 |
EnMasse
This place is all that is left.
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Cartman
Beyond cuddly
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8635
Location: OMG! They killed Jason Kenney!
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject: The Alberta boom |
 |
|
http://www.cbc.ca/consumer/story/2006/09/14/albertastats.html
| Quote: | Alberta is in the midst of the strongest period of economic growth ever recorded by any province in the country's history, Statistics Canada said Thursday.
A feature article in the September edition of the Canadian Economic Observer — titled "The Alberta economic juggernaut" — says the "unprecedented scale of Alberta's prosperity is still not widely appreciated." |
Funny how they do not indicate any negatives (i.e. the increased cost of living). |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Stephen Gordon
Dismal scientist
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 449
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 4:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Maybe the CBC story doesn't, but the article - available here - does. And it also mentions the spike in housing prices in Calagary, the lack of housing in Fort McMurray, and a side-effect of the labour shortage:
| Quote: | | While the boom has brought unbridled prosperity to Alberta, some worrisome long-term effects have emerged. Most notably, rural Alberta has one of the highest rate of high school drop-outs in the country at about 25%, presumably spurred by the promise of attractive pay for relatively unskilled work. However, this leaves these youths ill-prepared to deal with the consequences of a slump in the industry. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noise
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Land of Cowboys and Oil
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Meh Cartman... You should know better. Albertans have no downsides or issues  . Couldn't tell it by the last few election campaigns atleast... Think anyone will care about Albertas issue enough to speak to them next election, or are we going to be called a bunch of Conservatives and completely ignored again? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hephaestion
Deeply Shallow
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 24243
Location: Where the Wild Things Are...
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Funny how they do not indicate any negatives (i.e. the increased cost of living). |
Well, there IS all that water that they're pumping underground in the process of extracting all that "black gold"... water that is now gone permanantly, never to return into the atmospheric water cycle. And there IS the fact that climatologists are predicting a severe drought in the near future for Alberta (and a wider swath of the prairies in general).
I think, before too long, we're going to see a few "downsides" as Albertans discover that abundant clean, unpolluted water is a *lot* more valuable than "Texas tea", as Flatt & Scruggs termed it...
_________________
"The dignity of an animal is measured by his capacity to revolt in the face of oppression." -- Mikhail Bakunin |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And there are all the other environmental costs of the tar sands development ...
According to Wiki:
| Quote: | Oil sands development has a direct impact on local and planetary ecosystems. In Alberta, the strip mining form of oil extraction completely destroys the boreal forest, the bogs, the rivers as well as the natural landscape. The mining industry believes that the boreal forest will eventually colonize the reclaimed lands, yet 30 years after the opening of the first open pit mine near Fort McMurray, Alberta, no land is considered by the Alberta Government as having been "reclaimed."
For every barrel of synthetic oil produced in Alberta, more than 80 kg of greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. About 5-10% of the two to four barrels of water used for processing is considered as wastewater. The forecast growth in synthetic oil production in Alberta threatens Canada's international commitments. In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce, by 2012, its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to the reference year (1990). In 2002, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 24% since 1990. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noise
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Land of Cowboys and Oil
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 14, 2006 9:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Well, there IS all that water that they're pumping underground in the process of extracting all that "black gold"... |
Heh, that concerns a lil late. Pushing water into wells is how the oil was produced long before oil sands (1930s and on?). Most oil sands water is recoverable comparitively (mind you the recovery lagoons are the most hideos things you'll see and take forever to recalim water while destroying many acres of land to do so ^^)
The bigger water concern really doesn't involve the oil sands and whats happening there.... Global warming will provide the water crunch long prior. Most of Albertas rivers stem from glacial lakes and the glaciers themselves. When the higher temps start becoming more common, the glacial runoff will peak (floods of 2005?). another 10 years or so and there won't be enough runoff to keep the rivers flowing ^^ 2005 was a bit of an anomoly as a stickout year, but I think 2008 or so should provide a repeat.
Wouldn't it be ironic if old oil wells need to be reopened to recover water?
It'd be nice to see a party come up with a platform that actually addresses the issue rather than sit in the Toronto ridings they have chances in and point their fingers at us ^^ Atleast the greens seem to be growing in numbers leeching off the disgruntled Cons.
eddited in:
| Quote: | | In ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Canada agreed to reduce, by 2012, its greenhouse gas emissions by 6% with respect to the reference year (1990). In 2002, Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions had increased by 24% since 1990. |
Though the oil sands have increased that more than it's share, it should be noted that the number of cars on Canadian roads and our demand for oil has greatly increased as well. It's more than just the oil sands that prevent us from reaching 1990 levels (Heh, along with the assumption 1990 levels are worth while ^^). The amount of emmissions that can be cut back on by connecting Canadas major cities with an alternative energy (non-oil burning) source, along with lowering the demand for oil (hence the need to produce it from the oil sands) is a much more positive turn.
The oilsands are just a reaction to our consumer lifestyles... As long as people are willing to own gas guzzlers and pay $1 litre gasoline prices, there will be people willing to go get it.
I guess it's a hard choice
A) Invade Iraq and take theirs
B) Destroy the planet harvesting it from Alberta
C) Stop using oil
Funny how the only mention of option C tends to be "Lets put organic components in the oil so it's not quite as bad" ^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DTA
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 694
Location: ////
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
I came across this article:
Concerns raised about acid rain on Prairies
| Quote: | Overall, acid levels on the Prairies are low compared to Central Canada. However, unlike in the East, emissions of acid-rain-causing gases have been rising in the West, the report says.
