[MrBill]

Well, considering my family lives in N. Alberta and are mixed farmers I guess I have my own opinions based on personal experience & first hand knowledge, too. I do have a degree in Agriculture & Forestry, so I do know a little about soil science and plant & animal biology, but I don't pretend to be an expert. But, those that in my family that do not work on the farm are split between oil field mechanic, pipeline welder, school teachers, pharmacist and of course me, the black sheep, a banker.

RE Edmonton & Calgary. Okay, now you are attacking me about N. Alberta where previously there was no economic development. As I have explained this is a semi-arid area, short growing season, below average temperatures, thin, gray wooded soil area, which is not suitable for agriculture, ranching or silviculture. And, everyone is up in arms.

Where is most of the growth and the greatest density of population in Alberta? Between Edmonton and Calgary. The farmland north of Olds and Red Deer up to Edmonton is some of the best farmland in Canada. Three feet of dark topsoil that is rich in biomass. Centuries of prairie grasses have built-up this soil until it is 10X more productive per acre than the thin gray soils. Where is the urban sprawl from Edmonton, Red Deer and down to Calgary? Right on the most productive farmland in Alberta.

So, don't worry so much about the bush north of Edmonton if you are not equally outraged about urban sprawl and all its costs as well. I know which one I am more concerned about.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

So, don't worry so much about the bush north of Edmonton if you are not equally outraged about urban sprawl and all its costs as well. I know which one I am more concerned about

can you speak to the drought that Alberta has been facing for the past few years? Waht effect has this been having on all that wonderful farm land?

We, in BC, were asked last year to send hay out to farmers, or asked to be foster homes to their animals because they couldn't feed them and it was either that or put the animals down.

So, if the farm land is so great, why did they need to reach out to the rest of the country to feed their livestock?

[aflurry]

RE Canada, the USA and N. America. Umm, yes, Canada is a sovereign country and we are pretty proud of it. No, we don't need Americans telling us what to do. Get used to it.

Where did this sudden nationalistic nonsequiter come from... oh, I know - it was one of the any random pieces of nonsensical abuse you could pick up to throw at "environmentalists" which doesn't even have relevence to the discussion.
environmental interdependence is a challenge to the notion of complete ownership of land, whether by individuals, nations, or corporations.
so what you live there?

well I'm glad you are walking the talk....unfortunately you are one amoungst several million who don't.... Pointing fingers at the nasty oil and gas companies at the same time as complaining about gasoline prices is an all too common practice.

i agreee about the complaining about oil prices. we are going to have to cut usage. prices will be the only force painful enough to spur this movement. but that (the complaining) is actually not part of any environmentalist platform that i would consider legitimate. this paragraph is mischaracterization, oversimplification, and just rhetorical noise.

sure there are plenty of people who want the world to be cleaner and easier without personal sacrifice... i believe that is what you are selling in the oil sands venture. these people are not environmentalists. they are standartd issue consumers, who are not bad people, want to help the environment in their small way, so they recycle, they may buy organic. It is largely ineffectual. But it has nothing to do with hypocricy on the part of environmentalists. On the other had, telling them they can cointinue with this charade if they let the ANWR drilling go, or the tar sands ventures, or any other polluting money grab, and that the real problem is the foney baloney environmentalists "making a killing" on their research grants and their fancy science jobs. well, that is hypocritical.

If you think the world can suddenly go to subsistent farming then you've been consuming some of the pointy mushrooms a bit too often.

yes. environmentalists are really just cavemen who got trapped in a time machine and want only to go back to the hunting and gathering which is all they know.

any sort of depleting resource, like tar sands, will have a peak in production. In the US we would have been better off if the world had peaked with the lower 48. our economic infrastructure was more localized and decentralized (closer to subsistence farming, if only by a little) and could have weathered overshoot better.
we are that much worse off now, if we suddenly find a cheap source for 20 more years, there's a good bet we will be even less prepared when the peak finally comes, and the catastrophe to people and planet will be even more extreme. the answer does not lie in further extraction. we need to deal with this dilemma now - even though it is going to hurt.

