That’s encouraging, but it amounts to a corporate press release. Could we, perhaps, have a cite from some less directly interested party than Syncrude Canada?
You guys are missing one critical point of this whole debate - we have known for a long time that there were massive amounts of oil in the oil sands, but until oil reached a certain price, it wasn’t economically viable to extract it. It is now, and it is being extracted, and it will be until it’s gone. Does your average Albertan like the environmental disaster that is the oil sands? Not much, but we do like the royalty money that keeps rolling in and the jobs (and there are a lot of non-Albertans who are enjoying those high-paying jobs in the oil sands). Would we prefer it to be extracted in more environmentally-friendly ways? Hell yeah, but that decision doesn’t really seem to be up to us. It seems to be up to the provincial government which seems to be a-okay with the way things are being done now. We just had a provincial election, and the government which has allowed this to go on for decades was once again voted in by a large margin, so I don’t see things changing any time soon.
All the provincial government can do is approve, or disapprove, the companies extracting the oil. The available technology determines how the oil will be extracted and whether a company decides if it is economically viable to do so. If the electorate votes in the NDP as the provincial government and they mandate that transporter technology is the only way to do the extraction, then no one will be doing it.
Actually, Alberta is taking steps to be more environmentally friendly, and the people seem to be willing to go along with that. Take the proposed nuclear reactor that may get built here - I’ve seen remarkably little opposition to it. Albertans generally seem to realize that, although they may not want a nuclear reactor in the neighborhood, they want to be responsible for huge CO2 emissions even less.
Mind you, there’s still time for the environmental groups to whip everyone into a frenzy by claiming that we’re going to have 3-headed fish in our rivers and a Chernobyl disaster in our future…
Of course they won’t be asked - they’re plants and animals. You want trees to vote?
That’s funnier than my parody.
Regards,
Shodan
Hey, man, you raised the relevant concepts; I just applied them properly, as you had not. (Hint: The “victim” in this scenario is the ecosystem of Alberta, not the people of Alberta.)
So just to play devil’s advocate, if the people of Alberta (who have to take the most direct impact on the ecosystem) decide it’s worth it to extract the oil, who outside Alberta should be able to interfere? Especially if, as it seems from what I know of this issue, it doesn’t have the global impact that, say, turning the Amazon Rainforest into a parking lot would?
The thing of it is, the people of Alberta don’t have much of a say in it, anyway. The people doing the extracting are multi-national oil and gas companies that are extracting it with the Alberta government’s blessing. There has never been a plebiscite asking the people of Alberta if they’re okay with American oil and gas companies building oil sands projects.
Perhaps not, but the Alberta Progressive Conservatives were duly elected as the provincial government, and have been periodically re-elected without interruption since 1971. The voters could throw them out if they didn’t like this.
No, you didn’t apply them properly - that’s nonsense. The ecosystem of Alberta can’t give consent - obviously. That’s why trees and little birdies can’t vote.
The ones who are actually capable of giving or withholding consent are the people of Alberta. They own the eco-system and are the ones being actually affected by any harm to the eco-system. They also reap the direct benefits. They are the ones being affected; therefore they have to consent.
Ever hear of a concept called “representative government”?
Regards,
Shodan
Rest assured the Pembina Institute, among others, would be screaming bloody murder if those numbers weren’t accurate.
I’ve been up there - they definitely are reclaiming land. I’ve seen those bison.
Of course, that’s not to say that there aren’t also really, really big pits where they are currently digging.
Do you have any idea how much is costs, and has cost, to develop the oil sands? Who but the largest companies would have the amount of capital to do it? But in any case see below.
Some statistics
Some more info about current operations (pdf)
American companies? (I’m just picking the names from the pdf listed above and using their websites to determine where they are head quartered)
Suncor - Canadian
CNRL - Canadian
Nexen - Canadian
Petro Canada - Canadian
MEG Energy - Canadian
Petrobank - Canadian
Value Creation Group - Canadian
PennWest - Canadian
Duvernay Oil - Canadian
Peace River Oil - Canadian
Oil Sands Quest - Canadian
Albian Sands - Canadian
Teck Cominco - Canadian
UTS Energy - Canadian
Encana - Canadian
Synenco - Canadian
Imperial Oil - hmmm, I thought they were American, but they are Canadian.
