Oil sand companies cut off funding to agency tasked in giving the best scientific advise to them - why?

[avb3]

Twelve years ago, oilsand companies in the Fort McMurray area, agreed to be part of CEMA, the Cumulated Effects Management Agency. They have now threatened to cut of all the funding to this agency, which consists of oilsands operators, First Nations and environmental groups, all dealing with how to best implement science within the operations of the oil sands companies.

I wonder why there has been little or no discussion about this on AO?

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald...tml?id=8965014

http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/na...service=mobile

CEMA were advanced enough funds to operate January, but have no budget for the rest of there year.

Isn't it time for those that work in the field to voice their thoughts?

[skidderman]

I suspect only one reason. Negative bias against the oilsands. I don't blame them. Too many self interest groups. Like asking the liberals for advice on gun control.

[hillbillyreefer]

1. The Oil Co.s are paying the entire shot. Except the enviro's part which is payed by taxpayers. Ohhh, wait a minute, that is the Tax money generated by the Oil Cos too.

2. Anti oilsands bias.

3. Indians delaying every energy project proposed in the last 30 yrs. Once they get enough money they support the project until they run out of money again. Then blockade it.

4. The scientists have given answers that support oilsands development, but none of the urban environmental movement will listen.

5. Tired of dealing with smelly hippy environmentalists.

6. Windmills don't work. Oil is needed by the world so they are going to produce it, end of story.

[X bolt]

It's my understanding that CEMA is 100 percent funded by the big oil companies that work up there. Maybe they got to big for their britches and forgot who pays the bills and they are getting their chain yanked a bit.

[Sundancefisher]

If you are not working together to find solutions you are just a group trying to undermine others which is defeatist and begs the question why should I keep paying you to stab me in the back.

Sleuthing out problems and finding the solutions is key.

Just like with the avb2 global warming rants if one side refused to be constructive in their approach they tend to fail.

Maybe he can comment on how much the carbon credits are costing his to offset his Florida flights? Oh wait... he wants to complain about oil and gas and yet suck up as much as possible.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by hillbillyreefer

1. The Oil Co.s are paying the entire shot. Except the enviro's part which is payed by taxpayers. Ohhh, wait a minute, that is the Tax money generated by the Oil Cos too.

2. Anti oilsands bias.

There seem to be a lot of oil companies and industry groups that are on the board. One would surmise their viewpoint is heard loud and clear.

http://cemaonline.ca/index.php/about-us/cema-members

3. Indians delaying every energy project proposed in the last 30 yrs. Once they get enough money they support the project until they run out of money again. Then blockade it.

No blockades happening in the oilsands. Ft. McKay seems to work with night against the oil companies, buggy that does not mean there are not environmental concerns.

4. The scientists have given answers that support oilsands development, but none of the urban environmental movement will listen.

Cutting funding to CEMA means none of that scientific work will continue with the credibility it has as being independent.

5. Tired of dealing with smelly hippy environmentalists.

Many environmentalists are anything but smelly leftwing hippies.

6. Windmills don't work. Oil is needed by the world so they are going to produce it, end of story.

Windmills work just fine. They also bring some of their own issues to the table, albeit far less than oil sand extraction. Number one, they don't impact water use nor do they use a ton of natural gas to produce power.

That being said, oil will still be required for many reasons in The future.

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Windmills work just fine. They also bring some of their own issues to the table, albeit far less than oil sand extraction. Number one, they don't impact water use nor do they use a ton of natural gas to produce power.

That being said, oil will still be required for many reasons in The future.

avb2...add blinders back on.

If you want high cost and aethetically ugly very large and damaging footprints that kill birds and bats in the millions... Not to mention extremely unreliable...

They are wonderful then.

you can now take your blinders off.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

If you are not working together to find solutions you are just a group trying to undermine others which is defeatist and begs the question why should I keep paying you to stab me in the back.

Sleuthing out problems and finding the solutions is key.

That is the purpose of CEMA, to work credibility together. CAPP and it's members were making baby steps in having credible science assist in their members make positive scientific arguments for the industry and are walking away from that.

Just like with the avb2 global warming rants if one side refused to be constructive in their approach they tend to fail.

Maybe he can comment on how much the carbon credits are costing his to offset his Florida flights? Oh wait... he wants to complain about oil and gas and yet suck up as much as possible.

Irrelevant to this discussion and proof you don't read or retain points made.