(and no they don't leave huge polluted holes in the ground anymore).

... if this is true, and such grand cozy statements rarely are... it is very good evidence that the pressures from environmentalists are very necessary, and that the need to be encouraged and continued.

i know of several big defunct copper mines in new mexico that are staying open with a skeleton crew so they will never have to pay for that reclaimation... and meanwhile the water table is being poisoned in the area. there are so many ways to claim to be clean by definition. and some damage you can't see in picutures.

[rockdoc123]

this paragraph is mischaracterization, oversimplification, and just rhetorical noise.

pure horse pucky....many of the same people complaining about big oil polluting the world also want the price of gasoline to be low enough so they can drive to the beach every weekend. What rock have you been living under?

On the other had, telling them they can cointinue with this charade if they let the ANWR drilling go, or the tar sands ventures, or any other polluting money grab, and that the real problem is the foney baloney environmentalists "making a killing" on their research grants and their fancy science jobs. well, that is hypocritical.

Uhh...perhaps you need to look up the dictionary definition of hypocritical. And second off, if you had read anything previously the environmental controls on oil extraction of any kind in Alberta are second to none and both Suncor and Syncrude take environmental stewardship very seriously. They are not polluting money grabs.....they are there to make money but only because there is someone who wants to buy their product...sure just like a drug dealer and a crack addict but getting rid of the drug dealers doesn't solve the problem.

the answer does not lie in further extraction. we need to deal with this dilemma now - even though it is going to hurt

right....well you and David Suzuki will be happy together in your backyard gardens.....what...oh, wait a minute I forgot David Suzuki lives in a million dollar shack on Point Grey boulevard that dumbs effluent straight into the ocean....which of course he gets to in his Honda civic. Point is everyone likes to talk about it....and that is all you are going to get...the oil sands developed can offer a "softer landing" (for lack of a better phrase) and if it can be developed in an environmentally sound fashion then it is worth doing.

if this is true, and such grand cozy statements rarely are... it is very good evidence that the pressures from environmentalists are very necessary, and that the need to be encouraged and continued.

i know of several big defunct copper mines in new mexico that are staying open with a skeleton crew so they will never have to pay for that reclaimation... and meanwhile the water table is being poisoned in the area. there are so many ways to claim to be clean by definition. and some damage you can't see in picutures.

the ground water is monitored continually as are rivers, streams etc. for minerals, faecal colliform, sediment load etc. Deviation from the standards set out in Provincial legislation results in fines, a limited time to clean up the problem or closure. Unlike the US Alberta environmental law, and that of BC as well are strongly enforced.

Interestingly enough I have not seen one of the parties on this thread who claim the oil sands is destroying the environment come up with a reference to where they read such a statement.

[fossilnut2]

One quote got me. Ha! Ha!

From an American, of course:

"Maybe I'm not a citizen of Canada, but I am a citizen of the Northern Hemisphere. So it's my world too, eh? "

The typical American view. 'what's mine is mine but what's yours is ours.'

I hope all the folks in California, NYC and 'wherever' are knocking down their malls, schools, roads, etc. and turning it back into natural ecosystems. Hopefully none of them drink wine from California or eat bread made of grains from the Midwest or walk on wood floors from Georgia forests. All environments destroyed yet well within the American ability to restore...but they choose not to.

[rockdoc123]

can you speak to the drought that Alberta has been facing for the past few years? Waht effect has this been having on all that wonderful farm land?

well lets see this year has seen the most precipitation since somwhere near the turn of the century. The government quite bothering with reporting on streamflow levels...they were all full, all of the time. So hardly a drought.....in fact the farmers have been whining about too much rain.

[fossilnut2]

Drought??

