might at least use some of the huge revenues from the tar sands to invest in new clean energy and propulsion sources and technology for the future, and push the oil firms to do the same. That's what the former BC NDP government was proposing. But that ain't happening now in BC either. It's the usual rape and run corporate capitalist economics in action, and to hell with the future.

And to add to it, you get attitudes like this:

quote:

---

In other words, ecological damage is generally only a NIMBY issue and has little to no resonance for those not actually affected by it.

---

It's certainly often true that concerns over specific cases of ecological damage are presented in a NIMBY fashion, since quite often people react to learning of a hazardous situation in a knee-jerk manner only when it becomes a direct threat.

But the truth is ecological destruction, such as air and water pollution, unplanned or poorly planned urban expansion, as well as urban decay, deforestation, sloppy logging and mining practices with no reclamation, etc. are certainly not NIMBY issues.

quote:

---

any working folks are worried about what's going to happen in the future, both economically and environmentally

---

Do you think people are sufficiently worried about the environment to change their vote based on that? So far, it's only been worried if asked on camera... I haven't seen the votes translate. Judging by the number of people expressing concern, you'd think a political party (especially for Albertas nearing elections) would make this their number one issue to prod voters.

quote:

---

For each barrel of oil produced from the tar sands, between two and 4.5 barrels of water is needed. The water is used in the process of extracting bitumen from the naturally occurring the tar sand. The bitumen is later "upgraded" into synthetic crude oil.

In 2007, the government of Alberta approved the withdrawal of 119.5 billion gallons of water for tar sands extraction, of which an estimated 82 per cent came from the Athabasca River. Of that, extraction companies were only required to return 10 billion gallons to the river.

Most of the water used ends up in giant, toxic tailing ponds. As of 2006, tailing ponds covered 50 square kilometers of former boreal forest. By 2010, according to the Oil Sands Tailings Research Facility, the industry will have generated 8 billion tons of waste sand and 1 billion cubic metres of waste water - enough to fill 400,000 Olympic-sized swimming pools. Today, the largest human-made dam by volume of materials is the Syncrude tailing pond, a few kilometres from the Athabasca river.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Merryblue: This topic has lain fallow since August 06, it appears!

---

No, not really. In this recent thread I posted about the tar sands a few times, as did others.

I'll post an interesting link - my latest post - from that thread, again:

From: Canadian Press June 09, 2007:

International environmental groups open Alberta offices over oilsands concerns

excerpt:

''There's a broad recognition that Canada needs to address the environmental problems with the tarsands. ''I don't think there's any question that you'll be seeing civil disobedience in the future.''

Martin said Greenpeace plans to have an office staffed in the provincial capital within the next couple of months.

The World Wildlife Fund set up an office in Edmonton last December and is currently staffing it up. That office will focus on issues including the oilsands and the proposed Mackenzie Valley gas pipeline.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Lots more info and resources at Tar Sands Watch, a project of the Polaris Institute.

---

Fueling Fortress America

quote:

---

In the spring of 2004, Canada surpassed
Saudi Arabia to become the largest foreign
supplier of oil to the U.S. Given the uncertainties of the Middle East and Venezuelan supply lines, the U.S. steadily increased its oil imports from Canada, facilitated in large measure by the proportional sharing clause on energy that had been incorporated in the North America Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). As a result, Canada has
become the largest foreign supplier of oil, natural gas, electricity, and uranium for energy to the United States. This development, in turn, is taking place at a time when the U.S., as the world’s predominant economic and military superpower, has reasserted itself with imperial characteristics on the global scene. In addition, this increasing dependency on Canada to meet energy security needs in the U.S. is rapidly depleting our conventional reserves of oil and natural gas to the point where our own energy security could soon be in jeopardy.

---

First Nation communities downriver of Tar Sands bring case to Ottawa.

OTTAWA, Feb. 15 - The federal government is failing to uphold its duty to clean up the Tar Sands, according to a new report by Environmental Defence released today on Parliament Hill. Canada's Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth shows how failure to enforce federal laws is allowing the Tar Sands to become Canada's most serious environmental liability.

