Alberta Politics & Government Thread 3.0

[Fuzz]

The first sentence of my quote, particularly the vagueness of other provincial limits on eligibility.

[troutman]

The Economic and Social Costs of Coal Mine Development (Boom and Bust Cycle)

The development of coal towns during booms and their subsequent decline during busts often leads to significant economic and social downsides. These cycles are largely driven by fluctuations in coal demand, prices, and the shift to alternative energy sources. Key economic downsides include:

1. Economic Dependency and Vulnerability
2. Job Losses and Unemployment
3. Decline in Property Values
4. Reduced Public Revenue
5. Economic Stagnation
6. Environmental Cleanup Costs
7. Debt and Financial Instability
8. Social Disparities

The School of Public Policy Publications (University of Calgary) published in November 2021 a Research Paper “A MULTIPLE ACCOUNT BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS OF COAL MINING IN ALBERTA”. They summarized:

The economic benefits — $440 million in undiscounted incremental tax revenues and $35 million in undiscounted incremental employment earnings — are overshadowed by the costs arising from the displacement of ranching, tourism and the negative environmental effects on water, vegetation, air and wildlife. Compounding these effects is the non-zero probability that the Alberta government will pick up the tab for reclamation costs, and the adverse social impacts on local communities and on Indigenous Peoples’ rights and interests. Therefore, any new coal mine development is unlikely to provide the province with a net benefit.

https://www.policyschool.ca/wp-conte...nter-et-al.pdf

The Pembina Institute published the brochure in February 2008. “Boom to Bust Social and Cultural Impacts of the Mining Cycle”:

The mining industry has a long track record of booms and busts. When mineral prices rise, new mines are built in a hurry. Host communities benefit from a jump in jobs, infusions of cash, and investment in infrastructure – the “boom.” However, when prices fall, production slows down and some mines close altogether. Communities suddenly find themselves facing unemployment, loss of income and a declining population – the “bust.”

What is clear is that the boom and bust cycle can take a heavy toll on communities. When assessing mine proposals, communities need to think critically about how – or whether – they can mitigate negative impacts, and plan accordingly.

Busts sometimes result in bankruptcy for mine operators, and mine sites may be abandoned without being properly shut down and cleaned up. That usually leaves taxpayers to pay for environmental restoration, while local communities deal with pollution in the interim. Canada’s Commissioner of the Environment has referred to abandoned mines as an “ecological time-bomb.”

https://www.pembina.org/reports/boombust-final.pdf

[full disclosure - I am on the Board of the Crowsnest Conservation Society]

[troutman]

Report of the Joint Review Panel
Benga Mining Limited
Grassy Mountain Coal Project
Crowsnest Pass
June 17, 2021

https://static.aer.ca/prd/documents/...21ABAER010.pdf

[troutman]

Northback Public Hearing: Transcript of AWA’s Oral Presentation

https://albertawilderness.ca/northba...resentation-2/

To quote from a paper published in the Annual Review of Public Health,

“All phases of the coal use continuum (mining, processing, combustion, and waste disposal) create adverse public health and environmental impacts. Public health impacts include cancer, cardiovascular disease, respiratory disease, kidney disease, mental health problems, adverse birth outcomes, impaired child development, and others.”

Research finds that these negative health outcomes will be felt most acutely by the communities nearest the mines, who will bare increased rates of disease, among other reduced social outcomes.

Science also consistently reveals that despite companies best efforts, their investments into better mitigations and management practices, there is no clean way to mine coal. The environmental degradation and negative health impacts occurring in Elk Valley provide insight into realities that very well could be duplicated in this watershed, should Northback be allowed to proceed.

https://action.cpaws.org/page/135788/action/1

Send your letter to the Minister of Energy and Minerals and demand he direct the Alberta Energy Regulator deny Northback Holdings Northback Holdings Application 1948547 for a Deep Drilling Permit at Grassy Mountain.

[BowRiverBruinsRule]

Originally Posted by getbak

60% of the votes cast were in the advanced polls. In 2025, look for the UCP to introduce legislation to get rid of all advanced polls.

Renewed my membership and donated today to Nenshi and the Orange.

[troutman]

Bringing coal policy into the 21st century
Modernization of Alberta's legislative framework to guide responsible coal mining practices to protect our waters and natural spaces takes centre stage.

https://www.alberta.ca/article-bring...e-21st-century

The new policy will reflect the highest environmental standards and address issues including:

Protecting Alberta’s water. New proposals will either need to be underground mines or use mining technologies such as highwall automated underground mining, that move minimal amounts of overburden, to prevent selenium and silt entering our water.

