UBC Wiki - User contributions [en]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 8: Alberta Needs a Better Way to Monitor Cap-and-Trade

2011-11-26T17:31:53Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8:]

== Alberta needs a better way to monitor cap-and-trade ==

[http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Alberta+needs+better+monitor+trade+Auditor/5751761/story.html Article 8:]

=== Summary ===

=== Economic Analysis ===

Monitoring GHG emissions from tailing ponds is one of the biggest problems the oil industry has faced. The top GHG producers, who contribute to over half of Alberta’s carbon emissions are now one of the only jurisdictions in the world to have a cap-and-trade system in place. This is otherwise known as transferable permit trading/emissions trading. In theory, those who can reduce their emissions in a cost efficient way do so and in turn sell their permits to those who cannot reduce their emissions to the targeted cap. Overall, emissions are seen as an externality because they affect the welfare of another entity outside the market. There are many ways to control the emissions levels of corporations, however finding the effective way and implementing a successful plan as well as monitoring it diligently, is difficult. A few of the various ways are emissions fees, cap-and-trade (as they are planning to use), and command-and-control regulation.

In 2007, the Alberta’s Climate Change and Emissions Management Fund put in place a system that required companies who released more than 100,000 tonnes of carbon a year to pay $15 per excess tonne. Our thoughts are that the government should use the tax helping small companies to use clean energy. Usually, small companies are facing problems with the cost of producing green energy; in alternate, they will use energy that my cause high pollution, or sell emissions permits to bigger companies. On the other hand, the bigger companies may produce more emissions by buying emissions permits. Thus, the government is not decreasing the level of pollution but just raising the price of energy. This is only beneficial to big energy companies. However in 2009 the Emissions Management Fund realized that there were few checks in place to ensure the program was working properly. This is a key example of putting potentially effective program in place, but not following up with it therefore not penalizing companies for their lack of accord. A concern that the auditor general’s office found was that the offsets companies were buying were not valid. In order for an offset to be valid, it needs to be “real, demonstrable and quantifiable”. Overall we believe that the government needs to make more strict rules about the investigation on emissions producing companies.

A very important aspect of implementing such policies is that if it’s going to be a province wide, or uniform standard or tax for every company contributing to the pollution of tailing ponds, their marginal abatement cost curves (MAC) all need to be equal. This makes it easier for the government to find the efficient point and a set an effective policy – however, getting companies MAC curves all the same is next to impossible. With that being said individualized programs are needed to control pollution, and in this particular case we personally believe that a cap-and-trade system is the best option because every company is unique to their surroundings and company growth making pollution control an individual challenge that can either be taken for granted and bought with money, or taken to heart, and used to better the environment. However this system require diligent supervision and harsh punishments if the rules are not followed. If regulation is not an option, then perhaps a tax would be a bit easier; however a tax also requires regulation of emissions per company. With that being said nothing is ever regulated easily, but measuring a companies overall emissions level may be easier to monitor rather than their emissions level, their permits bought and traded, as well as other companies emissions levels and permits.

Overall, Alberta is one of the few jurisdictions that put a price on excess carbon emissions. The have raised over $257 million dollars for clean energy technology by measuring emissions and fining companies for going over their allowed limit. The Alberta government has also raised $126 million dollars for 27 projects aimed at reducing emissions.

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 8: Alberta Needs a Better Way to Monitor Cap-and-Trade

2011-11-23T21:01:40Z

BritneyDurand: Created page with "[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8:] == Alberta needs a better way to monitor cap-and-trade == [http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Alberta+need..."

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-11-23T20:59:13Z

BritneyDurand:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/ ECON 371 - Environmental Economics 2011]

=== '''Group 8 - Alberta Oil Sands''' ===

===== ''Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney'' =====

[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises|Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises]]

[[Article 2: Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Absence of Climate Plan]]

[[Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches]]

[[Article 4: Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain]]

[[Article 5: The Keystone Decision]]

[[Article 6: Muck and brass]]

[[Article 7:What tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline mean for climate change]]

[[Article 8: Alberta Needs a Better Way to Monitor Cap-and-Trade]]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 7:What tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline mean for climate change

2011-11-23T20:45:18Z

BritneyDurand:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8]

== What Tar Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline mean for Climate Change ==
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands-keystone-xl-climate Article 7: What Tar Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline Mean for Climate Change]

=== Summary ===

The purposed 1600 mile long Keystone XL Pipeline has the largest green civil disobedience campaign in a generation. The pipeline would transport oil from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Overall if the pipeline were to be put in place an increase in amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would result and make carbon emissions higher from tar sands than conventional oil. On June 15th, 2011 the bill to expedite a decision on the pipeline was approved.

In order for the project to proceed, President Obama needs to approve it – and currently, the protests taking place are aimed to convince him to reject the project.

Environmental Impacts:
The project requires that trees need to be cleared, which will inevitably destroy the boreal forest. Plus, large amounts of water will be used up and polluted which can cause aquatic life deformities downstream. There were always be concerns with oil spills and leaks. For example in a similar project, Keystone I, there was 12 spills over a period of less than a year.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
The energy required for steam injection and refining is currently produced from natural gas, which emits more GHG emissions per barrel than the final product of conventional oil. Compared to conventional oil production, tar sands emit 10-45% more GHG and according the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tar sands emissions from the well to the tanks are 82% higher than conventional oil.