That worries Elaine Hughes, a self-described environmental activist, who has written to Saskatchewan Environment Minister John Nilson about acid rain falling in Saskatchewan's north as well as concerns it could be coming from Alberta's oilsands.
"This is a serious issue. I'm concerned about it, and I wanted it out there and I want accountability," she said.
In his reply to Hughes, Nilson said the province is considering new monitoring programs and is talking to Alberta about acid rain.
Hughes wants the province to push Alberta to stop oilsands development and crack down on polluters |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 5:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| I'd love to have stricter environmental regulations for industry, but I don't think it's very likely to happen, especially in Alberta. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noise
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Land of Cowboys and Oil
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 15, 2006 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'd love to have stricter environmental regulations for industry, but I don't think it's very likely to happen, especially in Alberta. |
Agreed, there is no change happening anytime soon... The Cons don't need to run a campaign based on any of our concerns and like hell the NDP or Liberals could care less to even come here and show us their environmental platform... It's definately not changing anytime soon less the Greens step up. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does anyone have more information on exactly what's going on with the tar sands? Which companies are involved? What kind of (hollow laugh) environmental assessments have been done? I'm about to do a bit more research on this issue and I was wondering if anyone had some background ...
Also, how come this hasn't become a huge environmental controversy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky Marshall
*BANNED*
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unless and until everybody stops using oil and oil-based products, we really can't complain about whats going on in the Tar Sands. Sure it's dirty and smelly and poisonous, but it keeps the house warm when it's 25 below.
I would love to have a house that's completely off the grid, with a wind generator, solar panels, geothermal heating, well water, and septic field, but...
If everybody had that, we'd need to increase lot sizes by a factor of 10, commute times would be insane, farmland would be gobbled up, etc etc.
The real ticket is fusion power, but that's still at least 50 years away. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cartman
Beyond cuddly
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8635
Location: OMG! They killed Jason Kenney!
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| My stepfather had solar panels installed on his home this summer. Even when it is cold, they still produce a considerable amount of hot water. I think they cost him about $10,000 for everything (equipment including all the piping, panels, labour etc). If I were to stay in this home for long, I would get some too. He also uses a wood stove and combined with some serious insulation, he uses much less energy than before. Burning wood also has its own problems though. He grows a lot of him own food too. Nothing like being retired. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Tar sands production info
-- Total tar sands area: 141 000 km˛ of sparsely populated boreal forest and muskeg.
-- Three main sites: Athabasca, Peace River, Cold Lake
Main companies operating in tar sands extraction:
-- Suncor Energy (Canadian), some connection to Sunoco
--Syncrude (Canadian, formerly a research consortium), joint venture involving Canadian Oil Sands Limited, Imperial Oil (Exxon), Petro-Canada, Nexen, ConocoPhillips, Mocal Energy and Murphy Oil
-- Shell Canada
Emerging operations:
--Nexen (formerly CanOxy, a "Canadian" company formed to get around American ownership rules, bought SaskOil)
-- CNRL (Canadian Natural Resources Limited)
-- Imperial Oil
-- SynEnCo Energy and SinoCanada Petroleum Corp., a subsidiary of Sinopec, China's largest oil refiner
(All from a number of Wikipedia articles). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HAHL
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1075
Location: St.Jean, Terre-Neuve
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sky Marshall wrote: | Unless and until everybody stops using oil and oil-based products, we really can't complain about whats going on in the Tar Sands. Sure it's dirty and smelly and poisonous, but it keeps the house warm when it's 25 below.
I would love to have a house that's completely off the grid, with a wind generator, solar panels, geothermal heating, well water, and septic field, but...
If everybody had that, we'd need to increase lot sizes by a factor of 10, commute times would be insane, farmland would be gobbled up, etc etc.
The real ticket is fusion power, but that's still at least 50 years away. |
Whatever. This is unsubstantiated propaganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky Marshall
*BANNED*
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| HAHL wrote: | | This is unsubstantiated propaganda. |
Huh? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
HAHL
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1075
Location: St.Jean, Terre-Neuve
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sky Marshall wrote: | | HAHL wrote: | | This is unsubstantiated propaganda. |
Huh? |
The fact that you claim that the only way out of our current quagmire is fusion or
| Quote: | | If everybody had that, we'd need to increase lot sizes by a factor of 10, commute times would be insane, farmland would be gobbled up, etc etc. |
It's simply a ridiculous statement and not true. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
What HAHL probably means is that by saying there's nothing we can do to curb our usage of oil, so that tar sands development is inevitable, we're just playing into the hands of the developers themselves.
Rather, we can look at what we CAN do, and then do it. And we can certainly significantly reduce our oil usage, including for heating. We don't each need several acres to do so, either.
(ETA: Whups, cross-posted)
Last edited by Tehanu on Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Sky Marshall
*BANNED*
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Posts: 127
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If you want a house that's completely off the grid, you'll need a septic field, which is required to be at least 200X200 if your house has 4 bedrooms, at least in my county.
You'll need a well, which should be far away from the septic field. A clearway for the windmill in case it falls over. This is lots of land we're talking about. My parents house sits on a 50X100 foot lot, much of it taken up by the house itself. So they'd need at least 7 times more space. Some city lots are much smaller than that, so they'd need even more of an increase (proportionally speaking that is).
So way more land would need to be set asside if everybody who now lives in single detached houses were to convert to this style of living. That land would probably come from farmland or parks.
We could use less oil by employing better insulation, more efficient furnaces, etc, but we'd still need to draw oil from the ground, just at a slower rate. And still one day the oil WILL be gone; it's inevitable. So we'll need something else.
