Category: Alberta Oil Sands

It was never my intention to turn this blog into an “embarrassing things Ed Stelmach said today” blog, but our Premier really isn’t doing a good job deterring me.

Last week, Alberta Tory Premier Ed Stelmach lashed out the United Nations for unfairly targeting Alberta as Canadian soldiers are serving in Afghanistan, this week Stelmach lashed out at Liberal Opposition MLAs for being “subversive” and not having pride in Alberta for questioning the government’s $25-million oilsands rebranding campaign during a budget debate.

Myself, I have lots of pride in my home province of Alberta. That’s why I’d rather my government spent the $25-million on figuring out how to clean up the oilsands and 50 square kilometers of toxic tailing ponds in northern Alberta, rather than spend it on a $25-million international advertising campaign. I guess that makes me a subversive too.

Here’s the debate from Alberta Hansard:

Mr. Hugh MacDonald: Interesting.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would remind the hon. Premier that in a democracy the Official Opposition has a role to make sure that the government remains accountable. Whenever you see govern-ment spending increase at such a dramatic rate as it has, there have to be questions asked. Why is it necessary for this budget to be the way it is? You may not like it, but it’s a function of democracy, and it’s worked quite well.

Now, on page 70 of the fiscal plan Executive Council is again listed. We have the 2008-09 ministry expense by function, and there are many different functions here. There’s a breakdown for health, education, social services, environment, general government. I’m surprised that some of your Public Affairs Bureau money wouldn’t be under this title because so much of it is going to be used for the greenwashing program. Specific to economic development, if you look, for instance, at Agriculture and Rural Development, it has a billion dollars set aside in that function, but there’s none for Executive Council. It’s just the $ 30 million. Why?

The Deputy Chair: The hon. Premier.

Mr. Ed Stelmach: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The earlier comment with respect to the role of opposition is exactly right. The role of opposition in a democratic government is very important, but it’s not to be subversive. There’s a big difference. It’s a big difference. Once again, you hear comments made that are not just critical of government, but they lead to innuendo. Unfortunately, this kind of behaviour extends past this Assembly, which has a tremendous history, more than a hundred-year history. If you want to play that game, I can play it.

In terms of the $ 25 million, that will be invested in the Public Affairs Bureau to rebrand the province. It will be there, and I will defend it no matter how much the opposition wants to degrade the province of Alberta, and I’ll continue to do it because I am very proud of my province. I share the pride of every member in this Assembly. If they don’t have that same pride, well, that’s up to them, but I do, and so do my colleagues.

Mr. MacDonald: Certainly, no member on this side of the House degrades Alberta, and for the Premier to suggest that is completely off base.

Now, getting to the national Portrait Gallery, on page 113 of the fiscal plan. Is the Premier’s office involved in this $ 40 million budget amount, and what will happen to this money if neither Calgary nor Edmonton are successful? Where will this $ 40 million go? Will it go into another propaganda campaign?

Mr. Stelmach: We don’t have a propaganda campaign, so I don’t know what he’s saying about another one. I’m not clear.

Mr. MacDonald: Okay. Thank you very much.

I think the most interesting thing is that these types of comments by our Premier probably do more to undermine the $25-million oilsands rebranding campaign than any opposition party could.

Alberta may get a well deserved bad rap for the extreme environmental consequences of the oil sands and tailing ponds, but it’s important to recognize that, like anywhere, most of the people who call Fort McMurray home aren’t all that bad…

Local giving tops in Canada again

By KRISTY NEASE
Today staff
Thursday May 08, 2008

Fort McMurray has once again been named Canada’s most generous community, topping the United Way of Canada’s list of cities on a per capita basis during the 2007 United Way campaign.

In Fort McMurray, residents contributed $58.62 per capita to the United Way, a 25 per cent increase from 2006. During that campaign, local citizens gave just under $4 million.

Calgary trailed Fort McMurray with $46.28 per capita raised, followed by Toronto at $43.18 and Ottawa at $38.55. The city of Estevan, Sask., rounded out the top five with $28.51 raised per capita.

United Way executive Rod McDonald is pleased with the news.

“We really pulled away from the pack this year with our 25 per cent rise from 2006, which I think is just unheard of,” McDonald said during an interview. “I’m proud of our citizens who care so much about the social fabric of our community… We’ve certainly built up a sizeable lead between first and second.”

In the past, according to McDonald, Fort McMurray often closely trailed larger centers like Calgary and Toronto on the annual list. But in 2005 the community placed first, though the numbers were close.

