NDP to American's don't buy our tar sands

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Being utterly reliant on one commodity is the key to economic growth and resilience.

The Alberta all eggs in one basket Advantage.

Ah yes, this argument. I think you've got a pretty good grasp on economics. Surely you understand that to avoid speciliazation is virtually impossible where there is free trade, and even even if it were possible would be extremely costly? Alberta has done very, very well with oil. If that ends, well we'll have money to invest in new things once the economic heat dies down. Or at least we would, if the federal government hadn't taken so much of our earnings to give to Quebec.

Anyways, the thing that bothers me the most about this article is in the headline? These Dippers are going to tell the "whole story"? Really? Are they going to mention the jobs they'd rather not see created?

Fact is, even the government NEVER has the whole story. Industry is always working on things that the government doesn't know about.

I once worked on a project that got shut down because of political pressure from Greenpeace, despite the fact that the company I was working for had developed a solution to the biggest supposed problem with exploiting the resource. Of course, neither Greenpeace nor the politicians had any idea.

What I hate about the way Keystone XL is being handled is that it's a political decision. You should set regulations, and if a project meets them, it goes ahead. Assessing projects, or even industries, on a case-by-case basis leads to too much BS. Carbon emissions are the problem? Then put in carbon tax and let the market figure it out. Singling out Alberta oilsands to reduce carbon is ridiculous - all you're going to do is increase demand for, say, Venezuelan oilsands.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Gozer

How dare the NDP voice ecological concerns about extracting fossil fuels.

The nerve of these blowhards; pandering to Big Earth and potentially sacrificing profitability at the alter of intellectual consideration. It's a crime against Canada. The crime: treason.

We all* agree with the punishment for treason.

* if you disagree with the punishment for treason - keep it to yourself until you have a majority control of federal politics please.

Originally Posted by Tinordi

the economy... [/zombie voice]

Oh look, Gozer and Tinordi with more ridiculous drive-by comments that contribute nothing to the thread.

It was actually pretty good until you two came along. Even if people are disagreeing. At least both sides have a point beyond being sarcastic and dumb.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by SebC

What I hate about the way Keystone XL is being handled is that it's a political decision. You should set regulations, and if a project meets them, it goes ahead. Assessing projects, or even industries, on a case-by-case basis leads to too much BS. Carbon emissions are the problem? Then put in carbon tax and let the market figure it out. Singling out Alberta oilsands to reduce carbon is ridiculous - all you're going to do is increase demand for, say, Venezuelan oilsands.

And according to the 'facts', they have gone above and beyond to make sure the pipeline meets ALL regulations. Hell it goes beyond that.

[Aegypticus]

For the record, I have no problem with the NDP taking a stance against the oilsands. That's their prerogative.

The problem I have is that this feels like dirty politics. In my opinion it's like a dispute between a player and a coach where the player decides to go to the media to air out all the dirty laundry. It feels spiteful and it feels like the NDP is thumbing its nose at us.

[Tinordi]

If that ends, well we'll have money to invest in new things once the economic heat dies down.

No you wont. All that money that Alberta's been earning from oil production is being paid out right now in the form of low taxes for Albertans. The sort of wealth fund you're talking about is virtually non-existing. Want to see how to properly manage revenues from a non-renewable resource, look at Norway.

The idea that the people of Alberta are being prudent with their oil money is a total farce. And further's my point that short term economic growth does not equal long-term economic health.

The fact that people see rapid, unchecked development of the oil sands as a sacred cow in the name of economic growth is frankly highly disturbing and shows a real lack of nuance and understanding on Alberta's precarious economy. Couple that with very real economic impacts felt elsewhere in the country thanks to the gradual transition to a petro-state and it simply isn't a viable starting point to say that if you don't want continued oil sands development you don't support Alberta or Canada's economic health.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

No you wont. All that money that Alberta's been earning from oil production is being paid out right now in the form of low taxes for Albertans. The sort of wealth fund you're talking about is virtually non-existing. Want to see how to properly manage revenues from a non-renewable resource, look at Norway.

The idea that the people of Alberta are being prudent with their oil money is a total farce. And further's my point that short term economic growth does not equal long-term economic health.

The fact that people see rapid, unchecked development of the oil sands as a sacred cow in the name of economic growth is frankly highly disturbing and shows a real lack of nuance and understanding on Alberta's precarious economy. Couple that with very real economic impacts felt elsewhere in the country thanks to the gradual transition to a petro-state and it simply isn't a viable starting point to say that if you don't want continued oil sands development you don't support Alberta or Canada's economic health.

Awesome buzzwords. I'm alarmed!

There is nothing rapid nor unchecked about oil sands development. I massive amount of planning is required before moving one shovelful of dirt. And regardless of what the enviromentalists would have people believe, there are significant regulatory requirements to meet.

Having said that, I generally agree with what you're saying.