Fusion could be an answer. Or maybe coal, nuclear, hydro bio-fuel combination. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, using less oil is the whole point, isn't it? Eliminating oil usage is a good goal to work for, but it's silly to throw up our hands and say there's nothing that can be done about things like the tar sands development or energy overconsumption in the meantime.
So, anyway, can we go back to my question about the tar sands?
(I just don't really want to get into a first-principles discussion at the moment, Sky Marshall, but feel free to start another thread or dig up one of the other ones on energy reduction if you like!) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noise
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Land of Cowboys and Oil
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I've mentioned it a few times...
Oil sands is a product of supply and demand. It costs around $35-40 per barrel to produce at first, though this number has declined as we get better at it. When oil was worth $20 a barrel, the oil sands were completely discounted (wasn't even considered as oil reserves either, as more oil sources become known, Albertas oil reserves are actually going up faster than they're declining ^^). At $70 per barrel, it's full steam ahead. Want to combat the oil sands? Reduce the demand and price of oil to less than $35 per barrel ^^ You can get into political interests here... Guess which companies stand to make huge huge profits if America declared war on Iran and oil hit $200 per barrel ^^. Guess who they donate to politically?
The Alberta Oil patch is regulated (contrary to popular beleif it seems)... Every last site must be approved by the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board (EUB webpage ). Any projects going through Albertas oil field (and the price of milk apparently?) is governed by this body... And they've gotten much better at reporting it to the publice via this website. Regulations, rules, and most metrics can be obtained at that site, along with descriptions of the technology used.
In either event, the Oil Sands overdevelopment is a side effect of our thirst for oil... As long as people are willing to pay the price listed at the pump, there'll be people willing to go get it from them. Consider ourselves lucky to have the ability to get it on our own soil... The Americans had to goto Iraq instead ^^.
eddited to correct my link
Last edited by Noise on Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:54 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks, Noise ... I was hoping to hear from you on this! Do you know much about the regulatory process, and how effective it is?
I've been hearing lots about the CO2 cost of producing tar sands oil ... do you know if that's factored in at all? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noise
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Land of Cowboys and Oil
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 10:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Eddited it with a lil more info ^^
Heh, I worked for the EUB and had a hand in that website ^^
It well governed when it comes to the disputes... If someone has a problem with a project, the EUB will hear all disputes and make a ruling on the matter. Their also good with distributing public notices. The ultimate potential project is quite interesting as well... I know one of the senior geologists who laugh at the 'gas is running out' people. Gas sources are running out yes, but now we've got Coalbed methane(CBM). After that, Shalebed methanes could contain as much as 4* that as the CBM. Gas Hybrids ontop of that could contain 10* what the shale does.
However when it comes to limiting the amount, I'm not sure if they have such a strong mandate. They do ensure each drill plan has a recovery plan and have held serveral companies accountable for cleanups in the past.
CO2 emmissions related the the Oil Sands are pretty horrendous. It takes alot of energy to produce oil from oil sands... From transporting around tons of sand back and forth to the refinery to heating water (steam) to the actual refinement process. Each step takes alot of energy, which is provided by natural gas! Alot of natural gas (usually refined from CBM (coalbed methane) but theres new hybrid options coming up) is expended producing oil from these sands. Theres mention that the oil sands production uses as much gasoline which would be required to heat/power calgary yearly. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noise
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Land of Cowboys and Oil
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Just watching CBC business (and now have to find an economist to answer a question for me. hehe), and it came up that Forbes (I beleive, that might not be right) came out predicting oil will drop to $20 a barrel. Although I can see a decline if the current conditions continue (no massive hurricane for example, calmer politics would help too), $20 a barrel is excessive. There would become a point where it is too costly to refine and cutting down that production will keep price higher. Mind you, that would be one way to quickly cut back on oilsands development.
Would prefer prices kept higher anyway. The more gas costs, the less people will use. That and war is expensive, $20 a barrel makes another invasion of a 'terrorist' that much easier.
Think theres a way to use economics to end this environmental disaster? The developement of those oilsands is very much price linked. $40 to produce a barrel of oil is worthless if oil is less than $40 a barrel isn't it? Oil prices have a few influences but the only one we can effect is demand. Reduce the demand for oil, reduce that price. Now how do we go about reducing oil demand? I really like the idea of linking metros with high speed trains to cut back on jetfuel and gas expeditures and funding that with an increase in oil royalties (do a 'Federal High Speed Rail Royalty' on all hydrocarbon exports ^^ in my dreams?). Heh, using oil money to create a train system to transport Albertans from Calgary to the oil patch to lower the price of oil to cut back on oilsands devlopement seems a bit anti-boom though ^^
In the process of putting together a peice on what exactly you consume when you consume 1 litre of fuel from the gas station. You're putting much more into the air than what you might think when you start including how that gasoline was at one point nothing more than bitumen |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Noise wrote: | | There would become a point where it is too costly to refine and cutting down that production will keep price higher. Mind you, that would be one way to quickly cut back on oilsands development. |
Unfortunately, I think I'd have to disagree with you there. Development would continue unabated, but companies would just pay less royalties, and receive excessive extra government funds to encourage the industry through the "lean" times. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Q*Bert
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 14 Jun 2006
Posts: 598
Location: The side of a pyramid made of cubes
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 20, 2006 11:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sky Marshall wrote: | If you want a house that's completely off the grid, you'll need a septic field, which is required to be at least 200X200 if your house has 4 bedrooms, at least in my county.