As I advised numerous times I drive down in a fuel efficient vehicle.

Which is still irrelevant to this discussion.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

avb2...add blinders back on.

If you want high cost and aethetically ugly very large and damaging footprints that kill birds and bats in the millions... Not to mention extremely unreliable...

They are wonderful then.

you can now take your blinders off.

Of course the destruction of the boreal forest is so benign, right? And we have unlimited clean water in the area, so might as well use it. And why not use cheap natural gas to produce expensive oil. The natural gas which burns so much cleaner.

Seems to make sense if you don't think of consequences.

But then this is Alberta. Why would we think of consequences, especially cumulative ones?

[2beornottobe]

If they environ wack jobs and natives think it is so important, then why do they not support CEMA from all the handouts they get? Then they could say that their research and data is creditable unlike before when it was funded by big oil.
By the way abv3 where are your concerns about land destruction, pollution killing of animals etc everytime Hydro quebec/bc etc put in a new dam? WHERE you are a hypocrit on the worst terms.

[chinchaga]

Hillbillyreefer absolutely nailed it. Perfect response.

Windmills only "work" when there is massive taxpayers subsidies funding them. Do your research. You'll see for yourself.

There is blockades this winter, well at least no physical blockades, yet. Only because of the massive amount of money Big Oil gives to the Bands in the form of Grants, Royalties, funds for studies, meeting fee's, money for lunch programs, preferred work preference even when the services provided are far in-superior to those provided by a non-native company. etc etc etc etc etc etc etc. Always amazing to me how a First Nations environmental concerns evaporate when the concessions are made. I have seen these things first hand when one of my past positions was to sit in on Consultation Meetings and watch the BS of what happens when Big Nasty Oil consults with the downtrodden First Nation. I guess I sound a little bitter as I am waiting here at home for my Program to start, which has been delayed due to a First Nation having an eleventh hour objection to a Oil Program that is 300 miles from the Band Office. A bunch of panicked meetings are taking place, some funding for new First Nation's initiatives will be paid, and the objection will disappear. Miraculously. Then a bunch of taxpayers like me will go to work.

All you Big Oil bashers out there should sit back and contemplate where the power to run your computer comes from, the pavement in the street, the food on your table, the gas and oil in your vehicles, the plastic in the computer you type on and so very much more. Not to mention the thousands and thousands of jobs, the taxes paid, the infrastructures built and the myriad of advantages we have for living in the land of Oil.
Big Oil is not perfect, not by a long shot. But no other Industry puts as much back as Big Oil. Compare it to logging, wind power, mining, or any other large Industry. No one else is put to scrutiny as much as Big Oil and no other Industry contributes as much as Big Oil.

Just a little tired of all the nay-sayers, bashers and anti-oil idealists.

[RavYak]

Why did you link to the first article if it goes against your argument? It pretty much says CEMA is corrupt/ignored and doesn't operate properly...

It says they want to have CEMA disbanded because it is influenced by political and industrial fingers being in the mix. It says they are calling for a new 3rd party group(not tied to government or industry) to be created and take over. It also is saying that a "leading environmental group" agrees with the decision of these oil companies.

To me this is the way it should be anyways, not government and industrial run bs only telling people what they want or need to hear.

So I ask you, why are you against the oil companies trying to ensure that proper and correct reports etc are provided?

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 2beornottobe

If they environ wack jobs and natives think it is so important, then why do they not support CEMA from all the handouts they get? Then they could say that their research and data is creditable unlike before when it was funded by big oil.

I'm not aware of anyone questioning the current scientific information that CEMA is producing. On any side of the issue.

By the way abv3 where are your concerns about land destruction, pollution killing of animals etc everytime Hydro quebec/bc etc put in a new dam? WHERE you are a hypocrit on the worst terms.

When is the last dam Quebec hydro built? All forms of energy production have issues. Some forms have higher impacts. Oil sands production is the least benign.

My concern is that a multi agency group which deals with CUMULATIVE effects, that has always been seen as doing good work in a cooperative manner is under threat of disbandment.

Do we really want the Pembina Institutes, the Suzuki's and the Neil Young's of the world defining the situation based on opinion and not facts?

If you want CEMA disbanded, your just going to get more of that.

[bison]

Originally Posted by RavYak

Why did you link to the first article if it goes against your argument? It pretty much says CEMA is corrupt/ignored and doesn't operate properly...