Keystone Pipeline Emissions:
There are many concerns regarding the Keystone Pipeline, this just being one of them: "recognizing the proposed Project 's lifetime is expected to be at least fifty years, we believe it is important to be clear that under at least one scenario, the extra GHG emissions associated with this proposed Project may range from 600 million to 1.15 billion tons CO2-e, assuming the lifecycle analysis holds over time"

Overall, there will be more emissions emitted than conventional oil through this project and exploiting the tar sands could be detrimental, but the USA has not taken very many concrete steps to minimize its GHG Emissions. This goes to show that before the project is put in action, GHG Emissions need to be reduced to that conventional oil sources aren’t the best option.

=== Economic Analysis ===
Tar Sands development has led to the release of many harmful contaminants including lead, mercury, cadmium, zinc. The release of these contaminates have exceeded the provincial and federal regulations and the guidelines regarding the protection of aquatic life have been out ruled. The Federal Fisheries Act 1868 says to stop the discharge of harmful contaminants but the zero discharge policy could only be regulated if the marginal damage function lies above the marginal abatement cost function for all possible levels of emissions. Contaminants are being dumped into the rivers and lakes which are poisoning the drinking water. There have been many cases of water contamination in Alberta and it seems that government is unable to tackle this problem. Now, the problem with such contaminants are that they are persistent that remain for a long period of time, either because they are non-degradable or because the rate of degradation is very slow. It is really difficult to measure how much pollution the industry is producing and the damage it is doing to the environment. The use of technology based system or setting up emission standards could be fruitful if the emissions are occurring at a low rate. But the tar sands development emissions are huge. Taxes could be imposed on those materials which lead to the pollution here rather than discouraging such activity the Canadian government is rather subsidizing out the oil firms and are much concerned with profits rather than the environmental degradation.

A reoccurring theme in different articles about the oil sands is the greenhouse gas emissions caused by extracting bitumen. There is a lot of uncertainty in the data and the impacts caused by the greenhouse gasses however, there is no argument that the greenhouse gas emissions from the tar sands are huge. On one hand there are arguments that well-to-wheels emissions are only 10 to 45% more then conventional oil, while the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) states that well-to-tank emissions are 82% higher. It is important to note the difference in the calculations; the well-to-wheels calculation includes the emissions caused by the combustion of the final product where as well-to-tank only includes emissions used to get the gas to the pump. By incorporating the final emissions it increases the total emissions making the percentage of emissions caused from extraction seem smaller. It is interesting how the companies and opposition use the different calculations to their advantage. With the varying emission statistics it is very hard to pinpoint the marginal abatement costs and therefore do an economic analysis. What is clear, is the lack of government regulation. While regulation is a provincial responsibility, it is important for the federal government to step in due to the transboundary issues with air pollution and the fact that the oil sands is such a specific industry. Because the oil sands are remotely located, the region’s air quality meets the national ambient emissions guidelines even though they are producing heavy emissions.

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 6: Muck and brass

2011-11-23T20:44:46Z

BritneyDurand:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8]

== '''Muck and brass''' ==

[http://www.economist.com/node/17959688 Article 6]

==== Summary ====
The price of oil barrels has slowly been increasing towards the $100/barrel price. By 2035 the demand for barrels may be up to 110million per day says the International Energy Agency – which is 20% more than in 2009. Currently the oil sands only produce 1.5m b/d, which is less than 2% of the global supply. Not only has the thirst for fuel gone up, but also the cost of production has gone down making it easier and more efficient to produce oil. Canada has 70% of the worlds remaining oil – and half of it is “free-oil.” This makes Alberta the “flag-bearer” of the new oil age due to the fact that if 173 billion barrels were recovered, the tar sands would be worth $15.7 trillion dollars. These facts alone prove that Alberta is a “petro-state” as 31% of its GDP are accounted for in the oil-and-gas- sector.
The Keystone Pipeline, worth $7 billion dollars, would pump 510,000 b/d of Alberta Oil to Texas refineries. The set back of this plan: it requires political approval. But recently the government has been very cautious after the oil spill in the gulf last year. Multiple people in the US also have expressed concerns about the environmental impact it may have on their state. Another area that is causing problems with going forth in the development is the first nations tribes in BC that are refusing to allow the pipeline cross over their territories because they wish to avoid inevitable spills that will threaten the annual salmon runs, and overall way of life.
The movement to stop “dirty oil” has gathered momentum with lots of environmental groups protesting against the tar sands. A lot of the complaints directed at the tailing ponds and the emissions caused by extraction. Suncor is promising $1.2 billion to deal with its tailings. They believe that as companies share technology within a decade the tar sands will look like any other mining operation. Alberta has taken a laissez-fair attitude towards regulation, which many oil execs feel is a threat towards development.

Some of the environmental issues could be solved quite easily, such as requiring companies to fully restore their land before they are allowed to move on, or requiring off the shelf scrubbers to be attached to smokestacks to reduce sulphur dioxide. Globally the concern about the tar sands is the CO2 emissions with some critics arguing that it is three times more intensive then other methods, while others are saying it is only 5-15% dirtier. Andrew Leach calculates that the tar sands create about $500 of value added per tonne of CO2 compared to $20-30 from coal-fired power stations in America. If people are serious about fighting climate change this should be dealt with first.

Oilmen expect a pipeline to the Pacific, in effect to Asia, to come sooner then later, especially if the Keystone XL is denied. Chinese oil companies would happily take the oil. Many Americans, however, might ask why the State Department had allowed a rising economic rival into such a vast oil reserve.