You'll need a well, which should be far away from the septic field. A clearway for the windmill in case it falls over. This is lots of land we're talking about. My parents house sits on a 50X100 foot lot, much of it taken up by the house itself. So they'd need at least 7 times more space. Some city lots are much smaller than that, so they'd need even more of an increase (proportionally speaking that is).
So way more land would need to be set asside if everybody who now lives in single detached houses were to convert to this style of living. That land would probably come from farmland or parks. |
This is likely a bylaw problem, not a technological problem. There is an off-grid house in Toronto called Healthy House that sits in the middle of a city. It's smaller than what you're talking about (3 bedroom, 1700 sq ft) but not so small as to make it's solutions inapplicable.
A lot of improvements can also be made to existing houses, but these will obviously be less efficient and more expensive (relative to the savings).
| Sky Marshall wrote: | | We could use less oil by employing better insulation, more efficient furnaces, etc, but we'd still need to draw oil from the ground, just at a slower rate. And still one day the oil WILL be gone; it's inevitable. So we'll need something else. |
Well, that's the idea. Slowly reduce oil consumption, push it as close to zero as possible, all the while trying to substitute it with other energy sources and materials.
| Sky Marshall wrote: | | Fusion could be an answer. Or maybe coal, nuclear, hydro bio-fuel combination. |
To paraphrase Little Orphan Annie, fusion power is always 30 years away. Some combination of renewables, distributed energy generation, and efficiency is probably the best we can hope for. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
5 minutes to midnight
Friendly co-dictator of the board
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1193
Location: The Okanagan, British Columbia
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 6:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
Wind, Small Hydro (although water is already a problem), and greater energy efficiency (you'd be surprised as to how far that can go).
I don't know exactly when or if Alberta will bust. The really shitty and politcally difficult thing about the oilsands development is that it's an economic externality. That is, the extraction of oil sands monetarily benefits Albertans (and oil companies) massively, but harms people outside Alberta, who recieve little money equally, thru global warming. Granted, the large amounts of Albertan water required for the extraction process, but that simply hasn't been enough to convince Albertan politicians to halt (yet alone slow) development.
The funny thing about this boom is that its kind of hard to predict when (if???) a bust will come. I mean, the oilsands are so huge that it would require a bonanza to exhaust them within our lifetime. The only other way that a bust arrives is if oil prices drop to about $40/barrel (which wont happen any time soon, unless people seriously cut oil consumption), or if people recognize the impact that oil sands extraction has on the environment (aka the planet).
What Alberta has been given, in short, is a huge opportunity to get unimaginably rich screwing over the planet. 133 billion barrels of extractable oil, in an era of rising gas prices, and in the era of peak oil.
So, when does the bust come?
_________________
To be a true radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing
- Raymond Williams |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Agent 204
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 275
Location: Berlin, Upper Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 10:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Sky Marshall wrote: | | I would love to have a house that's completely off the grid, with a wind generator, solar panels, geothermal heating, well water, and septic field, but... |
Forget about "off the grid"; the way to go is with net metering. A good start would be to amend provincial building codes so that all new construction must devote a sizeable chunk of its roof area (at least 50%) to solar panels. That way, surplus power would be fed back into the grid.
| Quote: | | The real ticket is fusion power, but that's still at least 50 years away. |
Actually, I think solar power satellites are the way to go in the long run, though it's still a ways off. Even then, though, earthbound solar and wind power would still be important. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noise
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Land of Cowboys and Oil
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Did some poking last night...
| Quote: | Do you know much about the regulatory process, and how effective it is?
|
There's been a few limitations on the rate oils are produced from Alberta... First, I should correct a misconception that I had as well. The water used to fill old wells? Ya, it's drawn from well below the water tables and use water that would never be fit for human use. It's not pulled off of rivers or the natural water stream. HOWEVER, that is not true for oil sands (you don't drill for oil sands, so you don't get this deep ground water).
That aside...
decades ago, the primary limitation within the oil field was our pipelines. When you can only pipe around 500k barrels per day, the amount you can pull out of the ground is limited.
However that has changed and pipelines carry much more now. Instead, the limiting factor is flow rates. A well once drilled has a couple rates oil can be pulled out at and a good rule of thumb, the slower is taken out, the higher the recovery rate. If the oil is pulled out too quickly, this damages the formation and makes it much more difficult to fully recover. The governing body can limit the flow of oil out of the ground by limiting the rate the oil is pulled out of the wells. Unfortunately, that is not applicable with the oil sands. Really, the oil sands devlopement are pretty unchecked... limited right now only by the amount of equipment and labor they have out there. Note the boom times ^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Noise
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 26 Jun 2006
Posts: 204
Location: Land of Cowboys and Oil
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Unfortunately, I think I'd have to disagree with you there. Development would continue unabated, but companies would just pay less royalties, and receive excessive extra government funds to encourage the industry through the "lean" times. |
Sorry Raos, almost missed your post there... And I think it's a hard call, but you've got a good point there. Part of the problem with oil coming out of the ground right now varies greatly in cost to produce... Anything from less than $10 to close to $40 per barrel. One would hope a $35 per barrel price would simply knock off the more expensive oil ventures. At $20 per barrel, thats a huge deficit to make up. Very good point though ^^ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Chester
not crazy about trees
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 2521
Location: Saskatoon
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 21, 2006 9:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | you'll need a septic field |
or, like, a composting toilet. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
West Coast Tiger
Super-Link Mistress
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 3060
Location: Obviously Concealed
|
| Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
The latest on oil sands in Alberta and China's hunger for it:
Hk Standard: Oil sands can slake thirst for energy
| Quote: | Canada's vast reserves of oil sands, also called sand tars, make it the promised land for countries worrying about their energy security, but a slow start by Chinese companies in breaking into the market has left them struggling to catch up with foreign rivals.