[burn_this_city]

There is enough oil in the Athabasca region to last over a hundred years. Are we supposed to sit on it long enough that the world moves past oil and it's largely useless?

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by zuluking

Awesome buzzwords. I'm alarmed!

There is nothing rapid nor unchecked about oil sands development. I massive amount of planning is required before moving one shovelful of dirt. And regardless of what the enviromentalists would have people believe, there are significant regulatory requirements to meet.

Having said that, I generally agree with what you're saying.

Proposing to double production in 10 years isn't rapid? Unchecked may be a bit harsh but it was only 4 months ago that a multi-party environmental monitoring program was even proposed for oil sands development and that monitoring has no procedural input on development permits. That seems unchecked to me.

[Tinordi]

Originally Posted by burn_this_city

There is enough oil in the Athabasca region to last over a hundred years. Are we supposed to sit on it long enough that the world moves past oil and it's largely useless?

If this was the ostensible reason to develop the resource then I might support it. But considering there is absolutely no overarching policy framework that describes this reasoning or instruments in place with a forward looking mandate to shift Alberta's economy to one unreliant on fossil fuels then it's pretty dubious to suggest that this is the reason why the resource is being developed so fast. This is the all eggs in one basket, look no further than the tip of your nose economic policy and it's frighteningly disregard's the livelihood and environment of future Albertans.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

No you wont. All that money that Alberta's been earning from oil production is being paid out right now in the form of low taxes for Albertans. The sort of wealth fund you're talking about is virtually non-existing. Want to see how to properly manage revenues from a non-renewable resource, look at Norway.

Way to COMPLETELY take my sentence out of context. See, right after I said that I also said that equalization and such makes it more challenging for Alberta to develop a quality wealth fund than the likes of Norway. And having federal politicians like these NDPers and PET screwing with us doesn't help either.

You even took out the attribution, I can only assume to make it more difficult to find the context.

Nevertheless, I agree that Alberta has done a piss-poor job managing oil revenues. But that doesn't mean that the oil revenues haven't been good for us, just not as good as they could be.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

If this was the ostensible reason to develop the resource then I might support it. But considering there is absolutely no overarching policy framework that describes this reasoning or instruments in place with a forward looking mandate to shift Alberta's economy to one unreliant on fossil fuels then it's pretty dubious to suggest that this is the reason why the resource is being developed so fast. This is the all eggs in one basket, look no further than the tip of your nose economic policy and it's frighteningly disregard's the livelihood and environment of future Albertans.

I think where you're mistaken is that the disregard for the future is on the spending / income tax side, not in how we're generating resource revenue. To pass up money now to try to single-handedly fix global warming would be incredibly reckless and almost completely ineffective. Intentionally cooling the economy to the point where we become competitive in industries other than energy or investing in diversification at a time where the economy is running hot is a waste of money, and thus a waste of our natural resources.

Would it be great if we were competitive with China in, say, textile manufacturing? Of course not, because it would mean we have dirt cheat labour which would mean we have low incomes.

[Tinordi]

There's definietely an argument that money made or GDP grown now is more valuable than deferring growth to avoid costs in the future. First, you could likely address the costs easier in the future if you're richer from the growth now. That's the theory.

I'm not saying that Alberta shouldn't exploit it's natural resources. I'm saying that just blindly accepting that this is the one and only economic course for the province and country is stupid.

There's a wide spectrum of debate of how much or little development of the oil sands is optimal for a full social accounting method. I think we would both agree on that.

I think it could be a key strategic error to be so heavily dependent on one sector for growth. A sector that has a host of problems with it both immediately and in the long-term. If you think these oil sands issues are going away think again. The defacto response seems to be that whenever they're threatened, the government rallies harder to defend them.

I would much rather see an aggressive royalty regime installed to ensure that Albertans are maximizing the value of the rents of oil, because after all, that bitumen belongs to all Albertans. I would also implement leading edge regulations like carbon pricing to strategically place oil sands production at the lead of clean oil development even if it meant that marginal projects would drop off with current oil prices. Increased royalties would be spent on innovation and R&D of all stripes, and the regulations may place Alberta as a leader in clean fuel development.

All in all though, I would say there's alot of agreement between you and I on this issue. I'm just much more concerned with the long game and the environment which is the basis for all our wealth generation.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

All in all though, I would say there's alot of agreement between you and I on this issue. I'm just much more concerned with the long game and the environment which is the basis for all our wealth generation.

Thing is we're doing pretty well on environmental issues where it's within our capablities. Acid rain is pretty much gone thanks to our sulphur recovery regulations. Land disturbances are vastly smaller with SAGD compared to mining... and frankly, land disturbance isn't unique to the oilsands. Everything from building houses to industrial activity disturbs land. The key is reclamation, and we do that too.

The big environmental issue right now is carbon emissions. The thing about carbon is it does not matter where the emissions come from. Unilateral action on carbon in Alberta will do nothing for Alberta's environment, and would be pretty negligible globally as well (0.1% of global emissions).