==== Economic Analysis ====
Tar sands contain the second largest reserves of oil and consumption and prices of oil are increasing daily. It can be seen that there is a visible future benefit from developing the oil industry but on the sake of high risk to the environment. The cost of production as predicted by the international Energy Agency is going to fall and level of profits would be huge. Alberta has a great oligopoly over the oil market and it dominates the oil industry throughout the world. As the production caries on in Alberta the world dependence for oil from Alberta is going to increase which means a wealthier Province. Already the oil and gas sector is providing Alberta with 31% of the GDP.In view of the huge profits many international firms are now making their way to this project. The Chinese and French companies have already started and are expecting huge profits. It is clear that economic profits would boost up Canadian economy but on the sake of environmental degradation. Harper government seems not be concerned with the problems this project is creating on the land, air and water. The federal government has never been able to produce a plan to tackle the threat which the tar sands are imposing on the climate. Many different NGO’s are protesting against this project. Many Americans have started passing laws to stop the Albertan oil reaching them. Retailers are now stopping buying oil from Alberta. Campaigns such as “Rethink Alberta” launched by green groups are asking tourists of not visiting Alberta till the government stops the production of oil from the tar sands. On one hand the government and the firms are looking at huge profits in the future but on the other hand if the boycott of oil from retailers and Americans increase then the profits might turn into loss. Either the extraction is dome by drilling or heating the steam, it poses a great threat to the local rivers. The river Athabasca water level has fallen drastically and many fish species have already extinct. The water pollution in the river has led to the contamination of the ground water and the drinking water has turned really dirty. The fish species in the adjacent lakes are getting poisoned and therefore the local fish industry is also facing huge loss.1,600 ducks have been reportedly killed in the local rivers due to the harmful chemicals from this project. Huge areas of landscape have turned into open pits and clearing of forests have led to the killing of wildlife.

The Government policy of using Laissez faire is more damaging. Government should stop implementing such a policy because there is no intervention to the environmental threats the project is creating. Their needs to be strict regulations on the oil industries with the implementation of tariff, taxes, etc. The government needs to enhance its health care policy to protect the people who have greatly suffered from the tar sands development. Although the Canadian constitution is clear on how to deal with these environmental problems but implementation by the government seems nowhere. Rather than stopping the production and dealing with the environmental problems the government is subsidizing out the firms and is encouraging the international firms to invest in this project. The firms in this market are concerned with the profits and they don’t care what threats they are imposing to the environment. As we have seen that the Canadian government is highly interested in projects such as the keystone-XL pipeline and the northern gateway, the cost to the environment would be huge. If the production caries on this way than the damage to the air, water and land would be huge.

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-11-23T20:42:28Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 7:What tar sands and the Keystone XL pipeline mean for climate change

2011-11-20T19:35:16Z

BritneyDurand:

== What Tar Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline mean for Climate Change ==
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/aug/23/tar-sands-keystone-xl-climate Article 7: What Tar Sands and the Keystone XL Pipeline Mean for Climate Change]

=== Summary ===

The purposed 1600 mile long Keystone XL Pipeline has the largest green civil disobedience campaign in a generation. The pipeline would transport oil from Alberta to refineries in the Gulf of Mexico. Overall if the pipeline were to be put in place an increase in amount of CO2 in the atmosphere would result and make carbon emissions higher from tar sands than conventional oil. On June 15th, 2011 the bill to expedite a decision on the pipeline was approved.

In order for the project to proceed, President Obama needs to approve it – and currently, the protests taking place are aimed to convince him to reject the project.

Environmental Impacts:
The project requires that trees need to be cleared, which will inevitably destroy the boreal forest. Plus, large amounts of water will be used up and polluted which can cause aquatic life deformities downstream. There were always be concerns with oil spills and leaks. For example in a similar project, Keystone I, there was 12 spills over a period of less than a year.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions:
The energy required for steam injection and refining is currently produced from natural gas, which emits more GHG emissions per barrel than the final product of conventional oil. Compared to conventional oil production, tar sands emit 10-45% more GHG and according the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tar sands emissions from the well to the tanks are 82% higher than conventional oil.

Keystone Pipeline Emissions:
There are many concerns regarding the Keystone Pipeline, this just being one of them: "recognizing the proposed Project 's lifetime is expected to be at least fifty years, we believe it is important to be clear that under at least one scenario, the extra GHG emissions associated with this proposed Project may range from 600 million to 1.15 billion tons CO2-e, assuming the lifecycle analysis holds over time"

Overall, there will be more emissions emitted than conventional oil through this project and exploiting the tar sands could be detrimental, but the USA has not taken very many concrete steps to minimize its GHG Emissions. This goes to show that before the project is put in action, GHG Emissions need to be reduced to that conventional oil sources aren’t the best option.

=== Economic Analysis ===

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2009WT1/GROUP1/Article 7

2011-11-17T22:23:56Z

BritneyDurand: Created page with "[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8:] Article 7: === Summary === === Economic Analysis === === Prof's Comments ==="

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8:]

Article 7:

=== Summary ===

=== Economic Analysis ===

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-11-17T22:23:08Z

BritneyDurand:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 6: Muck and brass

2011-11-17T22:22:20Z

BritneyDurand:

== '''Muck and brass''' ==

[http://www.economist.com/node/17959688 Article 6]