"Ottawa is letting the Tar Sands hold Canadians hostage on global warming," said Matt Price, Program Manager with Environmental Defence. "The federal government is not using laws already on the books to require companies to reduce emissions and clean up their toxic mess."

First Nations living downriver of the Tar Sands are also bringing their concerns to Ottawa today. The community of Fort Chipewyan made headlines last year when Health Canada launched a complaint against the town doctor for speaking out about abnormal disease rates in the community.

"Nobody lives closer to the land and water than we do, and we've seen bad changes over the past dozen years," said Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation. "As goes the water so go we, and we are seeing strange diseases now."

"Elders tell us water is the boss, and without clean water we wouldn't exist. Now the boss is in trouble and needs our help," said Councillor Willis Flett, Mikisew Cree First Nation.
------------
Key report findings include:

- Weak federal "intensity" targets will allow Tar Sands greenhouse gas emissions to double by 2020, wiping out progress that other parts of Canada are making to combat climate change.

- Toxic tailings ponds, visible from space, are seeping into the region's groundwater, and pollution is rising in the Athabasca River contrary to the federal Fisheries Act.

- New federal pollution measures will let Tar Sands Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) emissions grow by 60% by 2015.

- Tar Sands pollution is causing acid rain in Saskatchewan and beyond.

- Tar Sands upgraders and refineries are creating health "sacrifice zones" in Alberta and Ontario.

- Supertankers as big as the West Edmonton Mall are planned for the coast of BC to take Tar Sands oil to Asia.

- Federal environmental assessments rubber stamp massive new Tar Sands mines by relying on industry-driven management bodies that are known to be broken.

"When even former Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed, who started the Tar Sands ball rolling, is calling for change, you know this is a major disaster," said Aaron Freeman, Policy Director, Environmental Defence. "This is Canada's problem - our federal elected leaders need to clean it up or shut it down."

Canada's Toxic Tar Sands: The Most Destructive Project on Earth is available to download for free on the Environmental Defence web site.

[ 18 February 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Most Canadians see this as "need to do something". The kind of answers you get from Babblers "What ARE we waiting for people!" are correct and reasonable, but not adequate for the public stage.

As far as electoral politics goes, it does not have traction because it isn't easy for any of the political parties to make it work for them. None have.

And to my mind worse: none are investing the hard work to get there. Green Party just as included.

Issuing press releases and other forms of hot air are not adequate when you have to do development work around the issue.

quote:

---

How could all federal parties go through that farce called the Clean Air Act without ever addressing the Alberta Tar Sands?

---

Actually, when the opposition parties rewrote it to be the Climate Change & Clean Air Act that was good politics. It would have helped if the Liberals and Bloc hadn't stonewalled it for months. But it was still a good political opening.

I know that what to do with it was not simple... but doing nothing never works.

The actually re-writing of the Act was fast. The 3 months it took to get there was because the Liberals, Bloc and Elizabeth May wanted to stall the re-write to punish the NDP.

The government was seriously off balance and completely floundering. Had we used the strong public support and brought the rewritten Act out immediately the government would not have it's counter-attack in place. Environmental groups were also suprised by Jack Layton's surprising manouver.

But they got over that fast and called for all parties to get together and use the historic opportunity. Despite the fact the Liberals made it clear they were only grudging going along when they mouthed the words of support- I naively thought they would be compelled to do so.

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
Its always questionable how useful it is to pick over tactics in battles past.

---

quote:

---

The Tar Sands is the elephant in the room when you are setting the regulatory framework- and it would have come up right away had the rewritten Act been a platform for public discussion.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
I don't see the Tar Sands as the elephant in the room... How utterly dependant upon the products of the tar sands combined with how fast we consume them is.

---

[ 19 February 2008: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

I heard that the USA is the main consumer of the end products of the tar sands, not eastern Canada.

---

You are correct, but 'someone is consuming more!' is hardly a defence. Actually, never mind... 'America is worse' has been our environmental defence for decades.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:
You are correct, but 'someone is consuming more!' is hardly a defence. Actually, never mind... 'America is worse' has been our environmental defence for decades.

---

You completely misinterpreted my point, wich was that the end products of the tar sands projects do not benefit eastern Canada at all.