China is targeting oil sands - a mix of sand and a tar-like ultra-heavy crude called bitumen - to satisfy its long- term oil demand that the International Energy Agency predicted last week would hit 15.3 million barrels per day by 2030 on the basis of current policies.
Oil sand deposits are mainly found in the western Canadian province of Alberta, but are costly to refine. However, higher crude prices have made production from oil sands more feasible, while shipping crude to China from the west coast of Canada involves roughly the same distance as imports from the Middle East.
Political stability in Canada is also proving a magnet for foreign investment, with production from oil sands set to triple to three million bpd by 2015 and then double again by 2030. With recoverable reserves estimated at 174 billion barrels, experts say oil sands production can be sustained for at least 400 years.
...
China's charm offensive continued this week with the inaugural World Heavy Oil Conference in Beijing, jointly organized by China National Petroleum Corp and the Alberta government.
...
The emphasis on downstream investment reflects concerns within Canada that China's long-term ambition is to seize control of the resource and ship it back home in raw form for processing.
CNPC last year signed a memorandum of understanding with Canada's Enbridge to build a 400,000 bpd pipeline from the oil sands deposits to a port on the Pacific coast, creating a gateway to the Asian market that would allow it to compete with the United States for Canadian oil exports.
|
_________________
~ Rational ravings from a relative stranger in a troubled paradise. ~ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4746
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 30, 2006 1:42 am Post subject: |
|
|
As good a place as any, I guess.
Last stop for Calgary's airport shuttle
| Quote: | The only shuttle service based at the Calgary's airport has closed down because of a lack of workers.
"We find some people that want to do this type of work," said Ken Melville, who shut down his shuttle service Monday night after nearly a decade in business.
"They sign up, we train them and put them on a shift and in some cases they don't even show up for their shifts," he said.
Business is good — Melville's 17 vehicles moved about about 100,000 people to and from the airport last year — and there is no shortage of customers with the holidays approaching. Finding staff is another matter.
"We have tried many, many different avenues to try and obtain staff, to keep staff," he said. "We have a few incentives out there for the staff to come and work for us. But of course, being 24 hours a day, people don't really want to get up at two o'clock in the morning" to go to work. |
There are lots of people who need work here... unfortunately, for most to actually GET to their jobs they need a car. And insurance is outrageously expensive. In addition, to get a half-decent place to live is nigh on impossible. Gotta love the boom!
more at link.
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Mon Jan 08, 2007 4:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
Long article in this weekend's Globe about "The Greening of the Oil Sands." They say that the industry itself is calling for regulatory standards, and describe various ways that a couple of companies are trying to reduce the greenhouse gas emissions associated with tar sands development.
I'm finding it a little difficult to be optimistic about the "greening" of the tar sands development. I'm sure it's possible for the impact to be lessened ... and I hope that steps are taken in that direction. But I still say that we should be looking at reduced consumption too.
| Quote: | Greenhouse gases in Canada spew out from disparate sources across the country — vehicles on the roads are as guilty as industry — but massive growth in the oil sands is drawing the most attention with the rising prominence of the environment and the containing of carbon dioxide emissions. The oil sands region is already home to two of the four single biggest emitters in the country and is set for incredible growth, with $100-billion of projects planned over the next decade. The use of fresh water and the destruction of several thousand square kilometres of delicate boreal forest through surface mining are also key concerns.
All this attention has raised fear in the energy industry, which in 2002 fought noisily against the Kyoto Protocol, with oil sands operators threatening to shut down planned projects or process the raw output in the United States. New threats from energy firms have not yet emerged but industry leaders speak with fretful words like “concern” and “nervous.”
To Mr. Mansell [economist/head of the university's institute for sustainable energy, environment and economy at University of Calgary], the answer is clear, though it sounds like an oxymoron: A green oil sands — a future that marries what he calls the 3 Es, energy, environment and economy, using technology to increase recovery, reduce emissions and capture carbon dioxide.
But the key, he insists, is the government taking charge, making hard and clear rules, instead of waiting and hoping industry will make the full push.
... The first big step to attack emissions in the oil sands is capturing carbon dioxide emissions, according to Clive Mather, CEO of Shell Canada Ltd. He, like others such as Mr. Mansell, envisages “an Alberta showcase to the world,” where oil sands emissions are captured, then moved by pipeline to old oil fields around Edmonton, where the gas would be injected to increase oil recovery while the carbon would be effectively permanently stored.
... Mr. Mansell described “underground reactors” as the next step for the oil sands, where the materials injected into in-situ wells would do more than carry bitumen to the surface: they could partly process the oil underground, resulting in a higher-grade product. This could significantly cut both the amount of natural gas needed to power the process and the emissions kicked out into the atmosphere. By 2015, Mr. Mansell pictures technology that cuts energy use by half, emissions by three-quarters, all the while more than doubling the quality of oil brought to the surface.
But everyone — CEOs to environmentalists — insists the threads of change must be stitched together by governments' lead. Eric Lloyd, president of Petroleum Technology Alliance Canada, said that without change, Canada will “screw up” the land, air and water, but he has hope, too: “What we've had so far is mostly unplanned growth. The potential is there for it to turn out right, but I haven't seen any serious policy.”
