It is important that the industry PR men & women are able to believe their own press-- but it is equally important that they are not believed by those of us who wish to counter their stories.
The question asked below: "Why Would Oilsands Court More Controversy?" is posed as if there were much in the way of choice. The answer is simple: energy! No, this does not mean that nuclear power is absolutely necessary, geothermal power hasn't been given any real opportunity whatsoever. But no matter, the equation needs to be seen like this-- We have hit a global peak in oil production. That production peak is less noticeable today given reserves and artificial means around the problem-- the masking of the problem through disruption of other "conventional" supplies in the Middle East and elsewhere. But when the peak starts to descend into less and less oil-- and capitalist economics mean either grow or collapse, thus slowing increases in total oil are effectively a lessening of supply-- there is no real way out for the US economic structure and the entire planet wedded to the US dollar. When China (one of the great holders of American debt) cannot grow it will have an immediate effect on the already critical US economy, in particular the US dollar.
There is no means to getting tar sands bitumen out to make [mock] oil without massive amounts of energy, and this nuclear proposal kills two birds with one stone-- it provides (eventually) the energy and it is a precedent to allow more such plants. It will actually massively increase global warming, but no matter-- the one thing, as Dick Cheney assured us in the aftermath of the WTC attacks 6 years ago, that is non-negotiable is the "American way of life". To extend that life a mere decade or two will only happen with the extremely temporary drilling out of the remaining tar sands bitumen, to make heavy crude, to make petroleum (and plastics). They do not have sufficient labour, so the win-win here is to bring in slaves from Mexico and China and simultaneously get rid of what little union protections we have left. Nuclear plants, slave labour camps and more-- Mad Max had nothing on this Dr Strangelove ecology.
The question asked about should really be "Why would oilsands[sic] OPENLY admit what needs to be done, rather than just doing it?". Does that sound unnecessarily pessimistic? Perhaps. But it doesn't have to-- just because Cheney, Harper and Stelmach cannot see a world beyond hydrocarbons doesn't mean we are not already building it. The Empire built on oil will get stuck in the tar.
--M
Nuclear just too hot for Alberta
Why Would Oilsands Court More Controversy?
Claudia Cattaneo, Financial Post
Published: Wednesday, August 29, 2007
After at least a decade of trying to gain a foothold in Alberta, Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd. has teamed up with an obscure private company with a mystery customer to launch a gigantic nuclear power plant -- the first one in Western Canada -- to fuel the oilsands.
At a press conference yesterday, Wayne Henuset, a former car dealer, wine merchant and oil-services entrepreneur who is now the president and co-chairman of the start-up, Energy Alberta Corp., argued the province is ready to take the leap into nuclear.
"We're now at the point where we need more energy -- a lot more -- if Alberta is to remain the economic engine of Canada," he said after his company filed an application with the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission to locate the plant near Peace River, a bustling oil and gas town in northwestern Alberta.
"While fossil fuels will remain a cornerstone of the economy, at least for the foreseeable future, Alberta is running out of conventional oil and natural gas. We need to develop new energy sources."
Maybe so. Yet the company would be naive not to expect an uphill battle to convince already energy mega-rich Alberta that it can't do without another energy project, another potential environmental disaster, another multibillion scheme to further heat its economy, or that the leap that really needs to be taken is energy conservation.
Smelling, no doubt, a big gamble, the project's main customer has chosen to remain in the background, leaving the small company with no experience at running a nuclear plant to take the lead--and the heat.
Mr. Henuset explained his company has signed confidentiality agreements with the so-called "offtaker" --hardly a satisfactory explanation for a company -- or companies -- that will buy 70% of the plant's electricity, or what will be about a big chunk of the province's power output.
Energy Alberta's other backer is Hank Swartout, the maverick best known for building Precision Drilling Corp. The company plans to debt-finance the $6.2-billion plant.
None of the oilsands developers that in the past said they were open to looking at nuclear power -- Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Total SA or Husky Energy Inc. -- said yesterday they are involved in this project.
While it's true that the oilsands industry is desperately searching for ways to replace depleting natural gas as its main energy source, nuclear hasn't been a preferred option -- and it's unlikely to become widely embraced.
The aversion goes beyond the old view that nuclear energy is a competitor to the oil and gas industry -- a view that influenced former Alberta Premier Ralph Klein's distaste for the energy source.
Now, oilsands companies are working on and have invested heavily in other technologies such as gasification that are at more advanced stages of development. Besides, they'd be insane to pile one more controversy onto the oilsands -- next to concerns about greenhouse gas emissions, water usage, land defacement, labour shortages, native opposition.
Despite assurances from Mr. Henuset that the green movement will embrace nuclear energy, it's unlikely it'll take this project, which has so far moved forward under the radar, lying down.
Already, activists stormed the press conference, asking questions about where the nuclear waste will be dumped and about the risk of locating a nuclear plant in an area at risk of earthquakes.
And while communities near the site appear to be on side -- indeed, Lorne Mann, the mayor of Peace River, said the project is so welcome he asked: "Where better for peaceful use of nuclear energy than Peace River?" -- Albertans at large won't be as keen.
It boils down to development fatigue. Already facing construction of a plethora of heavy-oil upgraders, oilsands projects, a private and public construction boom, they will start wondering if this venture is simply over the top.
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=5abaec4c-...