Husky Energy (started out American, now Canadian for many years)
Connacher Oil and Gas - Canadian
Japan Canada Oil Sands - (looks to be based in Canada regardless of the name).
Opti Canada - Canadian
Fort McKay First Nation - Canadian (doesn’t look like they are producing anything, though).
Syncrude - a consortium of Canadian and American companies.
ConocoPhillips - American
Devon Energy - American
Chevron - American
Marathon - American
Total EP - Canadian subsidary of Total SA (French)
Shell - Denmark
BP - British
Sinopec - Chinese
Knoc - Korean
Statoil - Norway
There are companies from around the world working in the Oil Sands and by far the majority of them are Canadian. So, whether you don’t like the development oil sands you can blame Canadians for it, or if you like the development of the oil sands you can be proud that it is driven by Canadians.
The problem here is that you’re assuming that the Alberta Progressive Conservatives are running against parties that rate voters’ consideration. While I won’t comment on how the PCs’ opposition looked in the last election, it would seem to me that before we discuss throwing the government out, we consider that Alberta voters see the PCs as perhaps the least of three evils.
It should be noted that the majority of Albertans live in the southern half of the province, and what happens in the northern half, where most oil exploration and extraction happens, has only a small impact on their lives. Alberta is huge in area (based on an area of 255,541 square miles from here, making it larger than all US states except Alaska and Texas according to the table here), so this distance of the majority of the population from the oil project is entirely possible. Outside of TV news film and newspaper photos, most Albertans never see the work being done and its effect on the land. And, local news reports mentioning the oil projects tend to report only on the amount of money the oil companies pay, and only rarely report on the environmental impact.
The reporting on money leads to what might be another factor in Albertans’ reluctance to be too concerned about the environmental impact of the oil project: the economic benefits that have accrued to Albertans. With so much money flowing into the province from the oil companies, Alberta is one of the few jurisdictions in North America that has no provincial sales tax; and indeed, a couple of years ago there was so much money coming in that Alberta paid each Albertan $400 just for living here. Albertans don’t like taxes much and (like anybody else, I guess) they love getting free money, so if the reasons for these things include “what the oil companies are doing up north,” then I’d imagine that Albertans don’t see much wrong with what’s happening, and will vote for the party that allows the current state of affairs to continue.
Assuming what is ‘happening’ is wrong or detrimental in the first place, of course. A rather debatable point, imho.
In Alberta’s case the trees could probably make better political choices than the human voters have done . . . but it doesn’t matter. My point in posts #26 and #35 is that their ability to give or withhold consent is not a condition precedent to outsiders raising a legitimate and relevant concern over what might happen to them.
So you brought it up because it wasn’t relevant. That’s OK, I never thought otherwise.
Regards,
Shodan
:rolleyes: The existence of the plants and animals is relevant, as is any concern non-Albertans might have over them. Neither of which points you appear to grasp, after all this.
FYi, Uzi, McKay First Nations is the Indian reservation up in that area. They’re consulting on the entire development. The reason First Nations groups are included in oil and gas development is because a lot of the land is theirs, and they are consulted to ensure their reservations and natural area’s are not impact, or reclaimed to their previous glory.
To speak to the question about refining here rather then sending it to the States, it has to do mostly with money. Building a refinery is extremely expensive, and it’s also very hard to get approvals (I believe approvals for refineries are mostly on a Federal level). Building new refineries isn’t economically reasonable right now. However, I’ve heard through the grapevine that they’re building a new refinery in Edmonton to refine at least a portion of the sands oil.
I figured as much, but included them on my list to prevent someone from saying I didn’t include everyone and had some bias for doing so.