Alberta Premier proposes $3B for oil-sands environmental research
28 March 2012
Globe and Mail. During a campaign speech, Alberta Premier Alison Redford proposed a $3-billion government-funded research agency to support oil sands environmental research. Redford said she would revive the Alberta Oil Sands Technology and Research Authority (AOSTRA) as AOSTRA 2. The original initiative, formed in 1974, spent a total of $620-million over 20 years.
Now that the sector has hits its stride, Ms. Redford has pledged what she says is the same annual cash in today’s dollars: $150-million annually over 20 years. It will both help boost the non-renewable energy industry’s environmental performance while encouraging research in new technologies, she said.
Ms. Redford dismissed questions about whether industry should foot the bill for the program. It is already being asked to finance the elaborate environmental monitoring system being introduced by the province and federal government. “Industry is doing this work well together, but government has a role in developing leadership so that we can go out as Albertans and talk about how we’re creating research and renovation,” Ms. Redford said. “It’s not for any particular entity to carry the load fully. We have to work in partnership for the betterment of the province.”
Resources
AOSTRA/AERI publications
Oil industries would pay for low cost monitors and the local Government would pay $3B to find ways to fix the environment damages?
Who will pay the $200++B to fix past, current and future damages?
Since the oil extracted is currently sold at a 15% (about $15/barrel) discount due to lack of international customers, a temporary-progressive levy of up to $15/barrel could be applied to fix part of the damages being done.
Posted by: HarveyD | 28 March 2012 at 01:01 PM
So; Government's role is to "develope leadership"?
What's that mean?
Apparently that means whatever it takes so Albertans can "talk about how we’re creating research and renovation".
Swell. No surprise.
Somebody better start reading some sense into this, there's none there now.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 28 March 2012 at 03:06 PM
TT: Its all a question of WHO will fix the huge damages. If you have time, take a trip to BAKU, rent a 4x4 and take a full day drive in the old oil fields in the city outskirts. Nothing as grown or have been built there for the last 100+ years. What you will see may change the way you will see things in the future. If you're not convinced, fly to Edmonton, rent a car and drive North for 3 to 5 days and that will do it.
Posted by: HarveyD | 29 March 2012 at 09:55 AM
You want some oil-sands environmental research? Okay, here it is --
When you rip up the earth to get the oil-sands, you destroy the environment.
There. Now you owe me fifty bucks...
Posted by: sheckyvegas | 30 March 2012 at 02:14 PM
If I want to see beauty I can just look around me (I see no oil fields) or travel a few miles 3, or 30 or 300 mi, depending on what I am looking for; natural beauty or man made; streams and trees or deserts and mountains; glaciers or bad lands; college campuses or mansions; rustic farm buildings or art museums.
If you want burned forests or oil fields – the oil fields are not where most people go – except the oil workers and they might be fond of them.
But I know some are closer than BAKU (6000mi) but I see your point.
Like EV sales, bare oil-sands, open pit mines and oil fields are a small percentage of the whole – and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Posted by: ToppaTom | 31 March 2012 at 03:50 PM