==== Summary ====
The price of oil barrels has slowly been increasing towards the $100/barrel price. By 2035 the demand for barrels may be up to 110million per day says the International Energy Agency – which is 20% more than in 2009. Currently the oil sands only produce 1.5m b/d, which is less than 2% of the global supply. Not only has the thirst for fuel gone up, but also the cost of production has gone down making it easier and more efficient to produce oil. Canada has 70% of the worlds remaining oil – and half of it is “free-oil.” This makes Alberta the “flag-bearer” of the new oil age due to the fact that if 173 billion barrels were recovered, the tar sands would be worth $15.7 trillion dollars. These facts alone prove that Alberta is a “petro-state” as 31% of its GDP are accounted for in the oil-and-gas- sector.
The Keystone Pipeline, worth $7 billion dollars, would pump 510,000 b/d of Alberta Oil to Texas refineries. The set back of this plan: it requires political approval. But recently the government has been very cautious after the oil spill in the gulf last year. Multiple people in the US also have expressed concerns about the environmental impact it may have on their state. Another area that is causing problems with going forth in the development is the first nations tribes in BC that are refusing to allow the pipeline cross over their territories because they wish to avoid inevitable spills that will threaten the annual salmon runs, and overall way of life.
The movement to stop “dirty oil” has gathered momentum with lots of environmental groups protesting against the tar sands. A lot of the complaints directed at the tailing ponds and the emissions caused by extraction. Suncor is promising $1.2 billion to deal with its tailings. They believe that as companies share technology within a decade the tar sands will look like any other mining operation. Alberta has taken a laissez-fair attitude towards regulation, which many oil execs feel is a threat towards development.

Some of the environmental issues could be solved quite easily, such as requiring companies to fully restore their land before they are allowed to move on, or requiring off the shelf scrubbers to be attached to smokestacks to reduce sulphur dioxide. Globally the concern about the tar sands is the CO2 emissions with some critics arguing that it is three times more intensive then other methods, while others are saying it is only 5-15% dirtier. Andrew Leach calculates that the tar sands create about $500 of value added per tonne of CO2 compared to $20-30 from coal-fired power stations in America. If people are serious about fighting climate change this should be dealt with first.

Oilmen expect a pipeline to the Pacific, in effect to Asia, to come sooner then later, especially if the Keystone XL is denied. Chinese oil companies would happily take the oil. Many Americans, however, might ask why the State Department had allowed a rising economic rival into such a vast oil reserve.

==== Economic Analysis ====
Tar sands contain the second largest reserves of oil and consumption and prices of oil are increasing daily. It can be seen that there is a visible future benefit from developing the oil industry but on the sake of high risk to the environment. The cost of production as predicted by the international Energy Agency is going to fall and level of profits would be huge. Alberta has a great oligopoly over the oil market and it dominates the oil industry throughout the world. As the production caries on in Alberta the world dependence for oil from Alberta is going to increase which means a wealthier Province. Already the oil and gas sector is providing Alberta with 31% of the GDP.In view of the huge profits many international firms are now making their way to this project. The Chinese and French companies have already started and are expecting huge profits. It is clear that economic profits would boost up Canadian economy but on the sake of environmental degradation. Harper government seems not be concerned with the problems this project is creating on the land, air and water. The federal government has never been able to produce a plan to tackle the threat which the tar sands are imposing on the climate. Many different NGO’s are protesting against this project. Many Americans have started passing laws to stop the Albertan oil reaching them. Retailers are now stopping buying oil from Alberta. Campaigns such as “Rethink Alberta” launched by green groups are asking tourists of not visiting Alberta till the government stops the production of oil from the tar sands. On one hand the government and the firms are looking at huge profits in the future but on the other hand if the boycott of oil from retailers and Americans increase then the profits might turn into loss. Either the extraction is dome by drilling or heating the steam, it poses a great threat to the local rivers. The river Athabasca water level has fallen drastically and many fish species have already extinct. The water pollution in the river has led to the contamination of the ground water and the drinking water has turned really dirty. The fish species in the adjacent lakes are getting poisoned and therefore the local fish industry is also facing huge loss.1,600 ducks have been reportedly killed in the local rivers due to the harmful chemicals from this project. Huge areas of landscape have turned into open pits and clearing of forests have led to the killing of wildlife.

The Government policy of using Laissez faire is more damaging. Government should stop implementing such a policy because there is no intervention to the environmental threats the project is creating. Their needs to be strict regulations on the oil industries with the implementation of tariff, taxes, etc. The government needs to enhance its health care policy to protect the people who have greatly suffered from the tar sands development. Although the Canadian constitution is clear on how to deal with these environmental problems but implementation by the government seems nowhere. Rather than stopping the production and dealing with the environmental problems the government is subsidizing out the firms and is encouraging the international firms to invest in this project. The firms in this market are concerned with the profits and they don’t care what threats they are imposing to the environment. As we have seen that the Canadian government is highly interested in projects such as the keystone-XL pipeline and the northern gateway, the cost to the environment would be huge. If the production caries on this way than the damage to the air, water and land would be huge.

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-11-08T18:14:10Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 4: Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain

2011-10-29T03:56:51Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8:]

=== Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain Minister's Green Oilsands Claim During Europe Mission ===

[http://blogs.canada.com/2011/10/28/alberta-and-feds-unable-to-explain-ministers-green-oilsands-claims-during-europe-mission/ Article]

==== Summary ====

==== Economic Analysis ====
Overstating a policy to protect the environment is a big issue when it comes to politicians in Canada, especially when regarding pollution in the Alberta Oilsands.

Rob Renner, former provincial environmental minister, introduced the idea of 100% water recycling by the industry by 2016. Do you think this is realistic – let alone efficient? No it certainly isn’t. The actually regulations that were set in Alberta to reduce the waste of water was set, but not at 100%. As we learned before, “efficiency is when the economy’s recourses are allocated to their best uses; an equilibrium is reached in which the marginal benefits of an activity equal the marginal costs” (Textbook Glossary). And a key aspect of efficiency is Pareto Optimality – which is when both of the firms MAC curves need to be the same in order for efficiency to be reachable.

