Province spends $54,700 to fund anti-oilsands documentary

[fredr123]

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/alber.../15205761.html

Culture Minister Lindsay Blackett admitted he finds the $54,700 subsidy to the film Dirty Oil difficult to swallow, even though the money came through the Alberta Multimedia Production Fund he oversees.


At the same time, the province has pledged to spend $25 million to boost Alberta’s environmental image in the face of attacks on the oilsands.

Here's an interesting one for debate. Frankly, I'm glad there is little to no censorship by the AMPF at least at the early incentive funding stage. I don't like the idea of our own provincial government deciding what artistic content in films is worthy of support. It would open the door to the AMPF pulling funding for other films that might not jive with the PC party's agenda.

[Table 5]

At the same time, the province has pledged to spend $25 million to boost Alberta’s environmental image in the face of attacks on the oilsands.

I'd rather that 25 mill go to making the oil-sands a more environmentally friendly venture, so there's less to attack.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'd rather that 25 mill go to making the oil-sands a more environmentally friendly venture, so there's less to attack.

If the provice wanted the oilsands to be more environmentally friendly they wouldn't have to spend $25 million to do it, they'd just legislate it and make the companies involved pay for it.

[Ducay]

Originally Posted by Table 5

I'd rather that 25 mill go to making the oil-sands a more environmentally friendly venture, so there's less to attack.

That 25 million is a drop in the bucket in the costs required to make any new technology viable in the oil sands.

I bet Suncor would have loved for Firebag to only have cost $25M

[Bunk]

The troubling thing is that Stelmach thinks Oil Sands' problem is its image and the solution is to fight perceptions with PR campaigns - rather than to actually try and solve the environmental issues. If they focus on actually cleaning up the process, the PR will take care of itself.

[Table 5]

Ducay/BBS: Of course, but my point is the government should be focusing on making the industry a cleaner one so it doesn't have to be attacked (or at least attacked as hard) in the first place. No matter the money they spend on advertising, they are still just polishing an oily turd. It's like GM in the last half century trying to fool people into buying it's sub-par cars, instead of just making the cars better.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Come on, is this really that big of a problem.
Is this really that harmful to the environment?

[JD]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Come on, is this really that big of a problem.
Is this really that harmful to the environment?

Yeah, I can't see why wildlife couldn't flourish there. I guess animals are just too picky.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by JD

Yeah, I can't see why wildlife couldn't flourish there. I guess animals are just too picky.

And thanks for making my point for me.
That's not even a picture of the oilsands, it's a coal mine in Germany.

Too many people are getting on the "Oilsands are dirty oil" bandwagon without any sort of background knowledge or context.

Are the oilsands perfect? Of course not, but they certainly aren't unique either.

It's just like a few months ago with Greenpeace in California called for a boycott of Alberta tourism to protest dirty Alberta oil.
I'll be damned if I'm gonna let someone who lives anywhere near Bakersfield California lecture me about dirty oil.

Sure there's room for improvement, there always will be, but this is just a new cause that's become popular without any logical reasoning why it should be chosen over any number of other "causes".

[Clarkey]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

Come on, is this really that big of a problem.
Is this really that harmful to the environment?

Ugly as sin but it looks pretty well contained in that photo, along with most of the other ones I've seen.

[Ducay]

People need to understand that the gov't isn't trying to do all this counter-PR work for the fun of it, they're trying to protect the tourism industry (and our image).

Its not like a bunch of hippies are going to stop the US from craving our delicious delicious bitumen/SCO.
Even if we used baby seal blubber to fuel the steam plants, the operations would continue as long as it meets gov't regulations and is profitable.

[JD]

Originally Posted by Bring_Back_Shantz

And thanks for making my point for me.
That's not even a picture of the oilsands, it's a coal mine in Germany.

Too many people are getting on the "Oilsands are dirty oil" bandwagon without any sort of background knowledge or context.

Are the oilsands perfect? Of course not, but they certainly aren't unique either.

It's just like a few months ago with Greenpeace in California called for a boycott of Alberta tourism to protest dirty Alberta oil.
I'll be damned if I'm gonna let someone who lives anywhere near Bakersfield California lecture me about dirty oil.

Sure there's room for improvement, there always will be, but this is just a new cause that's become popular without any logical reasoning why it should be chosen over any number of other "causes".

Agreed on all points. Especially the Bakersfield one.

And I thought that didn't look like the oilsands!

Just like every industry, there are companies that are going above and beyond in their attempt to develop the resource as environmentally friendly as possible and there are others that only do as much as they are required. This is why it is important for the government to be involved; to ensure the lowest common denominator isn't ruining it for the companies that are going beyond their regulatory obligations.

[COGENT]

I've never seen the oil sands for myself so my opinion is formed from articles I've read and discussions I've had with people who have experienced it. Before I start my rant I should mention that I think it's horrible what's happening up there and we do need to find a way to make it cleaner. The questions is, who pays for it?

The problem with the oil sands is... the world needs it (or at least will need it in the future). Rather than putting so much effort into deterring people away from Alberta, or trying to boycott the use our oil, these people should be putting the efforts into researching alternate energy sources. What if this film maker decided to do a documentary on the research happening around the world for other energy sources and perhaps inspiring more people to give to that, rather than trying to inspiring more whining and really doing nothing.

