Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I think you're right. It was/is both the pipeline and what happens after the stuff reaches the ocean.

Edit: No-one in their right mind would link the CO2 emissions from the tar sands directly with the flood, and no-one in their right mind would link any single catastrophic event in a direct causal way with climate change.

It's the difference between weather (how it it this week) and climate (how it's been for the last 30 years) that counts.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Oh, OK then. I think I have missed something, did it get approved? I thought the hearing wrapped up but no report or judgement?

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

That's my understanding too.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

And I'm sure if the oilsands were in BC they would be left completely untouched. :rolleyes:

It's the same country after all.

Half my neighbours seem to be from BC so clearly a lot of the BCers who aren't hugging trees voted with their feet.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Or any other province for that matter. :sneaky:

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Putting aside politics for a moment, I just wanted to say that while I feel strongly about climate change and the tar sands' role in it, on a personal level, I don't wish flooding and flooded homes on anyone. I know from following the Christchurch rebuild that the hard stuff really starts after all the attention has gone and all the shock has worn off, so it's going to be tough in Calgary for a while.

Carry on.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

and a lot of ex-Albertans who like trees move to BC, juding by my neighbours/coworkers :thumbup:

re: talkback, a few people pointed out the irony of Calgary getting slapped with a nasty flood when apparently, the province and city are so happy to help pump out tar oil through BC. There was not the sympathy that I would have expected. I don't think that's a sentiment you would have heard before the pipeline came up.

The thing is, it's not like BC is the only place having issues. So are people in the UK and the USA. It's pretty crazy that canadian politicians are having to go to other countries and try to sweet-talk the populace into loving the tar sands. Hello, pariah province.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I've noticed a common theme with tarsands supporters: expecting their opponents to live up to some impossible standard, and when they're unable to because of the way infrastructure & society are structured, saying SEE I TOLD YOU SO. Hint: it's not working.

Also I don't drive. And judging by the queues at transit and the people on the bike lanes, neither do a lot of other people.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Environmental protection BC style............

http://www.sierraclub.bc.ca/our-work...c.s-north-east

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I realise it may make you feel good but could you please refrain from calling them "Tar Sands"? They are oil sands.

Also not every Albertan is happy with the way they have been developed so far. That has to change, but telling us they are responsible for far more than they actually are is disingenuous. There are many other things in the world that are producing as much if not more pollution that contributes to climate change. Lets hear about some of that instead of railing on about how bad Alberta is.

As was said earlier if the oil sands had been in B.C. or any other province can you tell us unequivocally that they would not have been touched or even developed in the same manner? I don't think so.

I left this forum over year ago because of attitudes like this, perhaps it's time for me to leave again maybe for good this time.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I think the Oil Sands opponents are creating the high standard. If the oil sands are bad, why isn't every other source of oil?

Although I drive, my trip to work is by Calgary Transit. When it comes to transit ridership, BC and Alberta are pretty similar:

http://www.comt.ca/english/recent-nov2010.pdf

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Because, as I and others have posted many times before, when you do a full cycle energy audit, you discover that the net energy gain from the oil sands is negligible compared to "traditional" sources of oil.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Unfortunately, realpolitik also comes into it... it's a question of supply.

What's better for the average Canadian citizen? A barrel of oil produced in Canada by (mostly ;) ) Canadian labour which keeps much of the cost of production and supply in the Canadian economy, not to mention the taxation on that labour, and the royalties etc - or forking out hard currency so that the sheikhs' kids can ship their Lamborghinis over to Knightsbridge for the summer?

The oil sands produce approx 2 million barrels per day at the moment. At $90/bbl, that's $180 million per day you'd need to hand over to foreign countries if you were to import to replace it - and some of those countries you would be loathe to spend a dollar supporting by any other means due to their unsavoury attitudes.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Why is it OK for you to excuse behavior of BCers because of the way infrastructure and society are structured but yet you hold all Albertans entirely responsible for the oilsands?

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

As the BCers loathe Albertans so much, perhaps they would not mind if all the Albertans who take their annual vacation in such places as Kelowna and the Gulf Islands, just stayed at home this year. After all, we have "dirty money". No? Thought not!

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

The OP does appear to be minded to make the links by initiating this thread.....

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I realize this thread is about climate change, but it would be nice to see some caring and compassion for those directly affected by this flood. They're not all rich, living in mansions! Many of them are just regular guys trying to make a living and renting a home where they can afford. I was down in one area yesterday, expensive homes next door to rental duplexes with new immigrants. Both had only been in their homes since April, I'm not sure that I would want to suggest that either one is worse off than the other. They were both stunned and shocked!

It's ugly out there and many are hurting, it's actually good to see how generous Calgarians and Albertans can be with their time, energy and donations. Take a look at yychelps.ca to see what is being done!

The time to debate climate change is when people are back in their homes.

Rant over.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I didn't suggest that you can't make money (although nothing like the amounts you suggest which simply quote the selling price), but that the Oil Sands don't win much, if any, energy. So why bother?

The net effect is to move $$ around without benefit to anyone, just concentrating the $$ in a few different hands.