I'd add one thing: not only does eastern Canada not consume oil from the tar sands (according to what was said on Newman's 'Politics' broadcast last week) but the greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands does affect us in very negative ways. So - not only is Alberta shipping most of the end products of the tar sands projects south to the USA, but is also f*cking us over with increased greenhouse gas emissions.

quote:

---

You completely misinterpreted my point, wich was that the end products of the tar sands projects do not benefit eastern Canada at all.

---

quote:

---

I'd add one thing: not only does eastern Canada not consume oil from the tar sands (according to what was said on Newman's 'Politics' broadcast last week) but the greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands does affect us in very negative ways.

---

Completely correct, the jetstream travels from Alaska across the praries and through Ontario and into the maritimes. Particles from forest fires in Alaska can be detected in Halifax's air (Nova Scotia = Canada's tailpipe).

quote:

---

This is clearly a situation calling for federal intervention to clean up Alberta's mess, but Harper and his merry band of neocon f*cks couldn't give a shit.

---

Fix NAFTA, beyond that it is a provincial matter

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Canada imports 40% of the oil it uses, with almost half of that coming from OPEC countries. This makes Canada very susceptible on a volatile region for a significant portion of its oil supply. And there are simply no pipelines or infrastructure in place to get Alberta oil to Eastern Canada in case of a crisis.

“The sad reality is that our government continues to prioritize the energy security of the United States despite the needs of Canadians,” says Polaris Institute Director Tony Clarke.

Ricardo Acuña, Executive Director of Parkland Institute, points out that “Albertans will argue that there is enough oil in the tarsands to supply for all of Canada’s needs well into the future, but unfortunately people in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces do not have access to that oil ­it all flows south.”

---

At a minimum: the citizens of Alberta MUST be part of the solution- by rights as well as by practical necessity. The fact that Alberta, and/or the oil companies, and/or the hundreds of thousands of citzens with a stake in the Fort MacMoney gravy train, cannot be allowed to do as they see fit tells you how much about what to DO?

As to NAFTA- it is not an obstacle to finding the political will. FIRST we develop the political will to do something about the situation. WHEN we do that, NAFTA will be one of the issues.

The bigger question is developing that political will. If we get that far, tackling NAFTA will fall in place. Blaming NAFTA for being in the way obscures the political work that needs to be done.

quote:

---

Fix NAFTA, beyond that it is a provincial matter.

---

quote:

---

Ricardo Acuña, Executive Director of Parkland Institute, points out that “Albertans will argue that there is enough oil in the tarsands to supply for all of Canada’s needs well into the future, but unfortunately people in Ontario, Quebec and the Atlantic provinces do not have access to that oil ­it all flows south.”

---

Yes, thats NAFTA regulated... We couldn't send the raw material to Ontario if we wanted. Nafta = US control of the Canadian oil supply. We were more than capable of re-routing the oil supply during Katrina to help with that disaster but had the same thing occoured in Nova Scotia, NAFTA has our hands tied and the oil would still be heading south instead of going to aid other Canadians.

I swear, people on this site keep acting like the oil sands belong to Canadians.

quote:

---

What I heard on Newman's show last week was that most of the tar sands products flow south to the US.

---

As raw materials yes. Like most of Canadian resources, we export raw materials and import the finished products.

quote:

---

Since tar sands emissions are so extreme and affect other provinces, shouldn't it be a federal responsibility - acting on behalf of all Canadians - to force Alberta to clean up tar sands emissions?

---

quote:

---

FIRST we develop the political will to do something about the situation.

---

Political will is there but needs to be developed further, the provincial election should help display the numbers a bit better. If anything, it needs better guidence (and lose the image of a bunch of SUV driving easterns simply bitching that it's 'all *insert scapegoats*'s fault' as the driving factor. I've gotten a couple 'Let the Eastern Bastards freeze!' comments recently. Ya, this might not be the setup, but enough peoples beleive it).

quote:

---

But the government of Alberta per se can in the final instance be browbeaten unwillingly into a solution- given sufficient numbers in Alberta are included among supporters of a solution.