But the good news is certainly welcome to more than those at the United Way office: the organization funds 24 social and health services agencies in Fort McMurray directly, according to its website.

Maj. David Bray and his wife Elaine have been working for the Salvation Army in Fort McMurray for almost five years. The Salvation Army Emergency Shelter, just one part of the operations Bray and his wife oversee in the community, received $250,000 from the UWFM in 2007. And for 2008, Bray said he would be surprised if the same or a slightly higher amount isn’t offered.

Bray said the UWFM money is “fundamental in funding our Community Response Unit and the Family Services Department.”

As of last Monday, for example, the Army’s Community Response Unit is serving meals in the evening to the homeless population in Fort McMurray previously taken care of by the Mat program.

Bray said the United Way’s first-place standing for money raised in Canada “makes you feel good and excited because Fort McMurray is a great place, and the residents and companies out here of course have an interest in helping the more vulnerable in our midst.

“To see them come through for our United Way campaign is just fantastic,” he said.
Gayle Phillips, executive director of the Fort McMurray Boys and Girls Club, also said the news is very positive.

“It shows that Fort McMurray has very caring and giving people… It puts Fort McMurray on the map.”

“It’s one of those good news stories people say they never hear,” McDonald said. “The spirit of giving is alive and well in Fort McMurray, and here’s the proof.”

(h/t to BR for the story)

Syncrude Canada President and CEO Tom Katinas has offered “a heartfelt and sincere apology” after the nearly 500 ducks were killed after landing in Syncrude’s Aurora north tailing ponds. Syncrude’s apology is fine, but it doesn’t address the real problem of the tar sands and tailing ponds.

The tar sands are driving Alberta’s economic engine, and in a time of continental economic insecurity, Alberta’s can play a central role in providing some economic stability. This said, the future environmental costs of how the tar sands are currently extracted are too high for my liking.

It’s time that Albertans took ownership of this debate and brought it in to the kitchens and coffee shops of the province. The real debate around the tar sands isn’t about money or power, it’s about Alberta’s future.

The death of nearly 500 ducks and their contamination of the food chain is just the tip of the iceberg and opens an opportunity for Albertans to engage in a wider debate on the issue, much like they did during the resource royalty debate of 2007.

The effects of current tar sands extraction can be seen in a number of areas. Tar sands development has caused the rapid decline of indigenous animal species such as Woodlands Caribou herds, to name one. Some groups have suggested that the government compensate this loss by designating new protected areas to protect the species in the area.

Current tar sands operations also use an unsustainable amount of water from the Athabasca River basin – it currently takes up to 4.5 barrels of water to extract and upgrade a one barrel of bitumen from a tar sands mine. Companies extracting the tar sands are currently allowed to continue extracting water from the Athabasca River, even when river levels are at sitting at dangerously low levels.

Larry Pratt warned of the overuse of water and the resulting tailing ponds in the tar sands in his 1976 book, The Tar Sands: Syncrude and the Politics of Oil:

Another severe problem – as with most synthetic fuel projects – is that the existing technology will consume and pollute enormous volumes of fresh water from the Athabasca, only a portion of which can be treated and returned to the river. Disposal of the liquid wastes or tailings left over from the hot water extractions process constitutes the worst single ecological problem in the operation. At GCOS the plant draws in from 6,000 to 9,000 of fresh water the Athabasca every minute, but it returns a good deal less – the difference being stored in the steadily growing tailing ponds. The magnitude of this problem can be grasped from the fact that the tailings ponds being planned for Syncrude. Shell and the other plants will each cover nearly ten square miles of land. The tailings stream is composed of sand, hot water, unextracted oil, fine mineral and clay particles, and some highly toxic chemicals used in extraction. The water is so contaminated that much of it can neither be reused nor returned to the river. Another problem is that the clay particles take a very long time to settle and linger in a state of suspension, thus delaying recycling and reclamation. The result of this could be a truly massive accumulation of oily, polluted waste in large lakes on every developed lease. The GCOS tailings pond sits precariously on the edge of the river, and any serious break in a dyke or seepage underground could cause the ecological ruin of the Athabasca River – a major tributary of the whole Mackenzie system. Whether these oily, heated waste ponds will constitute a hazard to migrating birds is open to speculation. What is certain, however, is that the tailings problem will put pressure on the fresh water supply of the Athabasca: twenty plants would consume up to forty percent of all the river’s monthly flow. The planned in situ steam injection plants will also consume immense amount of available water and have an unknown effect on the groundwaters of the region.