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 01, 2007 4:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
Northern First Nations are calling for a moratorium on oil sands development.
| Quote: | Dehcho First Nations Grand Chief Herb Norwegian told a news conference in Fort McMurray Tuesday the effect of the massive development can be felt downstream along the Mackenzie River system.
... Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation band councillor Allan Adam said Lake Athabasca's water level has dropped nearly three metres in the past 20 years.
... Although the federal and provincial governments have failed to act on the issue to date, Adam he said it's not too late for them to protect the water resource. |
CBC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
EnCana, one of the oilsands developers, just posted the highest annual profit in Canadian history.
| Quote: | ... For 2006, EnCana made $5.65 billion US, or roughly $6.41 billion Cdn, based on last year's average Canada-U.S. exchange rate, a new Canadian record. EnCana's 2006 profit topped the previous record of $5.46 billion posted by BCE Inc. back in 1999.
... "The year also marked the completion of EnCana's transformation into essentially a pure North American producer focused on unconventional natural gas and integrated oilsands, a strategic position that we believe will create sustainable profitable growth for our company," said company president and CEO Randy Eresman. |
CBC |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4746
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 8:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Critics skeptical of board chosen to review Alberta's petroleum royalties
| Quote: | The long-awaited review of Alberta’s petroleum royalties will be conducted by a business-heavy panel, sparking critics’ fears the process will favour the current system.
The six-member panel to be chaired by former Alberta-Pacific Forest Industries president Bill Hunter, includes an ex-Shell Canada executive, academics and business consultants.
In unveiling the group on Friday, Finance Minister Lyle Oberg said suspicions the $2-million process will have a pro-industry bias are unfounded. |
Oh, please There is not one "public" representative on this board... meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Rick Bell's take on this...
Looking for a royal flush out of the review meetings? Don't bet on it. Deck stacked with petro pals means change likely not in the cards.
| Quote: | The barons of Big Oil can rest easy in their designer jammies.
No one is going to make any real dent in their bulging, record-setting bankroll of billions upon billions upon billions upon ... yes ... billions.
And, except for the few, the proud and the brave, humble citizens will return to their slumber, once again beating a retreat from any issues surrounding the common good, or their good, for that matter.
Yes, politics in Alberta is certainly unique. You get to know the results of a government probe the day it begins. |
more at links.
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Raos
volatilis vir
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 5472
Location: Petropolis
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:17 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Last spring, a poll commissioned by the Pembina Institute showed 84 per cent of Albertans think our province is not collecting enough from its non-renewable resources. |
| Quote: | In 2004, Pembina found that Alaska charged $11.60 per barrel oil royalty, while Norway charged $14.10 per barrel. Alberta charged $4.30 per barrel.
Between 1995 and 2002, Alaska captured almost 100 per cent of the economic rent of the resource, and Norway captured almost 90 per cent. Alberta captured just 50 per cent.
Calgary-based EnCana is one of the few companies that disclose their average royalty rates. In 2003, EnCana paid an average of 12.9 per cent on the Canadian (mostly Alberta) natural gas they produced. They paid 20 per cent on their US-produced gas.
Alberta collects about the same amount of money from gambling as we do from conventional crude oil ($1.4 billion). Liquor and tobacco taxes significantly outpace oilsands royalty revenue ($1.3 billion on booze and smokes last year compared to $950 million from the tar sands). |
Vue Weekly: Government convenes 'expert' panel for energy royalty review
As an Albertan, I'm sickened by the provincial government far too often for comfort. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
obscurantist
wonk, snark, pedant
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 739
|
| Posted: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
[Melissa] Blake, the 37-year-old first-term mayor of the Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo, which includes Fort McMurray and the bulk of Alberta's oil sands, has been begging the province and its energy regulator to put the brakes on the boom. She has even threatened to refuse any new property development unless she gets her way.
The municipality doesn't currently have the infrastructure such as roads, sewage systems or social, education and health-care services to cope with the growth. Neither, she says, can the landscape. | Quote: | ...here, she has been largely dismissed as a heretic of progress. She's looking outside the province for help. Her timing may be right. ...
She is an unapologetic booster of the region. The people. The services. The outdoors.
Yet nothing is classically beautiful about this place. Fort McMurray feels like a two-star town with five-star paycheques. ...
Workers pull in huge salaries (the median family income in Wood Buffalo was $120,100 in 2004, the highest in the country according to Statistics Canada, and locals talk of clearing $1,000 a week). Housing prices make Vancouver look affordable. New single-family homes sell for around $500,000, but many folks live in mobile homes edging toward $300,000.
The municipality's population is growing at 9 per cent a year, pushing the number of residents to 79,810 -- almost double since 1999. Fort McMurray is home to most of that growth, but also staggering is the "shadow population" of temporary residents in work camps set up by industry, which has almost tripled since 1999 to 10,442 last year. ...
Fort McMoney is what some call the city, but the municipality has hit a financial brick wall. Its 2007 budget includes a debt level of $338-million (the maximum the province will allow), as well as capital and operating budgets of $445-million.
And still, the municipality's overburdened infrastructure and existing services cannot keep up.
The city's waste-water treatment plant, which was built for 50,000 people, is also being upgraded with help from the province, but by the time it's done in two years, it will be inefficient for a population expected to hit 100,000 within five years.
Yesterday, the provincial government pledged millions for a new sewage treatment facility. More than $50-million has been set aside to help build 300 housing units. Roughly half of the new government funding, about $200-million, has been earmarked for health care, including building three new clinics in the region.