---

Given the choice between siding with our Conservative gov't and the constant 'browbeaten' attempts from the East, is it a wonder why the trend is to side with the Conservatives here? Part of Kliens reign is inspired by the need to fight back vs Ottawa doing exactly that.

(I should point out that some of this posting is inspired by a lil campaign frusteration, sorry if I'm a bit snippy)

[ 21 February 2008: Message edited by: Noise ]

quote:

---

Given the choice between siding with our Conservative gov't and the constant 'browbeaten' attempts from the East, is it a wonder why the trend is to side with the Conservatives here?

---

But as you know, these aren't the only two possibilities. First a Canadian crusade gets sufficient support in Alberta, then you don't wait for everybody in alberta and the government to come on side.

quote:

---

But as you know, these aren't the only two possibilities.

---

Me and you perhaps... We're talking about the majority of Albertans here and for the most case, this is the only 2 options that are presented.

quote:

---

First a Canadian crusade gets sufficient support in Alberta

---

We're in the 1 in 10 range and growing... Concentrated in a few area's more than others.

quote:

---

In practice, no one is talking about going after the tar sands first.

---

Things like the BC govt moves help- for the debate ratcheting value whether or not one approves of the steps.

Why not complain about the impact the beef industry has on the world while chewing back on your 5th steak of the night while we're at it? Does it matter where that particular cow that your chewing came from, or just that your consumption added to the total demand and need to clear cut land to raise additional cattle? The electric grid isn't much different, whether your specific electricity comes from hydro or coal doesn't matter, your consumption (all of ours) adds to the total demand requiring coal to meet the demand.

It's a global market... Global supply and global demand. You demand adds to the same overall demand which fuels the need for supply. The best way to strangle the oil sands is to push the oil price down to $40 where the oilsands are no longer massively profitable.

KenS:

quote:

---

Open for suggestions how.

---

Of course it's all related. And even a political program for the next election should have longer term programatic proposals [though those have to be at least something we can start towards now, with a minimum dependence of 'begin wide ranging public discussion on ________ and _______ '].

But the political program has to bear right down on what we are going to do here and now. Including, more regulation of the tar sands... with the already noted implications of major slow down in projects.

[And as noted also, you don't START out targetting the tar sands before everyone else's ox has also been assessed, and before a more developed political engagement with Albertans. Which would mean, if the election were soon- and even Oct 2009 might be too soon, there isn't time for political development to be specifically making an issue of the tar sands in particular.]

[ 22 February 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Good question, KenS.

For example:
We provide busses for our kids to go to school. Why not extend that practice to the work force. Let the employers provide transportation to the work place, if public transportation is not available and walking distance is more then two kilometers. It would give public transit a tremendous boost if it becomes a cost saving need for the employers.

quote:

---

For the first time, major oil producers are calling on the Alberta government to introduce a partial moratorium on oilsands development in the province's north.

Nine energy companies — including Petro-Canada, Suncor and Shell Canada — signed a private letter last month asking the province to freeze land lease licences until 2011 in three areas around Fort McMurray that have not yet been developed.

---

quote:

---

Conservative Leader Ed Stelmach signalled Monday he'll ignore a call from some of Canada's largest energy companies to control expansion in the oilsands to protect fragile lands. He also brushed aside a plea from the province's aboriginal chiefs to halt approval of new projects.

Stelmach, who famously said he doesn't believe in "touching the brake" on development, dismissed as preliminary a call for an immediate suspension of government land-lease sales in three massive environmentally sensitive swaths of northern Alberta.

The call, sent to the province less than three weeks before the election began, comes from Environment Canada and several oilsands companies, including Petro-Canada, Imperial Oil and Suncor Energy.

---

quote:

---

I hope one of the environmental groups takes him to court to try and knock some sense into him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Noise:

I'm hoping the voters decide to do that this coming Monday.

---

A moratorium on further tar-sands expansion must be implemented in northern Alberta. Since the tar-sands expansion is within First Nations’ territories, any effective strategy must acknowledge Aboriginal title and treaty rights. This will require an urgent, coordinated, collective response, led by First Nations and Métis.