Another account from an Environmental spokesperson, Jessica Potter, states that there has been tremendous amount of work regarding a plan to aggressively deal with tailing ponds. She also noted, “that companies have been pooling technology and research to reduce ponds for the collective good” or in other words being prompted to innovate and find was to reduce emission. It does not however, state what the incentive for this type of technological innovation is.

And finally Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is trying to put a cap on atmospheric heat that is trapped due to excess pollution. This can be done with a standard like Rob Renner has tried to introduce, however not as extreme.

In the textbook there is a graph showing that in order for the standard to be introduce, put into practice and effectively working, the companies involved need to be thoroughly researched so the marginal abatement costs of both can be analyzed before going any further. From there either a uniform standard or an individual standard can be implemented only if they are continuously regulated. But above all, the standard cannot be extreme, for instance capping all emission levels to 100%, as this is not reasonable to ask of the firms, nor is it efficient for the production of goods and services.

==== Prof's Comments ====

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 4: Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain

2011-10-29T03:52:05Z

BritneyDurand:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8:]

=== Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain Minister's Green Oilsands Claim During Europe Mission ===

[http://blogs.canada.com/2011/10/28/alberta-and-feds-unable-to-explain-ministers-green-oilsands-claims-during-europe-mission/ Article]

==== Summary ====

==== Economic Analysis ====
Overstating a policy to protect the environment is a big issue when it comes to politicians in Canada, especially when regarding pollution in the Alberta Oilsands.

Rob Renner, former provincial environmental minister, introduced the idea of 100% water recycling by the industry by 2016. Do you think this is realistic – let alone efficient? No it certainly isn’t. The actually regulations that were set in Alberta to reduce the waste of water was set, but not at 100%. As we learned before, “efficiency is when the economy’s recourses are allocated to their best uses; an equilibrium is reached in which the marginal benefits of an activity equal the marginal costs” (Textbook Glossary). And a key aspect of efficiency is Pareto Optimality – which is when both of the firms MAC curves need to be the same in order for efficiency to be reachable.

Another account from an Environmental spokesperson, Jessica Potter, states that there has been tremendous amount of work regarding a plan to aggressively deal with tailing ponds. She also noted, “that companies have been pooling technology and research to reduce ponds for the collective good” or in other words being prompted to innovate and find was to reduce emission. It does not however, state what the incentive for this type of technological innovation is.

And finally Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government is trying to put a cap on atmospheric heat that is trapped due to excess pollution. This can be done with a standard like Rob Renner has tried to introduce, however not as extreme.

Below is a graph showing that in order for the standard to be introduce, put into practice and effectively working, the companies involved need to be thoroughly researched so the marginal abatement costs of both can be analyzed before going any further. From there either a uniform standard or an individual standard can be implemented only if they are continuously regulated. But above all, the standard cannot be extreme, for instance capping all emission levels to 100%, as this is not reasonable to ask of the firms, nor is it efficient for the production of goods and services.

==== Prof's Comments ====

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 4: Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain

2011-10-29T03:18:33Z

BritneyDurand:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 4: Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain

2011-10-29T03:18:04Z

BritneyDurand: Created page with "[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8:] === Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain Minister's Green Oilsands Claim During Europe Mission === ==== Su..."

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Back to Group 8:]

=== Alberta and Feds Unable to Explain Minister's Green Oilsands Claim During Europe Mission ===

==== Summary ====

==== Economic Analysis ====

==== Prof's Comments ====

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-29T03:16:00Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T21:11:28Z

BritneyDurand: /* Summary */

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

== Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches ==

[http://www.globalnews.ca/albertaottawa+revamp+oilsands+monitoring+as+world+watches/6442493417/story.html Article 3]

=== Summary ===

This article talks about the monitoring control system, environmental limits and new regulations regarding the oil sands development. The new proposed XL pipeline project has become highly controversial which would be bringing up more bitumen. In order for this project to be more sustainable there needs to be a world class monitoring. There seems to be no political will to set out environmental limits to this project. The federal and provincial governmental are cutting out their environmental budget. There are currently 5 separate monitoring programs having data which goes back to 1970.These monitoring teams are there to measure heavy metal and hydrocarbon concentration, temperature, turbidity and oxygen content. Both the provincial and federal government is trying to improve the transparency so that the data is more available to the public. The provincial government is trying to figure out the impacts so that limits can be placed. They are determined to set up a early warning system program so that necessary actions can be taken before the Industries exceed the pollution limits. Limit doesn’t mean a stop in growth but making this project more efficient, innovative and creative in order to continue with this project. The improvement to the monitoring system means that it would be costing heaving on the governmental as the estimated cost per year is $50 million whereas the federal and provincial governments have cut down their environmental budgets. If the government is willing to put something in action they need to increase their budget so that environmental regulations are more strictly enforced.

=== Economic Analysis ===

When examining the environmental impact of a region with surrounding oil sands, there comes a point in time when you have to consider natural contamination and industrial contamination. Untangling the sources of the contamination is a very difficult procedure.

There has been lots of research done about the facts of environmental damage, however the results have not been made public. Dan Wicklum, Environment Canada's director of water science, says: “It's a world-class resource and it needs a world-class monitoring system to assure us that the resource is being developed sustainably and responsibly.” There has been talk about new environmental limits and regulations, however Edmonton and Ottawa are currently cutting their environmental budgets and looking at each other to ‘run the show’ of regulation.