The wettest year on record. I felt sorry for the beavers. Whenever I walk along our river I see a dozen of the overworked rodents going full out trying to re-dam the world. We even had a jubilant otter running around our garden splashing in the mud between the rows of potatoes.

[Heineken]

One quote got me. Ha! Ha!

From an American, of course:

"Maybe I'm not a citizen of Canada, but I am a citizen of the Northern Hemisphere. So it's my world too, eh? "

The typical American view. 'what's mine is mine but what's yours is ours.'

I hope all the folks in California, NYC and 'wherever' are knocking down their malls, schools, roads, etc. and turning it back into natural ecosystems. Hopefully none of them drink wine from California or eat bread made of grains from the Midwest or walk on wood floors from Georgia forests. All environments destroyed yet well within the American ability to restore...but they choose not to.

Incorrect, Nut. I'm quite willing to share the world with you.

You are simply sideswiping my views and generalizing (incorrectly) from them to those of what you call the typical American.

Your posts and those of Mr. Bill read like political commercials. Pure oil propaganda.

For your sake, I hope the growing antipathy between Canadians and Americans (noted not just on this board, but in many other communications I've witnessed) doesn't go too far in the years and decades ahead.

[fossilnut2]

It's nice that 'you' want to share the world. Unfortunately 'you' are part of a larger collective called the United States. Using up multiples more than your quota isn't sharing but taking. 'You' are using up a quarter of the world's oil production....'you' rip up natural land to plant vinyards, orange orchards, plant grains, build subdivisions, and so on.

It really doesn't matter what you as an individual think when 'you' the country is what counts in the real world and destroys it's own environment. I've been to 49 of the 50 US states and it's absurd for Americans to preach to Albertans or Canadians about environmental degregation. With exception of Alaska and a couple western states your country is a big blight crisscrossed with roads, fences, towns every 10 miles, etc. I can leave Fort McMurray (the heart of the oilsands) and walk east 5000 kms, north 4000kms and most likely never see another human being and with the exception of a few small roads in the first couple hundred kms, no evidence of humans.

Once Americans start returning millions of acres to natural ecology then we'll listen to Americans. After all they claim to have 'the Truth'. There is nothing more empty that the patronizing of a self-righteous hypocrite (whether an individual or a country). It reminds me of Bush's warning on Iraq last month 'We will not tolerate foreign fighters on Iraq soil'.

Now go put your hand over your heart and recite the Pledge of Allegience 10 times.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

They won't line up but I think you'll get the idea if you are really interested. Somehow environment Canada doesn't have any mention of the record you mentioned. Perhaps if you tell me your locality so I can look up your city to substantiate the record rain level.

According to environment Canada the last record made or broken in Alberta was in 1999-2000. If you have another source I'd appreciate a link.


Edmonton Jan Feb Mar Apr May June Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 10.4 4 6.9 43.4 40.9 66.3 75.6 69.5 60.5 23.7 8.6 4.6
Date (yyyy/dd) 1971/07 1991/15 1972/23 1990/23 1991/13 1970/30 1990/03 1980/28 1969/04 1981/08 1971/19 1985/18


Calgary
Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 7.6 6.4 23.4 37.1 65 79.2 95.3 80.8 92.6 45.7 9.2 6.4
Date (yyyy/dd) 1902/07 1885/26 1910/23 1912/30 1902/18 1932/01 1927/15 1945/25 1985/12 1915/01 1992/27 1885/03

High River Alberta

Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 4.8 1.5 44.5 96.3 76.5 160.5 59.2 73.4 59.2 38.1 9.4 2.5
Date (yyyy/dd) 1953/08 1953/10+ 1910/23 1932/25 1927/23 1926/19 1942/29 1902/17 1940/13+ 1929/17 1998/01 1974/21

Red Deer
Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 12.8 4 5.2 21.8 37.8 47 97.4 71.9 39.4 17.1 7 4
Date (yyyy/dd) 1980/23 1991/15 1984/21 1991/02 1986/14 1988/08 1981/29 1978/16 1985/12 1989/24 1987/03 1999/20