Ms. Blake says she can't raise any more money from increasing property taxes. She relies on handouts from the province. It's not clear whether Alberta's planned review of its royalty regime for the oil sands will address allocating a portion specifically to the municipalities. ...
Ms. Blake has told Alberta's energy regulator repeatedly she wants oil-sands projects delayed so the region can catch up on its infrastructure needs, but the Alberta Energy and Utilities Board ignored her and approved the proposals. However, the regulator twice publicly questioned political leadership, in November telling the Alberta government that there was a "short window of opportunity" to fix the situation, and in December telling both Edmonton and Ottawa that the situation was "critical." |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Diane Demorney
Bazinga!
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 4746
Location: Calgary
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another example of the effect of the boom...
Workers flee non-profits
| Quote: | Staffing crisis leaving Calgary social-service agencies in the lurch
By SHAWN LOGAN, SUN MEDIA
Empty beds and abandoned programs are plaguing Calgary social services as workers are bolting from non-profit agencies, say those in the industry.
A city committee agreed Monday to support a small funding hike for the city's Family and Community Support Services as representatives from a number of different agencies told aldermen that social supports within the city were waning because workers are leaving non-profits for greener pastures in the public and private sectors.
Wayne Stewart, president and CEO of the Calgary Homeless Foundation, said the staffing problems facing the city's non-profit sector are creating a crisis and critical services could be scaled back or even cancelled.
<snip>
Ald. Madeleine King puts the blame on the province, which she says hasn't adequately funded social agencies.
"They're expected to do these things on a shoe-string budget and that's not sustainable," she said. |
more at link.
_________________
Scissors cuts paper. Paper covers rock. Rock crushes lizard. Lizard poisons Spock. Spock smashes scissors. Scissors decapitates lizard. Lizard eats paper. Paper disproves Spock. Spock vaporizes rock. And as it always has, rock crushes scissors. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2007 5:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
An oil company in Norway, Statoil ASA, is buying North American Oil Sands in Alberta. Hmm. Wonder how the Conservative government feels about foreign buyouts of Canadian oil companies?
| Quote: | CALGARY — North American Oil Sands Corp. said Friday it intends to sell all of its outstanding common shares to Norway's Statoil ASA in a transaction worth $2.2-billion.
... North American Oil Sands is a privately traded company founded in 2001.
Its major shareholders include Paramount Resources Ltd., funds managed by affiliates of ARC Financial Corp. and the Ontario Teachers' Pension Plan.
North American Oil Sands operates 1,110 square kilometres of oil sands leases in the Athabasca region northeast of Edmonton.
... Earlier this month, Royal Dutch Shell bought out Shell Canada. The international oil giant already owned 78 per cent of the Canadian company prior to the buyout bid launched last year for $45 per share. |
Globe and Mail |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 1:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Surprise, surprise. Lyle Oberg is making noises about how maybe the oil sands companies are in a tougher place, poor things, and that should be taken into consideration when reviewing their royalties.
| Quote: | ... While Mr. Oberg is adamant that he is not prejudging a public review of the royalty regime that continues today in Edmonton, he warns that the oil sands are facing significant pressures on their profits, and a hike in royalties may render paltry rates of return for new investors.
... In the 2006 race to replace Mr. Klein, all the candidates, including Mr. Oberg, adopted a call for a royalty review, sensing public pressure, but no one advocated a higher take for government. Now, Mr. Oberg pointed out that oil and natural gas companies have been hit by various federal Conservative government initiatives, such as Ottawa's move to tax income trusts, a loss of a small tax break for oil sands operators, and new rules on greenhouse gases.
Mr. Oberg, adopting the argument used by industry executives, argued these measures in sum cut significantly into companies' rates of returns, estimating that the loss of the tax break and climate changes measures could cost as much as $3 a barrel.
... Part of the mandate of the six-member panel conducting the royalty review is to compare Alberta with other jurisdictions. The public sessions began in Grande Prairie in April, continue in Edmonton today, before moving to Calgary, Fort McMurray and Medicine Hat. A final report is due by the end of the summer. The panel is led by Bill Hunter, a retired forestry executive, and includes three economists, a retired oil executive and a technology entrepreneur. |
Globe and Mail. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
m0nkyman
you need arms on the left too
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 1141
Location: Ottawa
|
| Posted: Mon May 14, 2007 4:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wonder if the collective shriek from every other business outside the oil-field demanding that we slow things down a titch will be heard?
_________________
"If I can not dance, I want no part in your revolution."
Emma Goldman |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Tehanu
More or less, more or less
Joined: 12 Apr 2006
Posts: 17638
Location: Seceded from the Ford Nation
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
Is the Alberta boom in fact slowing? And/or is the Alberta government going to help with putting the brakes on?
| Quote: | At its peak, Alberta was expanding at double the rate of the rest of Canada, its economy so dominant that for four straight years it propped up the national average.
... At the breakneck pace it was heading, the only thing that could catch up to Alberta’s roaring economy was the even faster problem of inflation.
Over the past year, inflation in the province rose by 5.5 per cent, double the national average of 2.3 per cent. Natural gas prices surged more than 23 per cent in the 12 months to March of this year from the same month in 2006, according to Stats Canada.
... Buying a house has become unaffordable for many, even as retail sales continue to rise at a rate of 12 to 14 per cent annually.
The province’s low unemployment rate has also created problems. Over the past year, full-time employment rates increased by more than 5 per cent. Average is about 2 per cent. The high employment may be good for the job seekers who have come in record numbers to Alberta, but it is having a negative effect on productivity because it increases the rate of turnover.