Currently there is five separate monitoring programs in the region. Two governmental programs, one industry and third parties, including on that has data going back to the 1970’s. However, we believe that by pooling their resources and data together they could be more efficient and as a result come up with more precise findings about the damage caused by the industry rather than just from natural contamination. Once they determine the factors causing the main source of pollution from an industrial standpoint, we believe they can introduce either a pollution permit or tax pertaining to that specific area of the industry. This way they will not confuse natural contaminants with industrial pollutants making it a fair trade for companies. But then comes the issue with non-uniformly mixed emissions. It would be more costly to separate the emissions produced by industrial parties to determine which company produced each pollutant present. There are many factors that make it difficult to establish the ‘birth site’ of each and everyone pollutant, but by at least separating natural and industrial contaminations the government can get a better picture as to where tax or pollution permit should be applied.

It is said that improving the oilsands will cost more, an estimate $50 million a year more, which will be funded by industry because the governments are looking to cut their environmental budgets. Overall the federal plan is quite similar to Alberta’s plan regarding growth of the oilsands yet still keeping environmental regulation in mind. But when is comes to environmental monitoring, there are too many factors up in the air to make a decision to limit pollutants without hurting the economy.

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T21:09:33Z

BritneyDurand: /* Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches */

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

== Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches ==

[http://www.globalnews.ca/albertaottawa+revamp+oilsands+monitoring+as+world+watches/6442493417/story.html Article 3]

=== Summary ===

This article talks about the monitoring control system, environmental limits and new regulations regarding the oil sands development. The new proposed XL pipeline project has become highly controversial which would be bringing up more bitumen. In order for this project to be more sustainable there needs to be a world class monitoring. Their seems to be no political will to set out environmental limits to this project. The federal and provincial governmental are cutting out their environmental budget. There are currently 5 separate monitoring programs having data which goes back to 1970.These monitoring teams are there to measure heavy metal and hydrocarbon concentration, temperature, turbidity and oxygen content. Both the provincial and federal government is trying to improve the transparency so that the data is more available to the public. The provincial government is trying to figure out the impacts so that limits can be placed. They are determined to set up a early warning system program so that necessary actions can be taken before the Industries exceed the pollution limits. Limit doesn’t mean a stop in growth but making this project more efficient, innovative and creative in order to continue with this project. The improvement to the monitoring system means that it would be costing heaving on the governmental as the estimated cost per year is $50 million whereas the federal and provincial governments have cut down their environmental budgets. If the government is willing to put something in action they need to increase their budget so that environmental regulations are more strictly enforced.

=== Economic Analysis ===

When examining the environmental impact of a region with surrounding oil sands, there comes a point in time when you have to consider natural contamination and industrial contamination. Untangling the sources of the contamination is a very difficult procedure.

There has been lots of research done about the facts of environmental damage, however the results have not been made public. Dan Wicklum, Environment Canada's director of water science, says: “It's a world-class resource and it needs a world-class monitoring system to assure us that the resource is being developed sustainably and responsibly.” There has been talk about new environmental limits and regulations, however Edmonton and Ottawa are currently cutting their environmental budgets and looking at each other to ‘run the show’ of regulation.

Currently there is five separate monitoring programs in the region. Two governmental programs, one industry and third parties, including on that has data going back to the 1970’s. However, we believe that by pooling their resources and data together they could be more efficient and as a result come up with more precise findings about the damage caused by the industry rather than just from natural contamination. Once they determine the factors causing the main source of pollution from an industrial standpoint, we believe they can introduce either a pollution permit or tax pertaining to that specific area of the industry. This way they will not confuse natural contaminants with industrial pollutants making it a fair trade for companies. But then comes the issue with non-uniformly mixed emissions. It would be more costly to separate the emissions produced by industrial parties to determine which company produced each pollutant present. There are many factors that make it difficult to establish the ‘birth site’ of each and everyone pollutant, but by at least separating natural and industrial contaminations the government can get a better picture as to where tax or pollution permit should be applied.

It is said that improving the oilsands will cost more, an estimate $50 million a year more, which will be funded by industry because the governments are looking to cut their environmental budgets. Overall the federal plan is quite similar to Alberta’s plan regarding growth of the oilsands yet still keeping environmental regulation in mind. But when is comes to environmental monitoring, there are too many factors up in the air to make a decision to limit pollutants without hurting the economy.

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T21:05:46Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:50:13Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:41:35Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:36:57Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:36:13Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:35:58Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:35:49Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:29:17Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:22:45Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:22:26Z

BritneyDurand: /* Economic Analysis */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:18:27Z

BritneyDurand:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-19T20:17:15Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 3: Alberta-Ottawa Revamp Oilsands Monitoring as World Watches

2011-10-19T20:16:56Z

BritneyDurand: Created page with "Return to Group 8: [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands] === Summary === === Economic Analysis === === Prof's Comments ==="

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

=== Summary ===

=== Economic Analysis ===

=== Prof's Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-19T20:15:02Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 2: Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Absence of Climate Plan

2011-10-13T06:16:01Z

BritneyDurand: /* Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Absence of Climate Plan */

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

=== Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Absence of Climate Plan ===
Article 2:[http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Oilsands+expansion+jeopardized+absence+climate+plan+ambassador+told/5534412/story.html The Vancouver Sun - Oilsands Expansion]

==== Summary ====

Alberta is starting to be compared to the US’s Texas when is comes to oil production and pipeline expansion. Many climate change economists have wrote that there is no sign of “letting up” in the anti-oilsands campaign as many protestors are adamant in sticking to the International Agreement signed in 1992 to stabilize the Green House Gas (GHG) emissions of Canada. Even though a signature on a piece of paper stated that the country is going to lower their atmospheric concentrations of GHG emissions, the federal government has consistently delayed putting a cap on industrial pollution.