One thing to realize is that if the future of energy is a global carbon tax, our economy is already somewhat future-proofed. Carbon capture technology works, and implementing it will keep the engineers and constructors busy. Plus unlike most places, for us the carbon isn't just a waste stream that needs to be disposed of - we can use it to get more oil!

[3 Justin 3]

Originally Posted by Aegypticus

Is it bad that I take this very personally? I'm asking honestly. I'm not directly involved in the oil and gas industry, but this feels like betrayal. Is that a legitimate reaction?

Completely legitimate reaction. In my opinion this is like a low form of treason. Environmentalists have too much control these days.

That is too say, I don't care that the NDP are opposed to the oil-sands, let them voice their opinion to the rest of Canada. They have no business going down to the US government and complaining, they have no legitimate power.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by 3 Justin 3

Completely legitimate reaction. In my opinion this is like a low form of treason. Environmentalists have too much control these days.

That is too say, I don't care that the NDP are opposed to the oil-sands, let them voice their opinion to the rest of Canada. They have no business going down to the US government and complaining, they have no legitimate power.

If the NDP won the election and Harper was leading the opposition, the official stance of the federal government would be "we don't like it."

Would you find it treasonous if your elected federal representative went to the States to support the pipeline as it gained popularity?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Gozer

If the NDP won the election and Harper was leading the opposition, the official stance of the federal government would be "we don't like it."

Would you find it treasonous if your elected federal representative went to the States to support the pipeline as it gained popularity?

Why would anyone oppose their elected officials doing their job....you know SUPPORTING job creation and growing the economy.

The NDP are a complete joke and after they enjoy their 4 years of offical opposition gained from garnering votes from those who want to seperate from Canada, they will likely find themselves back in the rear rows of the losing side of the next election. They just don't get it and never have and never will.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by SebC

The big environmental issue right now is carbon emissions. The thing about carbon is it does not matter where the emissions come from. Unilateral action on carbon in Alberta will do nothing for Alberta's environment, and would be pretty negligible globally as well (0.1% of global emissions).

One thing to realize is that if the future of energy is a global carbon tax, our economy is already somewhat future-proofed. Carbon capture technology works, and implementing it will keep the engineers and constructors busy. Plus unlike most places, for us the carbon isn't just a waste stream that needs to be disposed of - we can use it to get more oil!

This is something I feel often gets left out of debates on oil sands usage. The move, globally, is towards carbon-capture technologies and programs. I don't think it's unreasonable to think that Alberta could be a global leader in this industry. Given regulatory incentive I think Albertan companies could become the premier innovator and supplier of carbon capture technologies and systems globally.

I do think the regulatory incentive is required. It needs to be a good idea NOW for companies to develop and implement these technologies in order for us to be able to dominate the industry in the future.

It's why I don't think it actually matters if global warming/climate change is anthropogenic or not. The impetus to economic and technological development which will result from tackling carbon and other greenhouse-gas emissions will prove beneficial alone, regardless of their ecological impact.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why would anyone oppose their elected officials doing their job....you know SUPPORTING job creation and growing the economy.

Supporting job creation and growing the economy is not the sole job of an elected official. A good elected official should consider all the concerns of their constituents, both short and long term, and then make their decisions based on their analysis of those concerns. If an elected official determines that it is better (preferably in the long term, but it's usually a short-term consideration, and ideally the consideration should be the actual well being of their constituents, not merely the political repercussions) for them to oppose a particular project then they should do so.

It is profoundly unwise to run societies entirely like businesses. It always has been and it always will be.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Why would anyone oppose their elected officials doing their job....you know SUPPORTING job creation and growing the economy.

Originally Posted by Barack Obama, via Reuters

"I think folks in Nebraska, like all across the country, aren't going to say to themselves, 'we'll take a few thousand jobs' if it means that our kids are potentially drinking water that would damage their health or if ... rich land that is so important to agriculture in Nebraska ends up being adversely affected"

Barack wants to re-examine bypassing a fragile part of Nebraska's ecosystem. The route favoured by Nebraska was deemed to expensive by the State department; a state department that is being accused of being in bed with a former-Clinton aide / current-lobbyist for an oil company.

http://motherjones.com/blue-marble/2...scanada-elliot


Seems like they're trying to do their job to me.

[Ozy_Flame]

Originally Posted by transplant99

The NDP are a complete joke and after they enjoy their 4 years of offical opposition gained from garnering votes from those who want to seperate from Canada, they will likely find themselves back in the rear rows of the losing side of the next election. They just don't get it and never have and never will.

How do you figure that? They'd have to #### up pretty badly to do that, and I doubt anyone who voted for them (especially in Quebec) is going to oppose their actions so far, including going to Washington and questioning the tar sands.

It's so easy for Albertans to lay the smack down on the NDP, yet people on the other side of the country think quite differently - and that is unlikely to change.