Prohibiting mountaintop removal mining, which has never occurred in Alberta. There will be no new open-pit coal mines approved for the Eastern Slopes region.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

page 24 https://iaac-aeic.gc.ca/050/document...01/136489E.pdf



https://myhealth.alberta.ca/alberta/...ing-water.aspx


So it sounds like the levels are already 10x higher than what is considered safe. This water is used to irrigate our food, feed our cattle, and ingest by humans. Coal mines process large amounts of water, so without any strong science based analysis of the dangers here, I don't see how this is a good idea. Goriders, you say economic opportunities, but you need to look at the costs, too.

I’m pretty sure there’s selenium in my multivitamin. Weird how in this case it’s deemed a hazard.

[WideReceiver]

So several ministers and MLAs will be going down for the inauguration and farce prayer breakfast. I wonder who pays.

[Torture]

So how do we make this new coal policy a reality? Starting in early 2025, we will engage directly with the coal industry, letting them know what will and will not be allowed for new coal mines moving forward in Alberta. We are going to let them know we are not handing over the keys for unlimited coal development in our precious natural spaces. In return we want them to tell us what works in other jurisdictions that focus on environmental protections as an important part of responsible coal development.

Who are we going to have design our new policy? Industry! What a joke.

Here we go again - time to dig out those Defend AB Parks & Mountains not Mines lawn signs.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by troutman

Don’t believe the spin: Coal is no longer essential to produce steel

https://ieefa.org/resources/dont-bel...-produce-steel

I guess to play devils advocate why would the investor propose the development. I’m assuming they would be in tune with the market?

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Torture

Who are we going to have design our new policy? Industry! What a joke.

The policy is relatively good news from my perspective, and a bit of a surprise. There is a catch though - the policy may not apply to Northback, because it is not a "new" application (debatable), but this is somewhat helpful to our fight.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Torture

Who are we going to have design our new policy? Industry! What a joke.

Here we go again - time to dig out those Defend AB Parks & Mountains not Mines lawn signs.

I doubt the industry is forming the policy. But as a stakeholder they would have input. It’s not always utilized.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I guess to play devils advocate why would the investor propose the development. I’m assuming they would be in tune with the market?

There is some speculation they know their application is hopeless and what they really want to do is sue the government for the lost opportunity.

The technologies that make coal no longer essential are very new.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I’m pretty sure there’s selenium in my multivitamin. Weird how in this case it’s deemed a hazard.

The dose makes the poison. There is arsenic in apples.

dosis sola facit venenum

[Ashartus]

Originally Posted by Goriders

I’m pretty sure there’s selenium in my multivitamin. Weird how in this case it’s deemed a hazard.

Selenium is a particularly tricky substance since it is both an essential mineral and toxic at higher levels, and the difference between the amount you need and the dose that is toxic is very small. Gets even trickier on the ecological side since there is natural variability and concentrations that are fine in one part of the province can be toxic to vegetation, fish etc. at another location.

[D as in David]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Oh, ha. Morning unit problem.

More commonly referred to as "morning wood".

[Torture]

Originally Posted by troutman

The policy is relatively good news from my perspective, and a bit of a surprise. There is a catch though - the policy may not apply to Northback, because it is not a "new" application (debatable), but this is somewhat helpful to our fight.

You are less cynical than I am. I'm sure this policy will be watered down to have exactly the loophole that is needed for Northback/Benga/whatever they call themselves nowadays.

Albertans have been loud and clear - we don't want coal mining on the Eastern slopes. This new policy will leave the door open for it as long as it's done 'to the highest standards'. That's not good enough.

[BlackArcher101]

If anyone is curious, here is what the levels of selenium are from the Teck mines in BC. They had a lot of issues prior to 2014 and have spent an extensive amount of money on treatment facilities to try to get to the limits imposed on them.

https://elkvalleywaterquality.gov.bc...march-2024-q1/

More info: https://elkvalleywaterquality.gov.bc...-and-timeline/

I suspect that if Alberta were to impose the same limits, they may find the treatment expenses to outweigh the benefit for a new mine. Teck was able to spend that as the mines were already quite established and large.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by troutman

There is some speculation they know their application is hopeless and what they really want to do is sue the government for the lost opportunity.

The technologies that make coal no longer essential are very new.

Interesting angle. So they would sue to recoup lost investment monies? Money lost after a policy change?

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by BlackArcher101

If anyone is curious, here is what the levels of selenium are from the Teck mines in BC. They had a lot of issues prior to 2014 and have spent an extensive amount of money on treatment facilities to try to get to the limits imposed on them.

https://elkvalleywaterquality.gov.bc...march-2024-q1/

More info: https://elkvalleywaterquality.gov.bc...-and-timeline/

I suspect that if Alberta were to impose the same limits, they may find the treatment expenses to outweigh the benefit for a new mine. Teck was able to spend that as the mines were already quite established and large.

Thanks for posting.