Meanwhile the damage to the environment (pointless CO2 emissions, water pollution, landscape devastation, destruction of habitats, threats to First Nation communities' health and survivability etc. etc.) go unaccounted for in $$ terms.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

The oilsands "might" not win much net energy, but they do transfer that energy from where it is to where it's needed. And that's not to be sniffed at, even from the physics point of view.

Your other environmental points apply equally to all forms of resource production, especially "pointless" resources like gold and diamonds. And from my limited time in Canada, First Nations health and survivability only seems to be of concern when it's a useful stick to hit the oilsands with. The rest of the time, most Canadians really couldn't care less about what happens north of their back yard.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Surely, it's anywhere outside their back yard?

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Natural gas fracking will kill the need for oilsands.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Why? oil and gas are 2 separate energy sources?

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

They've been rebranded from tar to oil but if they're called the perfumed sands tomorrow that's not going to make any difference to the issues involved. I'm surprised you think the marketing term is important.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

People in BC apparently don't like pipelines, so unless they start fracking right in downtown Vancouver, that's not going to be any good to them either.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

They are no more tar than they are oil. The deposits are bitumen. The bitumen is then upgraded to make synthetic crude oil.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Are they still dumping, er, stockpiling the vast amounts of petcoke generated during upgrading? I haven't looked at that issue for several years but it was bleedin' obvious when I did that the crap was being landfilled.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

That rebranding as you put it happened a long time ago.

I worked for Shell Canada in exploration and production from 1966 to 1971 and during that time it was never referred to as tar sands. At that time the more common phrase was heavy oil but oil sand was also used.

This was long before any actual commercial production was viable and extremely few outside the oil industry knew it even existed so it wasn't as you call it a "marketing term" it was just what it was called.

So I would suggest if there has been any rebranding recently, it would be by the environmentalists for their purposes.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I genuinely have no idea. But everything that is done up here is done under the rules of the environmental regulators. It is as far from a toxic maverick free-for-all as you could possibly imagine.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

The oil sands guys generate millions of tonnes of the stuff every year. Some is burned as a refinery fuel. Some is used in earthworks. A bit is exported. Most is stockpiled/landfilled. If you are generating more of the stuff that you can ever use or sell, it's landfilling, plain and simple. And the stuff is loaded with sulphur (7% in the case of Suncor, which generates way more of it than anyone else).

I'm sure we've had this conversation before.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

If anything the reverse is true. Fracking provides low cost gas to assist in the separation process.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Transfering a low cost abundant energy source into an expensive scarce energy spource makes economic sense whatever the EROI. Even the sage of Victoria says the oil sands carbon emissions are neither here nor there in terms of any global climate change.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Does it? I can't see why.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I've got to say this is a pointless debate, none of us are in a position to do anything about it one way or the other. It's obvious that Alberta is hinging their revenue sources in the future on the oilsands and whatever people say about not liking them, they like PST and income taxes going up even less (and that would be federally too, given how much tax revenue comes from Alberta).

The only thing that will stop it is a drop in the price of oil.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Is it beyond the abilities of mankind to use natural gas instead of petroleum?

I'm fully aware that such things take time and money but there is time and there is certainly money. Why waste money using an abundant low-cost energy source to produce an expensive scarce one?

I'm no tree-hugger.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

I am always saddened to hear this. People can vote out politicians that support it and vote in politicians that wish us to return to living by using our own muscles for transportation, lighting and working. Simple really.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Simple in theory perhaps, but in Alberta, really?

The next government is going to either more of the same or the Wildrose Party which would be even worse ecologically, basically worse all ways around. :frown:

A Liberal or NDP government in Alberta is never going to happen at least not in our lifetimes. :(

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

If people anywhere in the world feel that a lifestyle based on fossil fuel energy is wrong they can start and vote for a party that advocates a pre-1750 type lifestyle. Without demand for the oil the mining in Alberta wouldn't then be required.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

So this must mean that the residents in Alberta are happy with what their level of government is doing. You know as well as I do that, with voter apathy being what it is across most of the western world these days, it wouldn't take much rallying on the part of party committed to policies that had all around support to kick out most incumbents simply because the conservative supporters believe what you have stated above: that their man/woman is safe regardless of what the others do.

On a Federal level I don't know, but I would imagine, that that government could enact legislation that would give the environmentalists exactly what they are seeking. So it's not simply an "all Albertans are slaves to the oil companies" argument. I accept that this doesn't fit in with what the environmentalists wish to hear.

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Never is a long time.

I can accept the unlikelihood of the NDP, which I strongly suspect will get mauled next time we have a federal election, but the Liberals, I also suspect, are poised for a major comeback.

Most people don't bother to vote and of those that do many never switch parties. The floating voters are the ones that win or lose elections.

The NDP swept QC last time because of Layton and a TV programme. There is no more Layton, so the NDP is screwed.

The Liberals are bound to recapture shitloads of seats out this way and could easily do the same out west (Justin has already proved that he can knock the crap out of a Tory).

Re: Climate change and the Alberta Floods
 

Souvy you are looking at a national government I'm talking about Alberta. As far as I know the Wildrose Party is not national. ;) I did say in my last sentence "A Liberal or NDP government in Alberta is never going to happen".

Two totally different animals.

Nationally I don't doubt anything you say and I think it entirely possible that Harper and his Reform-Conservatives will be kicked into touch in the next election.