Grand Prarie

Extreme Daily Rainfall (mm) 5.8 4.6 10.9 17.3 32.7 77.5 66.8 90 39.1 38.9 17 7.6
Date (yyyy/dd) 1977/17 1963/26 1944/16 1962/28 1984/16 1965/27 1982/14 1994/05 1991/01 1943/04 1957/22 1950/24

[rockdoc123]

this from the Cochrane weather station in June.....believe me we aren't making this up there was serious flooding in Calgary and other parts of southern Alberta.....there is no drought. The June rainfall was referred to as a 200 year event.

As of this writing, the weather station has recorded 312 mm (12.3 inches) of rain this month. This compares to 99 mm (3.9 inches) for the long-term average, and 480 mm (19 inches) for the average yearly rainfall. This means that the June rainfall to date (most of which fell in the space of 3 weeks) amounts to two-thirds of the average precipitation for an entire year! No wonder Alberta is reeling from severe flooding and bloated streams!

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

I can't find Cochran in the weater stations listings, what is it near?

I would like to point out that even a record month of rain isn't enough to keep a crop growing properly all growing season long. A farmers perspective is probably a lot different.

[threadbear]

Americans used to believe their wild lands and natural resources were unlimited too, fossilnut. The sad fact is, it can all go very quickly. Also, damage to ecosystems isn't always apparent to the untrained eye on a country drive or hike.

That has nothing to do with hysteria.

'Untrained eye'? that's so patronizing. We're not bumpkins up here. Albertans are the best educated population in the western world. More post-secondary educated adults than anywhere else. We value our ecosystems and take great measures to preserve it. My city, Calgary, has 2 of the 3 largest wilderness areas (not just 'parks') within an urban setting in North America.

Have you been to the tarsands? Drive north to Fort McMurray and then, once your there, drive further north, east or west. You'll drive a hundred miles without reaching the next gas station...in some directions you'll never reach one, period.

Go back to the original post. What's the purpose? 11 sq miles? Hysteria without any perspective or reality check. Reminds me of the recent post about 'is Mt Everest sinking' because of oil extraction....or the one showing Niagra Falls and getting all googly-eyed because someone has no perspective of volumes of liquid and the size of the Earth.

Admit it, Fossilnut, Bumpkin is a real sweet way of saying cornpone boneheads in stretch pants with big hair, cinder blocks for hearts, and beady little eyes scanning the horizon for the next financial opp-or-tun-ity.

But hell, if you ever want to watch re-runs of Three's Company and eat pizza while kicking back in the barcalounger, the Albertans are your kind of people. They have been successfully taught to barbeque "critters" and some are familiar with sign language, allowing them to communicate with beings at a similar developmental level, like KoKo the gorilla

[rockdoc123]

I would like to point out that even a record month of rain isn't enough to keep a crop growing properly all growing season long. A farmers perspective is probably a lot different.

By the end of July this year Southern Alberta had recieved more rainfall than the annual average for the province over the past thirty years....this is on environment Canada's website so not sure how you could miss it. And as I mentioned already the farmers have been complaining all year...first because the heavy rains in the spring made for late planting and second the considerable amount of rain recieved in September made them leave their crops in the fields for too long.

Perhaps you should ask FossilNut who appears to actually live on a farm in northern Alberta.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

Perhaps you should ask FossilNut who appears to actually live on a farm in northern Alberta

BEcause I prefer quantifiable and verifiable statistics. Most people are far too subjective in their oppinions. and if you have a link to the page on environment canada that you say is so hard to miss or can tell me where that little town is it would be appreciated.

[MrBill]

RE feeding cattle and the drought

Well, yes, due to the border with the US many farmers had to feed cattle year round and due to a drought in S. Alberta last year there was insufficient pasture or hay, so we either had to import the feed or export the cattle.