It says they want to have CEMA disbanded because it is influenced by political and industrial fingers being in the mix. It says they are calling for a new 3rd party group(not tied to government or industry) to be created and take over. It also is saying that a "leading environmental group" agrees with the decision of these oil companies.

To me this is the way it should be anyways, not government and industrial run bs only telling people what they want or need to hear.

So I ask you, why are you against the oil companies trying to ensure that proper and correct reports etc are provided?

Sounds just like the government

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

That is the purpose of CEMA, to work credibility together. CAPP and it's members were making baby steps in having credible science assist in their members make positive scientific arguments for the industry and are walking away from that.



Irrelevant to this discussion and proof you don't read or retain points made.

As I advised numerous times I drive down in a fuel efficient vehicle.

Which is still irrelevant to this discussion.

So you know enough detail that the purpose of CEMA is being held true and not been hijacked for the global warming agenda.

You need to get in tune with reality. The utopian ideal is not the case.

[2beornottobe]

abv3 whenever a study is done funded in full or in part by oil companies the first response by the ecoterrorist is that is not valid because look who funded it. Now that they want to take away their funding and rightfully so all we hear is how can they do this it is not fair, the sky is falling and so on. You cannot have it both ways but I guess as people who feed of the taxpayer do want it both ways.
If ind it funny how these ecoterrorist are so selective in their outcry, look at land mass alone, hydro is the most damaging. Looking at loss of birds, again no outcry unless it is in Ft McMurray
When was the last time that the California ecoterrorist visited the Bakersfirld area and protested the oil industry there? NEVER.
They are just pure hypocrits, who as a few make al lot more money and exploit the environment more that anyone else. Just ask Neil, Al gore, David Suzuki, Darryl Hannah and the list goes on and on and on.

[Mickey]

If you dont believe that oil is necessary, then stop using it and all of its byproducts for a month.

[fish gunner]

Originally Posted by Mickey

If you dont believe that oil is necessary, then stop using it and all of its byproducts for a month.

If every one worked together ligitimitly , after a few years we would live without petroleum quite happily . Hemp replaces many if not most petro products. Remember oil as a household stable is 100 yrs old . Man kind over 25000 and orginized society 5000. In time we would hardly even notice its absence. However working together is not our strong suit any more.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Sundancefisher

So you know enough detail that the purpose of CEMA is being held true and not been hijacked for the global warming agenda.

You need to get in tune with reality. The utopian ideal is not the case.

Please tell me which one of the 50 members is doing the hi jacking you refer to. Have you even looked at the list of members I posted? Some of the radical environmental groups include the AFGA and DU. Scary, isn't it?

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by avb3

Of course the destruction of the boreal forest is so benign, right? And we have unlimited clean water in the area, so might as well use it. And why not use cheap natural gas to produce expensive oil. The natural gas which burns so much cleaner.

Seems to make sense if you don't think of consequences.

But then this is Alberta. Why would we think of consequences, especially cumulative ones?

Oil was seeping into the Athabasca for eons. Now there is a chance it could be removed. The Athabasca River is also polluted beyond repair by the pulp mills. Giant dioxin sludge mats are oozing down the river as we speak. Pollution in the pulp mills is based upon tons per volume of water. Want to dump more...just run it with higher volumes of water.

Water usage technology is improving every year. Recycle ratios getting better and better.

Natural gas is not as flexible a fuel as oil. Therefore oil is worth so much more. Heat is required and I agree, using something other than fossil fuel would be good. The choice is nuclear. Are you in favor of a nuclear power plant in Alberta? Saskatchewan produces a lot of uranium so we keep the value in Canada.

More forests have been destroyed for cities, roads and farming that you care to likely imagine. Those areas will never be reclaimed. Oil sands mining areas have been on reclamation programs and will continue to do so. Most oil sands by the way is not produced by mining. 97% is not mineable and insitu methods are used.

You are in favor of natural gas then and are not also on the band wagon fighting fracking?

You can pick and chose hating oil and loving wind. Have you completely switched over your power consumption at home by selecting to pay for higher cost wind power?

