Class Notes (839,330)
Canada (511,272)
POL250Y5 (38)


7 Pages

Political Science
Course Code
Andrea Olive

This preview shows pages 1 and half of page 2. Sign up to view the full 7 pages of the document.
env250 lecture #5 08/10/2013 2:08:00 PM Create turnitin account Class ID: 7134036 Password: greentrees Essay due 9:10 am on Thursday October 17 th Nukes for Oil? Canada has 8 nuclear power stations: 1 in New Brunswick 6 in Ontario 1 in Quebec using nukes to get bitumen: idea is to detonate a nuclear bomb in the tar sands to melt the bitumen and make it easier Prime minister Diefenbaker thought: maybe not. Prime minister Harper is for the idea; as is France’s Avera By 2020, we’ll probably be using nuclear power in the tar sands Station is at the university of Saskatchewan + being funded by the Japanese Pros of green bitumen [nuclear tar sands] : - less co2 emissions (greenhouse gas emissions) - decrease dependence on natural gas - help Canada meet climate targets (by 2020, our target is to have 17% less than 2005 levels of greenhouse gas emissions) - we have a lot of nuclear potential - more jobs - energy sovereignty - new energy markets cons: - expensive - nuclear waste - water intensive - hazardous (spills) - less of a market for radio active oil - environmental damage from mining - nuclear programs = bombs - multinational owners (profit) - keeping our nuclear potential to ourselves alberta’s remaining proven oil reserves are 170.8 billion barrels (169.3 billion barrels in the oil sands) or about 13% of total global oil reserves - about 1.6 million barrels of crude oil were produced every day from the oil sands in 2010 Nikiforuk’s argument: - alberta is not profiting like it could from the oil sands - alberta share of industry revenues is 39%, the lowest of any oil state - mismanagement and ethical lapses (p.163) royalties: when an oil company – say shell or chevron – mine or drill for oil on private property, they have to pay a share (royalty) to the owner of that property alberta owns the tar sands property (it is provincial crown land) and leases it to these companies to mine - nikiforuk’s argument is strictly comparative – he looks at other countries and says “yeah, we should ask for more” (see page 161) - royalties are a complicated economic equation - Canada has bitumen, NOT OIL - bitumen has a larger cost of production - raise royalties too high, and it no longer becomes economically beneficial to produce bitumen - companies could decrease production in Canada – and increase production elsewhere - about 151,000 albertans are directly employed in the oil and gas extraction and mining sectors in 2011 – that’s one of every 14 jobs in the province - royalties from the oil sands were 3.7 billion in 2010-2011 (this is Albertans share of the revenue from oil sands production and helps fund many public services) - according to the Canadian energy research institute alberta can expect 350 billion in royalties and 122 billion in provincial and municipal tax revenue from the oil sands over the next 25 years alberta is not saving up for a nuclear spill no funds are being put aside for reclamation no long term planning for extraction or use of this resource st 1 law of petro politics: more oil, less freedom oil states don’t tax citizens, so citizens
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1 and half of page 2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.