No politician seeking re-election will ever challenge the current economic model, for the corporatists are their bosses and their king-makers.

One trouble with the short-sighted sheeple is that they can't see the effects of disastrous climate change until its right on top of them, otherwise it is simply "weather" implying no control, and no anthropomorphic effect.

[ 11 March 2008: Message edited by: Fleabitn ]

quote:

---

Wildlife artist Robert Bateman didn't have to see an oil spill to know what one would look like along his beloved west coast.

In his mind, he can see birds soaking in oil spills. And the stark images of black tar-like liquid covering the coast are perfectly clear.

But Bateman, who lives on Saltspring Island on one of B.C.'s Gulf Islands and is perhaps the country's most well-known living wildlife artist, said he believes others need convincing about the need to keep oil tankers out of the area.

---

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/349121

quote:

---

Roughly half of Canadians -- and nearly the same proportion of Albertans -- believe new oilsands projects should be suspended until environmental issues in northern Alberta are resolved, a new poll suggests.

The survey also shows four of five Canadians disagree with the Harper government's approach to protect economic growth in the oilsands sector while allowing its annual greenhouse gas emissions to triple over the next decade.

Matt Price, a climate and energy policy expert with Environmental Defence, which commissioned the survey, said the poll indicates Canadians won't accept a government approach that goes easy on the oilsands sector.

“In general, the public seems to be ahead of politicians in wanting to attack global warming," Price said.

The survey, conducted by McAllister Opinion Research, shows 79 per cent of Canadians said greenhouse gas emissions from the oilsands sector should be "capped at current levels and then reduced" because of the impact on global warming. Only 12 per cent of respondents, both in the province and in the country as a whole, said emissions from the oilsands sector should be "allowed to exceed current levels" so as to encourage economic growth.

---

Facebook: Stop The Tar Sands - end our addiction to oil

quote:

---

The federal government has confirmed that it will spend $1.5 billion dollars in additional subsidies to tar sands companies as a result of its slow phase out of tax breaks for one of Canada's largest greenhouse gas emitting (GHG) industries. And Pumped Up, a new KAIROS study, (3 MB .pdf file) concludes that by 2012 GHG emissions from the tar sands alone may wipe out all anticipated reductions in GHG emissions from all federal government programs.

The government confirmed the tax break figures in its responses to a formal petition filed with the Auditor General of Canada by KAIROS: Canadian Ecumenical Justice Initiatives, a church-based social justice organization. KAIROS' analysis of likely GHG emission reductions is based on the federal government's own figures.

The petition was filed last November and the government was legally required to respond within 120 days. While the government provided answers to some questions, it failed to respond to the key question at the heart of the petition.

"Why does Canada spend millions of dollars on subsidizing oil and gas industries - a prime cause of climate change - and so little money on green alternatives when the majority of Canadians want action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions? That was the essential question we asked the government," says John Dillon, a KAIROS Program Coordinator and co-author of Pumped Up: How Canada subsidizes fossil fuels at the expense of green alternatives. "The government didn't answer that core question."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Read more

---

excerpt:

Today the battle shifts to Washington, D.C., where deputy premier Ron Stevens begins a five-day mission to bolster the oilsands brand.

excerpt:

The Alberta government is ramping up its effort, too. This week it was revealed the province will spend $25 million over three years on an advertising and marketing campaign to boost the Alberta "brand."

Stelmach vowed he won't let environmentalists hijack public perception of the province's oil.

The stakes for the province are high: $100 billion in national and international investment is flooding into the region, making it a strategic source of new global oil supply and a boon to the entire Canadian economy.

"That's why in the speech I talked about taking the message to other jurisdictions around the world, getting the message out," Stelmach said Thursday.

"I'm not going to leave it up to Greenpeace, Sierra Club or any of these other groups."

excerpt and counterpoint:

Stelmach even referenced the contentious East Coast seal hunt.

Despite federal and provincial government efforts to characterize the seal hunt as responsible and humane, images of clubbed and skinned seals have struck a chord around the world. Animal rights activists now have the ear of the European Union, which is contemplating a crippling ban on Canadian seal products.