The main concern that the federal government has with the expansion of the oil sands is protecting Canadian jobs and the economy – however this can’t be done efficiently without having consequences, mainly environmental ones. The main priority of the Prime Ministers is: “a rapid expansion of the tarsands to the detriment of Canada's ability to do its fair share on climate change." But the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers said they have first hand understanding of carbon pricing regimes since the climate policy put in place in 2007 and there is a stress on making sure there is a fair balance between climate policy and national energy strategy that would not discriminate against Canadian oil.

All in all, there is much to debate about the bitumen deposits in Canada and how the environmental impacts are being ignored time and time again.

==== Economic Analysis ====

It is apparent that the oil sands are controversial topic in Ottawa. On one hand there are protesters who are concerned about the pollution bitmen extraction causes and want the government to regulate green house gas pollution from the oil industry. The government however, is concerned about Canadian jobs and the economy.

Because oil is a global market it is hard to implement climate policy on a national level while still continuing to remain competitive at a global level.The Canadian government is concerned with extraction of oil from the tar sands no matter what the environmental consequences many be.The lust of earning higher profits,keeping the oil prices in the world market motivates the government to continue subsidizing the oil industries.Harper's government if had been concerned with the protesters or the severe environmental consequences related to this oil sands project,could have cut down the subsidies and increased the taxes on the oil producing industries.If the government wants to lower down the environmental dangers they need to cut down the subsidies and increase the taxes on these firms.The government can utilize this revenue to generate more jobs in the economy and create a much green environment.

[[File:Screen_shot_2011-10-12_at_2.43.43_PM.png]]

The socially efficient equilibrium is reached with a tax set equal to t per tone.And this is where where the MD=MAC.The polluter's private costs of compliance are it's total bill paid(area a and b),and the total abatement costs(area c).The net benefit of the tax is the total damage forgone(area c and d).By imposing such a tax,the level of pollution would be decreased and the government can use the tax revenue to create more jobs and improve green technologies.

==== Prof's Comments ====

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 2: Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Absence of Climate Plan

2011-10-12T20:07:20Z

BritneyDurand: Created page with "Return to Group 8: [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands] === Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Absence of Climate Plan === Article 2:[http:/..."

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-12T20:04:45Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 2: Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Climate Absence of Climate Plan2

2011-10-12T20:04:33Z

BritneyDurand:

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

=== Article 2: Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Absence of Climate Plan ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-12T20:03:21Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 2: Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Climate Absence of Climate Plan2

2011-10-12T20:03:04Z

BritneyDurand: Created page with "Return to Group 8: [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]"

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-12T20:02:38Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 2: Oilsands Expansion Jeopardized by Climate Absence of Climate Plan

2011-10-12T20:01:48Z

BritneyDurand: Created page with "Return to Group 8: [http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]"

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-12T20:01:04Z

BritneyDurand:

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-12T19:56:05Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-12T19:55:25Z

BritneyDurand: /* Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney */

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/ ECON 371 - Environmental Economics 2011]

=== '''Group 8 - Alberta Oil Sands''' ===

===== ''Britney Durand, Xiao Chen, Ahmed Sheheryar, Alex McGivney'' =====

[[Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises|Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises]]

[http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Oilsands+expansion+jeopardized+absence+climate+plan+ambassador+told/5534412/story.html Article 2: Oilsands Expansion - Jeopardized by Absence of Climate Plan]

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8

2011-10-12T19:37:14Z

BritneyDurand: /* Group 8 - Alberta Oil Sands */

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises

2011-10-05T22:38:47Z

BritneyDurand: /* Alberta's Oil Sands: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises */

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

=== Alberta's Oil Sands: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises ===

Article1:

==== Summary ====

==== Economic Analysis ====

From an economic perspective, oil sands production is one of the most prominent issues regarding Canada’s Green House Gas Emission (GHG). Currently speaking, oil sands production contributes to 5% of the total GHG emissions in the country even though emissions per barrel of bitumen in Alberta are decreasing. Now only is oil production responsible GHG gas emissions, but it also causes water pollution, land destruction through toxic substances and air pollution.

Regarding the article chosen our group has decided to concentrate on the two different types of drilling available in an economic sense. The first and most feasible process is surface mining, which accounts for 55% of the available bitumen for extraction. This type of drilling is prevalent as is can be used to extract the resource at depths up to 75 meters. The second drilling process, that is said to dominate bitumen production by 2015, is steam heating otherwise known as “in situ”. This extraction method is used for deposits that are deeper than 150 meters.

[[File:Screen_shot_2011-10-05_at_3.20.54_PM.png]]

The diagram above compares the marginal damage curves of each extraction method. The first curve (MD1) shows the surface mining method for bitumen deposits that is less expensive and better for the environment than “in situ” extraction. The second curve (MD2) shows the more expensive and environmentally harmful method, which involves steam heating extraction. This goes to show that the deeper the extraction for bitumen the greater the costs to the country.

Another way to look at the costs of digging in an economic sense is to consider the environmental tradeoffs that have resulted. As water is extracted from the River Athabasca for example, the river flow has fallen about 25-30% since the mid 1970’s. The industrial contaminants are dumped in he river which has severely affected the fish species. Many species are on the edge of extinction and there have been more than 2000 waterfowl that have died due to wastewater drained into the tailing ponds.

==== Conclusion ====

=== Prof Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises

2011-10-05T22:37:27Z

BritneyDurand: /* Conclusion */

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

=== Alberta's Oil Sands: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises ===

Article1:

==== Summary ====

==== Economic Analysis ====

From an economic perspective, oil sands production is one of the most prominent issues regarding Canada’s Green House Gas Emission (GHG). Currently speaking, oil sands production contributes to 5% of the total GHG emissions in the country even though emissions per barrel of bitumen in Alberta are decreasing. Now only is oil production responsible GHG gas emissions, but it also causes water pollution, land destruction through toxic substances and air pollution.