P.S. Driving a fuel efficient vehicle to Florida and back is not environmentally friendly. Long distance travel and oil usage harms the environment. You should stay locally, eat locally, ride transit instead of driving.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by 2beornottobe

abv3 whenever a study is done funded in full or in part by oil companies the first response by the ecoterrorist is that is not valid because look who funded it. Now that they want to take away their funding and rightfully so all we hear is how can they do this it is not fair, the sky is falling and so on. You cannot have it both ways but I guess as people who feed of the taxpayer do want it both ways.
If ind it funny how these ecoterrorist are so selective in their outcry, look at land mass alone, hydro is the most damaging. Looking at loss of birds, again no outcry unless it is in Ft McMurray
When was the last time that the California ecoterrorist visited the Bakersfirld area and protested the oil industry there? NEVER.
They are just pure hypocrits, who as a few make al lot more money and exploit the environment more that anyone else. Just ask Neil, Al gore, David Suzuki, Darryl Hannah and the list goes on and on and on.

Your posting makes it clear you don't understand who CEMA is.

Please familiarize yourself with the group before making assumptions.

[2beornottobe]

Actually avb3 I know exactly what the CEMA does and is.

As for fishgunner I think you have been smoking way to much of that hemp you so dearly covent.

[Don Andersen]

These is only one filter for oil sands activity.
If the oil sands were located at Canmore, would the activity happen.
If the answer is yes, go for it. No - guess the activity stops.

Don

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

These is only one filter for oil sands activity.
If the oil sands were located at Canmore, would the activity happen.
If the answer is yes, go for it. No - guess the activity stops.

Don

Ok then. Let's test that model. Ask the majority of homes there...people that own more than one home...likely a big one in Calgary and/or over in Europe if they want the town flooded with tourists. If the answer is no...let's stop all mountain tourism.

Most Canmore residents I know would prefer no tourism. Just their own sleepy mountain town.

Most eco nuts would like to see Banff and Jasper cut off from all tourism. Animals and habitat 100% protected from human activity including hiking, fishing and skiing. You in favor of that.

PETA wants to stop all hunting and fishing. If we devolve to special interest groups... I take it you will walk the walk and agree with their demands.

Your comment is a slippery slope when cooperation and mitigation makes more sense.

I don't think there is one inch of BC not claimed by one or more first nations group. So you want to give all of BC away?

[Don Andersen]

Sun..

Clearly you should get out more.

The air shed of Calgary comes from the west.

And wholly crap - so does the water.


So if Calgarians were treated to the effluent, what would happen? If there was no issue, should be no problem.


Don

[Sundancefisher]

Originally Posted by Don Andersen

Sun..

Clearly you should get out more.

The air shed of Calgary comes from the west.

And wholly crap - so does the water.


So if Calgarians were treated to the effluent, what would happen? If there was no issue, should be no problem.


Don

How much effluent does the oil sands dump into the Athabasca River each year?

How much effluent does the pulp mill industry dump into the Athabasca River each year?

http://www.gazette.gc.ca/rp-pr/p2/20...rs140-eng.html

http://www.bepls.com/feb_2013/4.pdf

[RavYak]

Originally Posted by avb3

Do we really want the Pembina Institutes, the Suzuki's and the Neil Young's of the world defining the situation based on opinion and not facts?

If you want CEMA disbanded, your just going to get more of that.

What the hell are you talking about.

In no way shape or form would these companies hire Suzuki, Neil Young etc to replace CEMA.

According to your article they clearly want to replace CEMA with a 3rd party company that shouldn't be influenced by politics. You know instead of using a board made up of politicians and Oil company employees who all have their own agendas to look after...

I don't know the ins and outs of CEMA nor how effective(or likely ineffective) they are but just a quick look tells me there are way too many fingers in that pot with way too much money at stake(for everyone involved) for them to actually provide accurate data/reports. The article makes CEMA sound like it is dominated by politics and its board/member make up certainly makes one believe that this would be the case.

[cfinn]

the political disussions are always entertaing. I love the suggestion of how easy it would be to stop using petroleum products with hemp etc. the simplest way to describe an oilsands operation is the companies are cleaning up the largest natural oilspill ever know to man albiet with some really nice profits. That being said, if i had about $15billion to invest in a property, i would want some nice returns as well. By the commetns above, it is clear there is a lot of knowledge of the internal; workings of the regulatory process being considered.

The aquatic habitat in the Athabasca had evolved long before any one put a shovel in the ground to live in the oil sheen contaminated river. and when the companies are done cleaning up the pits, they will be responsible to reclaim the site to a standard far greater than how they found it. (That's the short version, this is a much bigger issue than this forum will ever resolve)