That was in S. Alberta where there is less rain and the soil is not as good as in central Alberta. Fort McMurray is in N. Alberta. A different climate zone and a different soil profile. I am sure you can find a soil survey map either at the Province of Alberta or from the University of Alberta, if you're having trouble to imagine a big place like Alberta having different climates and soil zones.

That was last year. This year as mentioned there has been too much rain. No doubt also caused by oil & gas activity in Alberta?

Going back to the original article in the NYTimes comparing Alberta to Florida. You may want to read the October 6th copy of The Economist about the Everglades in Florida. An area 100X/1000X more ecologically diverse and more fragile than N. Alberta and no political will at the federal, state or local level to do anything concrete about it. For shame. At least Alberta has a plan for regeneration even if some may perceive it as flawed.

A vast environmental project in Florida with lessons for the post-Katrina clean-up

[Heineken]

Mr. Bill: You just don't get it. You keep citing environmental damage in the U.S. as "justification" for oil-sands-related damage in Alberta. But I don't think where you were born has anything to do with it. True environmentalists are essentially borderless. If anything transcends borders and the idiocy of nationalism, nature does.

Although my citizenship is American, my own point of view on the oil-sands issue (and that of many other Americans who are alarmed by it) is represented not at all in American policy. You won't get any defensive arguments from me regarding the Bush junta's criminal approach to the environment. I'm as acidly critical of that lot as you are.

By pointing to places like the Everglades, you're using an all-too-obvious tactic to try deflect attention from the giant toxic pit growing in your own back yard.

[MrBill]

You are right. All development causes environmental degradation to a certain extent no matter how benign. Some environmental projects cause more than others. Urban sprawl is a big one as it not only paves over agricultural land & coastal areas through a quirk of history that some of our cities sit on or near the best land, but also because decentralization make mass transit less effective and commuting is grossly inefficient. However, putting it all in perspective is important if you cannot ban all economic development.

Damage to a sensitive, unique environment, is not the same as less damage to another less unique and less sensitive environment. N. Alberta is not a tropical rain forest, the Arctic, a marine environment or anything that ecologically diverse, and N. Alberta's envirnment is not inextricably linked to another environment's survival, like for example a river delta is to a coastline's integrity from erosion and storms.

Alberta is taking pains to protect its environment. We do have good scientists at the University of Alberta and in other centers of higher learning. We do have Environment Canada as well as Provincial regulators. Syncrude and Suncor have been operating in this area for over 30-years. Why has this all of sudden become a rallying point for you? Why has this not been on your radar long ago? It is not just about winning the environmental war of sustainable development and preservation of as many diverse species as possible, but also picking your battles if you care at all about winning.

I spend a lot of my free time and my holidays hiking, biking, swimming in the sea, cross country & back country skiing, and enjoying the outdoors and nature. I want to see a good, clean environment as much as anyone. More so than people who just think about the environment in the abstract. WWF & Ducks Unlimited are two of my favorite charities and conservation groups because they actually preserve wetlands and other environmentally sensitive areas. I am as green as anyone, I just think you and others have picked the wrong battle and have blown the observable facts out of proportion to the problem.

[uNkNowN ElEmEnt]

I was originally talking about ground water not rain water.

“People are less willing to accept the pronouncements of industry and government that everything is okay. Anyone who lives in rural Alberta knows things are not okay.”
— Martha Kostuch, veterinarian and long-time environmental activist

Wiebo Ludwig might be the most prominent and outspoken farmer in Alberta when it comes to the issue of sour gas and the alleged negative environmental impact, but he is by no means alone in his crusade. As you read the following cases, note the similarities between Ludwig’s concerns and those of the other farmers, below. If you were an oil company executive or a government official how would you react to these situations?