Over the month of May, in hopes of generating some constructive debate on the tar sands, I will be writing about some of the important challenges facing Albertans on this issue. If we are going to allow our tar sands to be extracted, it shouldn’t be too much to ask that it be done in a responsible and sustainable manner.

Don’t hesitate to join the debate.

Deputy Premier Ron Stevens must have had a tough time during his last day re-branding the tar sands in Washington D.C. and the United States this week as his important government mission was rudely interrupted by 500 very inconsiderate ducks who broke provincial environmental regulations and landed in the Syncrude Aurora Northern Tailing Ponds.

Who do these ducks think they are? Interfering in Syncrude’s important tar sands operation? Interfering with Ed Stelmach and Mel Knight’s $25 million tar sands re-branding campaign? Interfering in the free market?

More shocking is the revelation that an “anonymous tipster” tipped off Alberta Environment and Alberta Sustainable Resource Development to the ducks’ interference. Just who is this “anonymous tipster?” Probably some socialist-Greenpeace-Liberal-hippie type still bitter from losing the last election.

In Alberta, we tough things out. We shoot, shovel, and shut up.

This incident highlights the damaging impact of the “natural” ecosystem on Alberta’s booming and prosperous oil economy.

As Alberta’s Tory Government unleashes its $25 million tar sands re-branding campaign, it looks like Premier Ed Stelmach and Energy Minister Mel Knight may be reading from different talking points…

Dr. Swann: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Will this minister and this Premier stand up and eliminate this $ 25 million propaganda campaign, redirecting the money to real change in Alberta?

Mr. Stelmach: No, we’re not going to do that. In fact, we do have a matter to deal with to make sure that all – all – people, those that invest in Alberta, those people that want to make Alberta their home, get the correct information. I can tell you that I’m not going to rely on that group or Greenpeace or Sierra Club to spread the misinformation not only in this province and this country but around the world.

And speaking of misinformation…

Mr. Knight: Mr. Speaker, thank you very much for affording me the opportunity here this afternoon to clarify a statement that I made in this Assembly on Thursday last. The statement was regarding nuclear energy and the Sierra Club. I have since learned it was incorrect. As soon as I learned that the statement was incorrect, I called the director of the Sierra Club and expressed regret for the error and assured her that it was not done with intent. Today I just want to take the opportunity to correct the record in the Assembly as well. I understand that the Sierra Club does not operate in Europe and does not support nuclear energy. My statement that this organization took out ads in Europe was, in fact, wrong.*

There’s been a lot of talk since after the election by Health & Wellness Minister Ron Liepert about reforming Alberta’s Health Care system (or as the Department of Health & Wellness website called it yesterday, Action Plan on Health 2008?2009). Liepert says that he’s putting everything on the table, including privatization. One has to wonder why Ed Stelmach, Liepert, or any of the 82 other Tory candidates mention anything about these types of reforms in that little thing called an election that happened only a couple of months ago (and politicians are confused when people don’t trust campaign promises?).

As the Edmonton Journal‘s Graham Thomson has pointed out, though Liepert is boisterous and gutsy in his talk about health-care reform, he has yet to show any real details of the Tories’ proposed action plan for reform. One has to wonder if Liepert’s health-care reform plan is just as rock solid as the Tories’ plan to improve the image of their environmental record? Forgive me if I sound like we’re just the victims of another round of typically predictable government spin…

Speaking of spin, I was a little surprised by Gary Lamphier‘s column yesterday in which he wrote about Albertans detestation of spin. While I don’t think anyone “likes” spin, Albertans certainly haven’t done anything to actively put a stop to the assembly-line factory of political spin that is the Public Affairs Bureau (in fact, giving the Stelmach Tories a 72-seat majority only seems to endorse it). Ironically, Lamphier’s article seems to be either an innocent victim or accessory to spin as he demonizes all those nutty environmentally conscious Albertans who have a problem with Alberta’s environmental record and the tar sands. I can see it now… Jeez, if only they’d take a brisk mid-night skinny dip in one of those nice tailing ponds up near Fort McMurray, they’d see it really isn’t all that bad…

I meant to post this earlier, but here we go anyway…

The Policy Channel and Cambridge Strategies are conducting an Alberta Oil Sands Survey. It asks some difficult and interesting questions, and is worth filling out.

And on that note, guess who showed up in Edmonton yesterday?