Public pressure to apply brakes on the growth has been mounting and the government has called for a public review of the royalty structure that has been in place for the past decade for the revenues collected from oil and natural gas companies. The federal government has also made recent moves to curb excesses, especially in the oil sands sector, by removing a tax break given to operators.
Those are small steps, but the most pressing one needed is a short-term moratorium on further approvals for oil sands projects, says the Pembina Institute, a policy research group on climate change issues.
... The hope is for a soft landing, rather than a heavy crash. The good news is there are signs that Alberta’s economy is more buffeted these days than during the boom-bust cycles of the past. |
Toronto Star |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cartman
Beyond cuddly
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8635
Location: OMG! They killed Jason Kenney!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
The real question is what these PC fucks would actually do if they had to intervene in the economy. Their answer to every problem is to do nothing (free market). Businesses are screaming for labour while the local paper tells other Canadians to stay away (unless they already have a place in which to live).
If the entire government of Alberta were kidnapped, it would be months, maybe years before anyone noticed. These guys are not doing anything of substance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hondo
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 169
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The real question is what these PC fucks would actually do if they had to intervene in the economy |
Better to do nothing than do a complete fuck up like troodoe and the libs did with the NEP and wage and price controls. That put the economy into such a skid it damn near bankrupted the country.
_________________
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." Winston Churchill
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." Winston Churchill[/size] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 8:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hondo wrote: | | Quote: | | The real question is what these PC fucks would actually do if they had to intervene in the economy |
Better to do nothing than do a complete fuck up like troodoe and the libs did with the NEP and wage and price controls. That put the economy into such a skid it damn near bankrupted the country. |
The really big problem with neoliberal economics and turning everything over to the global free market as they suggest, is that the proponents don't know anything about how the global market actually works and effects things. Right so we should be following the advice of people who don't even know what goes on in the global economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hondo
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 169
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 10:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Right so we should be following the advice of people who don't even know what goes on in the global economy. |
Allowing a politician to do anything IS allowing one who knows nothing about anything to do something about everything. The one sure thing is if one wants it to be screwed up and/or corrupted just let a politician make the decision.
_________________
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." Winston Churchill
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." Winston Churchill[/size] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cartman
Beyond cuddly
Joined: 11 Apr 2006
Posts: 8635
Location: OMG! They killed Jason Kenney!
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Better to do nothing than do a complete fuck up like troodoe and the libs did with the NEP and wage and price controls. That put the economy into such a skid it damn near bankrupted the country.
|
I am no Liberal fan, but what the hell does Trudeau have to do with Stelmach's government today (aka the here and now)? Get over it, Trudeau is dead.
Typical right-wing excuses.
Problem: Environmental problems need to be acted upon.
Right-wing answer: Well, Gore uses a lot of electricity and his dad planted tobacco.
Problem: The war in Iraq is doing more harm than good.
Right-wing answer: Michael Moore eats too much.
Problem: Globalization is having adverse effects throughout the world.
Right-wing answer: Those protesters are a bunch of lower class losers.
Problem: Funding for women's groups is being cut.
Right-wing answer: Clinton got his dick sucked by a female intern.
Problem: Problems exist that need solutions.
Right-wing answer: Problems do not exist because the invisible hand of capitalism solves all. Elect governments that will not govern.
This bullshit excuse for a government will not have some Liberal boogeyman to blame this time around when things go to the shitter. Housing prices are stabilizing, interest rates are climbing and a lot of Albertans are whining about the adverse effects of this boom. Stelmach is not doing very well either.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070529.walbpol...
| Quote: | The poll also suggests the overall number of people in the province who felt Mr. Stelmach was leading the province in the wrong direction has tripled to 30 per cent since January.
The Cameron Strategy poll found Tory support in rural areas has increased slightly to 58 per cent, while support in Calgary and Edmonton is down to roughly 40 per cent over the last five months.
|
ETA Right-wing answer: The story above is useless because there is a media conspiracy against the right. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
elmateo
sleepy.
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
Posts: 4978
Location: socialist corner, ottawa
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Hondo wrote: | | Quote: | | Right so we should be following the advice of people who don't even know what goes on in the global economy. |
Allowing a politician to do anything IS allowing one who knows nothing about anything to do something about everything. The one sure thing is if one wants it to be screwed up and/or corrupted just let a politician make the decision. |
The problem is the kind of politicians that get elected, not "politicians" in general. If you continually elect the same kind of Liberals, Conservatives, and some of the NDPers as well, then you are just creating a self fulfilling prophecy.
But someone like Tommy Douglas, who put time into what he was doing, created one of the most economically important institutions in Canada, not to mention the more important human benefit of Canada's medicare system.
So the problem isn't with politicians managing the economy, it is who those politicians are and what they stand for. The reason why people think politicians are bad at managing the economy for their benefit and therefore shouldn't is because the examples they have been given, politicians like Stephen Harper and Paul Martin, are in fact bad for Canada's economy and what the economy should be doing for Canadians. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hondo
Fulltime enMasse Member
Joined: 17 Feb 2007
Posts: 169
|
| Posted: Mon Jun 04, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Ease up their cartman
This is about politicians screwing or corrupting every efn thing they touch. I used the troodoe example simply because it was the most damaging to Canada example I could think of. This to me isn't about liberal or conservatives or NDP it is about the fact politicians in general couldn't get a piece of tail in a whore house with out fucking it up (so to speak).
_________________
Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy." Winston Churchill
"The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is." Winston Churchill[/size] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Voting Centre
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Front Page
Links
Acceptable Use Policy
Donate
Today's Active Topics