The original question was not "are the oilsands creating an environmental disaster" but "are they a ticking environmental time bomb" - i.e. are they likely to cause a major environmental problem. It seems to me that they are, at least to the same degree as nuclear power stations are. In both cases the problem is toxic waste and the inability to dispose of it. The worrying factor in the case of the oil sands is that it's corporations with a poor record of responsibility supervised by a government with a worse one that are expected to deal with the mess.

Fortunately I don't think we need fret unduly, the falling price of oil and the politics of the US depending on foreign dirty oil will, I think, solve the problem for us.

I am looking at the Industry for my future in Canada, therefore I will defend it, like people who believe in the green issues will attack it.

However there are several things that need to be done. Yes the Oil comapnies need to keep improvements in efficiency and pollution - and they are doing this. But we are reliant on Oil and it's derivatives more than most people will agree they do. With the world in turmoil, Canada's resources are a wealthy supply for the economy but also a secure supply for the west.

Whatever happens they will be around for a long time yet.

Merry Christmas to All

Jet

For Alberta they're a secure supply but I don't see how Alberta producing oil makes the supply more secure for the rest of the west than Saudi Arabia producing oil. The Saudis have to sell theirs, the west is a major market, unless you think China is going to take it all I don't see how that supply is insecure. "Let them freeze in the dark" wasn't the opinion of some oil sheik.

Oh, very droll.

http://www.eroei.com/pdf/Aggregation_role_of_energy.pdf

is one of the early papers on eroei methodologies.

http://www.eroei.com/eroei/evaluations/net-energy-list/

is a comparative eroei listing of various energy sources.

Note that clean up costs and watershed remediation costs are not included.

The environmental effects are documented in this report...

http://www.environmentaldefence.ca/r..._TheReport.pdf

[QUOTE=dbd33;7097565]For Alberta they're a secure supply but I don't see how Alberta producing oil makes the supply more secure for the rest of the west than Saudi Arabia producing oil. QUOTE]

Just look at how volatile that region is. Saudi is supported by the US, however not many other countries in the middle east or the far east are to say western or Christian. If they are most of their population is volatile-such as Pakistan. The countries that contain not the True Islammic faith but more extremist views can change overnight the govt.

The russians are also flexing their muscles and have warned the european union that they may cut back gas and oil supplies this week.

Therefore in all the turmoil that is still to come in the tinderbox of the middle east and around the world --if you have a more secure supply from your own doorstop where would you rather take it from ?

This is my view anyway

JET

None of them are Christian, only the UAE is faintly Western, but they're all addicted to oil money. I'm not sure that the oil producing countries are volatile anyway, Iraq yes, but we destablised that one. Which other Middle Eastern oil producers have had recent changes of regime?

I don't think religion is as important an influence as money. The oil producing countries can't give up the revenue.

AFAIK Russia is an important supplier of oil to North America.

The market is the US and they'll generally take it from the cheapest supplier. If, however, politics dictate a shift to green policies they'll shaft Canada, which, in some eyes, is still a foreign country.

There are some interesting reports in the link below. Pressumably the NEB is the federal regulator for developments in the oil sands.

http://www.neb-one.gc.ca/clf-nsi/rnr.../lsnd-eng.html

The "environmental defence" report posted earlier - it's fair enough that that these sorts of organisations exist and draw attention to issues. Even if it presents a partisan viewpoint it still has the potential to put pressure on the operators and regulators to improve matters. I doubt very much whether people have the freedom to draw attention to negative environmental issues in places like Saudi, Iran, Iraq, Nigeria, Kuwait etc so their watercourse pollution etc is very much out of public view.

I recall the Brent Spar incident in the early nineties. Although Royal Dutch Shell breached no regulations and did nothing that had been considered bad practice in identifying deep sea disposal the action by Greenpeace had the effect of moving the oil companies to better practice - dismantling and reusing structures on land. The fact that the Greenpeace science was flawed and rather hysterical didn't matter - they prevailed in the battle for public opinion and in the end it hit Shell when people started to boycott their petrol stations.

No doubt US politicans will have to come up with "dirty oil is bad and I want to look after the planet for our children" type statements if they can optimise their voter appeal by embellishing their green credentials. In the end it boils down to economics - USA will buy the cheapest oil available from wherever cheapest doing Canada no favours and Canada will likewise sell for the best price wherever. Its unlikely China will have any qualms about buying "dirty" oil.

You presume wrongly. The NEB is an agency charged with regulating international and interprovincial aspects of oil, gas and electricity production. Oil sands development is held to be a provincial (Albertan) jurisdiction.

As pointed out in the link I posted above though, there are federal measures which could be, but are not being, used to regulate the industry, namely the CEAA and the CEPA.

I'm familiar with the NEB reports. Have you noticed the different slant between the 2004 document and the 2006 one?

In addition, Bill C-30 which had the support of everybody except the CP, would have strengthened the CEPA.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_l...&Parl=39&Ses=1

It was lost in the first Harper minority parliament after the session was prorogued. Indeed losing it was a major goal behind Harper proroguing at all.

Novo

Thought you would be amused to learn that my OH bought me the Marsden book, Stupid to the last drop. I shall post back when I've read it.

Gryphea

Canada sands are not profiable.

Enjoy!!

a

Is this the bill brought forward by the conservative minority government, then amended by the other parties to such an extent that the conservative party then no longer supported it.

I've no idea of the content of the bill it but the politics of it doesn't reflect particularly well on any of the parties if they all can't all make the compromises necessary to pass legislation when there is a minority government in power.

Tosh from a historical and long term perspective!!! Noone in their right mind would haver though of developing them if they didn't think that they were going to make a profit.