Regarding the article chosen our group has decided to concentrate on the two different types of drilling available in an economic sense. The first and most feasible process is surface mining, which accounts for 55% of the available bitumen for extraction. This type of drilling is prevalent as is can be used to extract the resource at depths up to 75 meters. The second drilling process, that is said to dominate bitumen production by 2015, is steam heating otherwise known as “in situ”. This extraction method is used for deposits that are deeper than 150 meters.
[[File:http://wiki.ubc.ca/images/6/6b/Screen_shot_2011-10-05_at_3.20.54_PM.png]]
The diagram above compares the marginal damage curves of each extraction method. The first curve (MD1) shows the surface mining method for bitumen deposits that is less expensive and better for the environment than “in situ” extraction. The second curve (MD2) shows the more expensive and environmentally harmful method, which involves steam heating extraction. This goes to show that the deeper the extraction for bitumen the greater the costs to the country.

Another way to look at the costs of digging in an economic sense is to consider the environmental tradeoffs that have resulted. As water is extracted from the River Athabasca for example, the river flow has fallen about 25-30% since the mid 1970’s. The industrial contaminants are dumped in he river which has severely affected the fish species. Many species are on the edge of extinction and there have been more than 2000 waterfowl that have died due to wastewater drained into the tailing ponds.

==== Conclusion ====

=== Prof Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises

2011-10-05T22:33:26Z

BritneyDurand: /* Alberta's Oil Sands: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises */

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

=== Alberta's Oil Sands: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises ===

Article1:

==== Summary ====

==== Economic Analysis ====

From an economic perspective, oil sands production is one of the most prominent issues regarding Canada’s Green House Gas Emission (GHG). Currently speaking, oil sands production contributes to 5% of the total GHG emissions in the country even though emissions per barrel of bitumen in Alberta are decreasing. Now only is oil production responsible GHG gas emissions, but it also causes water pollution, land destruction through toxic substances and air pollution.

Regarding the article chosen our group has decided to concentrate on the two different types of drilling available in an economic sense. The first and most feasible process is surface mining, which accounts for 55% of the available bitumen for extraction. This type of drilling is prevalent as is can be used to extract the resource at depths up to 75 meters. The second drilling process, that is said to dominate bitumen production by 2015, is steam heating otherwise known as “in situ”. This extraction method is used for deposits that are deeper than 150 meters.

The diagram above compares the marginal damage curves of each extraction method. The first curve (MD1) shows the surface mining method for bitumen deposits that is less expensive and better for the environment than “in situ” extraction. The second curve (MD2) shows the more expensive and environmentally harmful method, which involves steam heating extraction. This goes to show that the deeper the extraction for bitumen the greater the costs to the country.

Another way to look at the costs of digging in an economic sense is to consider the environmental tradeoffs that have resulted. As water is extracted from the River Athabasca for example, the river flow has fallen about 25-30% since the mid 1970’s. The industrial contaminants are dumped in he river which has severely affected the fish species. Many species are on the edge of extinction and there have been more than 2000 waterfowl that have died due to wastewater drained into the tailing ponds.

=== Conclusion ===

=== Prof Comments ===

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises

2011-10-05T22:32:02Z

BritneyDurand: /* Alberta's Oil Sands: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises */

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

=== Alberta's Oil Sands: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises ===

Article1:

==== Summary ====

==== Economic Analysis ====

From an economic perspective, oil sands production is one of the most prominent issues regarding Canada’s Green House Gas Emission (GHG). Currently speaking, oil sands production contributes to 5% of the total GHG emissions in the country even though emissions per barrel of bitumen in Alberta are decreasing. Now only is oil production responsible GHG gas emissions, but it also causes water pollution, land destruction through toxic substances and air pollution.

Regarding the article chosen our group has decided to concentrate on the two different types of drilling available in an economic sense. The first and most feasible process is surface mining, which accounts for 55% of the available bitumen for extraction. This type of drilling is prevalent as is can be used to extract the resource at depths up to 75 meters. The second drilling process, that is said to dominate bitumen production by 2015, is steam heating otherwise known as “in situ”. This extraction method is used for deposits that are deeper than 150 meters.

The diagram above compares the marginal damage curves of each extraction method. The first curve (MD1) shows the surface mining method for bitumen deposits that is less expensive and better for the environment than “in situ” extraction. The second curve (MD2) shows the more expensive and environmentally harmful method, which involves steam heating extraction. This goes to show that the deeper the extraction for bitumen the greater the costs to the country.

Another way to look at the costs of digging in an economic sense is to consider the environmental tradeoffs that have resulted. As water is extracted from the River Athabasca for example, the river flow has fallen about 25-30% since the mid 1970’s. The industrial contaminants are dumped in he river which has severely affected the fish species. Many species are on the edge of extinction and there have been more than 2000 waterfowl that have died due to wastewater drained into the tailing ponds.

Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8/Article 1: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises

2011-10-05T22:06:20Z

BritneyDurand:

Return to Group 8:

[http://wiki.ubc.ca/Course:ECON371/UBCO2011WT1/GROUP8 Alberta Oil Sands]

=== Alberta's Oil Sands: Hard Evidence, Missing Data, New Promises ===

==== Summary ====

==== Economic Analysis ====

File:Artical 1 Image.png

2011-10-05T22:05:26Z

BritneyDurand: