Yes it looks like BC has got lots of catching up to do.

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

I read on here that it is best to try and avoid US cars, due to hurricane katrina, are we to now avoid cars from Calgary because of the floods? I wonder how badly the communities are affected, not reading too much grief about the situation, has everyone just mopped up and moved on with their lives, anyone?

I am sure some will have been seriously affected, I saw the pictures of the house hitting the bridge, and I read tens of thousands evacuated, was it an over reaction brought about by media attention?

Calgary is one of our potential places to settle, now having second thoughts..

No. This tragedy confirms nothing at all related to oilfields, climate change, or any greater energy/resource/transport agenda. It confirms either that North American railways are staggeringly poorly equipped or inspected in comparison with those in other developed nations (fail-safe braking systems have been standard for nearly 100 years) or that somebody deliberately overcame at least two, and possibly four or five, fail-safe mechanisms (running brake, emergency brake, derailers, catchpoints...). It does strike me as odd that early reports indicate one of the locomotives was left running "to maintain brake pressure" - this should not ever be necessary: even if the fire crew attending an earlier incident shut down that one remaining locomotive in error, the brakes should not have "stuck off." In either event, the fact that the SQ are conducting a criminal inquiry in parallel with the accident investigation is very telling.

Precisely my first thought. Foul play here.

The Katrina cars are a special case. If a car is written off by the insurer in the US then the title is stamped "salvage". The wreck has little value. If the car is then imported to Canada a new set of documents is issued with no record of the car having been written off. New documents mean new value.

A car that has been inspected and flagged by the inspector as being flood/water damaged is condemned by the dot or whatever its called here. The inspector has an obligation to report the vehicle. This is how i have understood what my husband was telling me.

It is of course buyer beware, maybe insist your second hand car from Calgary comes with a current inspection at a garage of your choice before you handvover the cash.

Larger amounts than now, which would surely be the consequence of increased extraction of natural gas. And something generally not mentioned, was my main point. Okay by comparison it might not be as bad as other things but my point was that none of them stand up to nuclear power.

Never said it wasn't, but nuclear power releases no methane. Nor do various other alternatives.

Mmm, I was having this conversation with someone else the other day. The oil sands have always been a big question mark because it is so expensive and there is a lack of upgrading facilities in province. But Alberta has 170 billion barrels of recoverable oil.

It's not only about Calgary, it's about Canada in general. Maybe we should start building a solar power plant, we've got the sunshine for it.

The older I get the more skeptical I get of claims about how many billion barrels of oil there are in various parts of the world. Seems to be a somewhat irrelevant statistic.

You can't know far into the future what production costs are going to be, what the demand will be and where the demand will be. There are buildings full of people downtown trying to work it out.

Shall we build a nuclear power plant to help with extraction costs? Yes, then later no, shall we build pipelines here there, every bloody where, etc.

There are estimated to be something like 60 billion barrels of oil around the Falkland Islands, which if true means at some point the UK will be using their Navy rather than the other way around, imo.

I rest my case.

Irrespective of amounts, if we are going to continue to use massive quantities of oil (which of course we won't) then the Alberta stuff is the last thing that should be touched because the energy dividend is feable compared to practical alternative sources of oil.

I'm with you on nuclear, but only as a stopgap.

Like I said, I don't think anyone can say, because how hard will it be to pump up all the oil around the Falkland Islands? How much will is there to pump it out of the Gulf of Mexico after what happened to BP?

This is why Alberta is so keen on having a better pipeline infrastructure, and now with the explosion in Québec, people are starting to think pipelines are a better idea because they aren't as near to urban centres.

So if they get the pipelines, and they actually make some progress on CO2 sequestration, then maybe the economies of scale will make the oilsands the way to go because there is so much oil there. Two mighty big "ifs".

To generalize about it is impossible, there are office buildings in Calgary and Houston full of people who are trying to figure it out and even they don't know because you can never know how the politics will unfold, or how fast the technology will change.

So that's what they do in those towers! And I thought they sat around all day discussing what's on TSN!!

Apparently, according to Steve_ they might as well be doing that.

Sorry, but you can't base your immigration decision on the fact that there might be a few soggy vehicles in the second-hand car market in Calgary.

Come, and choose to live on higher ground.

Sure, all Calgary cars are now rusted out and the whole City was completely awash, I'd stay well clear.

And it appears they are.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/07...ritics-charge/

Doesn't exactly inspire confidence in what the oil and gas industry is doing, given that the Alberta govt. is essentially a PR front for them.

Article seems fair enough..........

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23280894

If the oil sands can't make money then they won't be developed.