I respect people that are innovating alternatives to many of worlds issues. Like the blood diamonds, someone didn't agree with it, so they researched a way to make diamonds in a lab hurting no one and giving people an alternative. Unlike this boycott from GAP... We aren't going to use oil from Alberta to ship our products but we are fine with using oil from anywhere else, perhaps even from companies that spill it in the ocean ruining other humans lives.

I'm reading a good book called The End of Energy Obesity by Peter Tertzakian that is shedding a lot light on this topic for me if anyone is interested.

[DownhillGoat]

Originally Posted by COGENT

I've never seen the oil sands for myself so my opinion is formed from articles I've read and discussions I've had with people who have experienced it. Before I start my rant I should mention that I think it's horrible what's happening up there and we do need to find a way to make it cleaner. The questions is, who pays for it?

It is being made cleaner. And it's the companies that pay for it.

The majority of pictures in the paper show the traditional oil sands mining. Which at best can access 15-20% of oil available in northern Alberta. It's the easiest 15-20%, and traditional mining cheapest method which is why this method has been employed for so many years. This is the "dirty oil" that companies thing they're boycotting, and is shown in the media.

The oil sands are moving to SAGD, which recycles most of its water (although it still burns a lot of natural gas), and doesn't tear up the ground anywhere there's oil. Most of the new projects (if not all) in northern AB are SAGD, which is environmentally friendlier than any natural gas plant around Calgary who were grandfathered in to current environmental legislation.

Before the discussion of ducks comes up, Suncor (not to be confused with Syncrude, who was taken to court over the ducks in the tailings pond) has recently invested 1.2 billion dollars in efforts to eliminate tailings ponds in the future, decrease current reclamation time, and have recently completed reclaiming thier first tailings pond. Complete with 60,000 trees, and assorted wildlife.

That's what they don't show on billboards in California.

[Fozzie_DeBear]

Originally Posted by kunkstyle

It is being made cleaner. And it's the companies that pay for it.

The majority of pictures in the paper show the traditional oil sands mining. Which at best can access 15-20% of oil available in northern Alberta. It's the easiest 15-20%, and traditional mining cheapest method which is why this method has been employed for so many years. This is the "dirty oil" that companies thing they're boycotting, and is shown in the media.

The oil sands are moving to SAGD, which recycles most of its water (although it still burns a lot of natural gas), and doesn't tear up the ground anywhere there's oil. Most of the new projects (if not all) in northern AB are SAGD, which is environmentally friendlier than any natural gas plant around Calgary who were grandfathered in to current environmental legislation.

Before the discussion of ducks comes up, Suncor (not to be confused with Syncrude, who was taken to court over the ducks in the tailings pond) has recently invested 1.2 billion dollars in efforts to eliminate tailings ponds in the future, decrease current reclamation time, and have recently completed reclaiming thier first tailings pond. Complete with 60,000 trees, and assorted wildlife.

That's what they don't show on billboards in California.

The province also has sunk considerable resources into research for the Oilsands largely to improve extraction effectiveness but also environmental impact as well.

Also, we shouldn't forget that oil from Venezuala or the middle east contributes to 'political pollution'...buying Albertan Oil doesn't prop up totalitarian states with gruesome human rights records

[Azure]

In terms of environmental impact, how much 'cleaner' have the oil sands gotten in the past 30 years due to newer ways being developed to extract the oil?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Fozzie_DeBear

The province also has sunk considerable resources into research for the Oilsands largely to improve extraction effectiveness but also environmental impact as well.

Also, we shouldn't forget that oil from Venezuala or the middle east contributes to 'political pollution'...buying Albertan Oil doesn't prop up totalitarian states with gruesome human rights records

True.

I would venture a guess that people are attacking the oil sands because it makes them feel good about their stance on environmental issues. Plus Alberta is a province run by evil conservatives who don't care about the environment.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Azure

True.

I would venture a guess that people are attacking the oil sands because it makes them feel good about their stance on environmental issues. Plus Alberta is a province run by evil conservatives who don't care about the environment.

It's also a lot easier for US based groups to point at thigns going on in other countries.

'Oh look at those bad other people, see how bad they are? What's that? Oh, don't look in my backyard, it's a bit of a mess.'

[octothorp]

In regards to the initial article without getting into a debate about the oilsands themselves, it's absolutely crucial that the arts granting organizations continue to operate at arms length from governmental image concerns. Given that sustaining and developing the film industry here is a priority for the province, it would be a disaster for the industry if the government was seen as rewarding or denying funding based on the political messages of the work.
I have no problem with them changing the model to one based on merit as Blackett suggests; lots of other Alberta Foundation for the Arts programs are based on merit. But with any merit-based program, it's even more important to be operating at arms length from the government. If Blackett is the person determining merit, then it's no better than censorship. Merit needs to be determined by (in this case, film) industry professionals, who are unlikely to be any more sympathetic to the oil sands.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Bunk

The troubling thing is that Stelmach thinks Oil Sands' problem is its image and the solution is to fight perceptions with PR campaigns - rather than to actually try and solve the environmental issues. If they focus on actually cleaning up the process, the PR will take care of itself.

You mean like how the seal hunt no longer has any kind of image issue after they stopped beating seals to death with clubs?

The anti-oil sands lobby has already been caught lying, and they are going to continue to lie as long as it is profitable to them. You really can only fight PR with PR, and steps taken to ensure environmental damage is minimal would become the focus.