A similar threat may loom for

Alberta's oilsands as climate change concerns mount. For many environmentalists, the development's carbon footprint is too heavy, producing three times more greenhouse gases than a conventional barrel of oil.

"The tar sands are one of the world's largest environmental disasters and they are occurring right on this government's watch," Greenpeace's Mike Hudema yelled as two security guards escorted him out of the premier's dinner Thursday.

excerpt:

excerpt:

U.S. mayors are adding their voices to those raising concerns about energy produced from Alberta's vast oilsands.

The U.S. Conference of Mayors, meeting in Miami this week, has approved a resolution calling on its members to ban the use of energy from unconventional sources because of its impact on the environment.

"We don't want to spend taxpayer dollars on fuels that make global warming worse," said Eugene, Ore., Mayor Kitty Piercy, who submitted the resolution.

They did mention it takes two tons of oil sands to make one barrel of oil, and that Alberta produces much more oil than Canada needs, so most of it is shipped to the US, and an estimate was given that there is a 70 to 150 year supply. That sounds optimistic, but who knows.

The person doing the reporting also mentioned there's a negotiation, backed by the Chinese, to build a pipeline to the west coast, that could be used to sell Alberta oil to China (probably has something to do with the protest against 'dirty oil' building in the US).

Finally, that reporter also said someone (I don't know who) is pushing Alberta to increase oil sands production from 1.5 million barrels a day to 4 million barrels a day. If that happens, polution will be doubtless increased.

[ 08 July 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

quote:

---

With today’s demonstration, the Greenpeacers targeted the same sludgy six-square-kilometer tailings pond where 500 ducks drowned in April, despite environmental regulations that require Syncrude to have wildlife deterrents in place.

---

quote:

---

Jack Woodward and the Beaver Lake Cree aim to change Canadian law -- and their success likely would throw a huge wrench into Alberta's tar-sands oil production.

The suit [caution: 9 Megabyte, 704-page .pdf file!] pits the Beaver Lake Cree band against the governments of Canada and Alberta, asking the court to rule invalid the government authorization for thousands of petroleum projects on the band's core territory.

Woodward, a Victoria-based Aboriginal-law expert, filed the suit on behalf of his clients this May, and says its intent is to lay the groundwork for a new legal regime governing resource extraction on land reserved for or claimed by Canada's First Nations.

---

quote:

---

The uncomfortable truth remains simply this: the rapid mining of the boreal forest has outpaced the science on the reclamation of wetlands, soil, and forest uplands by decades. No one has a handle on the real costs of reclamation. Security deposits remain laughably inadequate. And both Alberta and Canada have an appalling record of environmental negligence and disregard for taxpayers.

Reclamation in the tar sands now amounts to little more than putting lipstick on a corpse. Unless Alberta and Canada soon address the pace, effectiveness and transparency of reclamation, a rich forest will become an impoverished industrial park littered with salts, grass, polluted water and spindly trees. It might, with a bit of luck and some regular rainfall, eventually resemble a third-rate golf course in the Sudan.

---

quote:

---

In a new report, the University of Toronto's Munk Centre says the massive refinery expansions needed to process tar sands crude, and the new pipeline networks for transporting the fuel, amount to a “pollution delivery system” connecting Alberta to the Great Lakes region of Canada and the U.S.

It warns that the refineries will be using the Great Lakes “as a cheap supply” source for their copious water needs and the area's air “as a pollution dump.”

The report, which is being released today at a conference at the university, says that as many as 17 major refinery expansions around the lakes are being considered for turning the tar-like Alberta bitumen into gasoline and other petroleum products. While not all will be undertaken, enough of them will be to have a regional environmental impact.

---

quote:

---

Stephen Harper, as Prime Minister of a country that should have made the petroleum boom a nation-building project, could have found a way to transfer a major share into federal coffers and into a national fund or lasting infrastructure investments. A carbon tax on oil-extraction emissions, as is now being proposed by other parties, would have accomplished this.

But Mr. Harper, continuing more than a decade of federal neglect, made a decision, as the British did in 1979. He chose to spend $60-billion on a tax cut, a last fleeting sparkle from a rainbow of wealth that has vanished without a trace.

---