Wayne and Ida Johnston, Sundre, Alberta
The Johnstons run a small beef farm just outside Sundre, Alberta. The farm is surrounded by more than a dozen flaring gas wells and several gas plants owned and operated by Shell Oil. In 1994, at the beginning of the calving season, a nearby pipeline carrying sour gas started to leak. Shortly after, the Johnstons lost 26 calves to irritated lungs and hypothermia. Many of the calves’ hooves just fell off, and many of the cows lost their appetites and their hair. The Alberta Research Council found that the animals showed signs of neurological damage “compatible with exposure to assorted hydrocarbons in other species. . . . No consistent pattern of disease could explain the high death losses observed in calves on the ranches.” A study by Shell, one that did not include autopsies of the animals, suggested that the cold weather was responsible for their deaths.

Joan Fossom, Cadogen, Alberta
Joan Fossom runs a cow-calf operation with her husband just outside Cadogen, Alberta. She has been fighting with an oil company for almost a year, trying to get them to clean up an oil spill that is threatening the family’s drinking water. She is frustrated that neither the government nor the small oil company responsible for the spill has come to clean up the mess. Although she doesn’t agree with the tactics of environmental terrorists, she does understand their anger. “We need an organization that will take oil companies by the shirt collar and say, ‘Clean this up.’ Do we have to force our own government to protect the environment?”

Cy Skinner, Provost, Alberta
In 1993, Cy Skinner went to the Energy and Utility Board (EUB) to prove that gas leaks near his dairy farm had been responsible for the death of some of his cattle and had reduced milk production by 35 per cent. Although he was successful with his suit, the whole process cost him $200 000. The oil company involved cleaned up the gas leak but has not reimbursed him for any of the costs associated with the suit, the lost cattle, or his reduced milk production.

Bill and John Bobock, Edmonton, Alberta
By all accounts, brothers Bill and John Bobock are ideal farmers. They have received awards for their treatment of animals and have a reputation with farm hands as being great employers. Their farm just north of Edmonton has been in the family for three generations and is said to be exceptionally well-run. In 1991, after a well just south of their property flared up, they started to notice that their dairy cows were starting to abort. Other cows were giving birth to twin calves at an alarming rate. This is bad news for a dairy farmer since female twin calves are almost always sterile. By 1993, 32 cows had to be replaced. Although the health of the cows is a major worry for the brothers, it does not compare to the human costs. Bill’s wife, Phyllis, was just diagnosed with a low-grade lymphoma.

Wayne Roberts, Bowden, Alberta
In October 1998, Wayne Roberts, a rancher near Bowden, was charged with killing Patrick Kent, a Calgary oil executive. Roberts had been embroiled in a two-year dispute with Kent’s company, KB Resources, over a contaminated well site situated on Roberts’ ranch. Kent was shot when he came onto Roberts’ land to inspect the contaminated well. Roberts, who did not have a criminal record at the time, was charged with first-degree murder. A dozen Alberta farmers set up a defence fund for Roberts, which could be an indication of just how much sympathy other farmers feeling for his predicament

[Heineken]

Understood, Mr. Bill; thanks. I know you're not a bad guy; I just think you have some mistaken notions.

The foundation of my philosophy on these matters is that "development" must reverse if our civilization is to be saved at least in part. We can't keep making compromises on environmental issues (comprises that usually favor development, by the way). We have to start healing the planet, not continue to inflict deep and potentially unhealable wounds. I do not accept your assurances that the damages and pollution caused by oil-sands mining can be readily repaired by people. Similar reclamation efforts in West Virginia and Colorado have not been successful; streams and rivers remain obstinately polluted decades after mining operations cease.

I believe, with Heinberg and a host of others, that our current trajectory is unsustainable and will end in disaster if not immediately altered, aka "powered down."

We have to reduce the size of the human footprint, not expand it or even attempt to maintain it. I'm well aware that we're not going to do so, however, which is why I'm deeply pessimistic about the future.

I submit that many Albertans are biased on this issue because of the potential for financial gain, either direct or indirect. That's only human nature, of course. But human nature is increasingly at odds with sustainability.