Time to tap Canada's water riches

ziggy ziggy:

You mean the last flood?
Tell that drought thing to all the pipeliners and gas drilling outfits,oil drilling outfits and farmers from central Alberta last year that couldnt work because of the excessive moisture.

Interesting points. How dependent are current oil sands techniques on freezing? If Alberta's oil industry had to pay the same for their water usage as Santa FE, how would it survive? Syncrude certainly doesn't think this is a good idea.

There is no problem there," said Mr. Wihbey. "The oil and gas industry has been allocated 7.2% of potable water in the province, which is more than enough."

Hopefully, water won't be a rallying cry for the economically and technologically ignorant left-of-centre parties in Canada or its provinces.

Fresh water represents another massive opportunity bestowed on the country, which could benefit every Canadian in future. As well, it's a matter of responsible stewardship. The price and terms must be fair

USCAdad USCAdad:

ziggy ziggy:

You mean the last flood?
Tell that drought thing to all the pipeliners and gas drilling outfits,oil drilling outfits and farmers from central Alberta last year that couldnt work because of the excessive moisture.

Interesting points. How dependent are current oil sands techniques on freezing? If Alberta's oil industry had to pay the same for their water usage as Santa FE, how would it survive? Syncrude certainly doesn't think this is a good idea.

From your link.

$1:

There is no problem there," said Mr. Wihbey. "The oil and gas industry has been allocated 7.2% of potable water in the province, which is more than enough."

Hopefully, water won't be a rallying cry for the economically and technologically ignorant left-of-centre parties in Canada or its provinces.

Fresh water represents another massive opportunity bestowed on the country, which could benefit every Canadian in future. As well, it's a matter of responsible stewardship. The price and terms must be fair

I flew over 4 provinces this week,Manitoba and Nunavut are two of them,more then enough water to share with our southern cousins there alone.

Large industrial water users cautioned against any approach that would put a price on water use.

"We've made huge capital investments, for example, in the oilsands in northeastern Alberta, and done it on the basis we would have access to the resources," Syncrude Canada Ltd. president Jim Carter said after speaking on the same panel. "Indeed, our royalty terms are in place to allow that to happen."

I think most of you are missing the impact that selling bulk water exports would have on rank-and-file Canadians.

If we start selling water to the US, then we have to 'sell' it to ourselves too, which means that your monthly utility charge for water will increase, meaning even less take home pay. How will that affect low income families and the elderly? It also could stifle business development because their utility costs will increase too.

Remember, under NAFTA, we can't charge more for a commodity than we ourselves pay, so to fully reap the profits, we'll have to jack up the costs of water usage nationwide.

[quote="ziggy
You mean the last flood?
Tell that drought thing to all the pipeliners and gas drilling outfits,oil drilling outfits and farmers from central Alberta last year that couldnt work because of the excessive moisture.

Your correct on that Ziggy, but that was a 1 in a 100 year flood. Even with all that moisture, the Dickson Dam west of Innisfail was at it's lowest that I’ve seen this spring, since it was built in the 80's and it took an extra month to fill this year. We are the first municipality of many that take water from the Red Deer River and have had to live with water restrictions for 10 years now. The Red Deer is pretty well exhausted by the time it empties into the South Saskatchewan River. Add to that all the water that is pumped down oil wells, the ever expanding Petro Chemical industry and an estimated $350 million irrigation project to turn the normally dry dust bowl of east central Alberta into an Oasis, this River is going to be maxed out. Until I can water may lawn when I want to again I say no to exporting water.

Ziggy, I know Canada has a lot of water. But you're missing the point and I'm saying it as an American that if you can get screwed over for *all* of your water then America will do it to you.

When the subject is water you cannot trust us. For God's sake, believe me.

Trade specialists argue that Canada is attempting to avoid getting their water exports involved under the NAFTA. That is they fear that one day the Canadian fresh water will be considered as a tangible good rather than an important natural resource if one single shipload is to be made. In October, 1992 the Mulroney government released its environmental review of the NAFTA. It state, that “ the large-scale movement of water was neither raised nor negotiated during the NAFTA negotiations. While Rawson Aquatic Institute stated in their Analysis on water exports under the NAFTA that “ Canadian water exports are not exempt or excluded from the provisions of NAFTA, it also appears that indirect controls on water exports are made more difficult through NAFTA’s general investment and national treatment provisions.” Moreover, many trade specialists see the new moratorium as a temporary case in which Ottawa and the provinces need time to devise a coherent water policy and pricing strategy.

Some provinces such as. British Columbia and Alberta have already took serious actions towards this issue. While Ontario’s regulation about this issue is still in progress.

A clear example of the ban was when the province of British Columbia imposed a complete halt on water shiploads to California. Sun Belt Water Inc. of Santa Barbara who used to have a permit to ship water in the mid 1990s to California was deprived from having this permit. Thus, Sun Belt now seeks compensation of $220 million from Canadian governments and filed a complaint under chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Ziggy, I know Canada has a lot of water. But you're missing the point and I'm saying it as an American that if you can get screwed over for *all* of your water then America will do it to you.

When the subject is water you cannot trust us. For God's sake, believe me.

Screwed over or sued?

$1:

Trade specialists argue that Canada is attempting to avoid getting their water exports involved under the NAFTA. That is they fear that one day the Canadian fresh water will be considered as a tangible good rather than an important natural resource if one single shipload is to be made. In October, 1992 the Mulroney government released its environmental review of the NAFTA. It state, that “ the large-scale movement of water was neither raised nor negotiated during the NAFTA negotiations. While Rawson Aquatic Institute stated in their Analysis on water exports under the NAFTA that “ Canadian water exports are not exempt or excluded from the provisions of NAFTA, it also appears that indirect controls on water exports are made more difficult through NAFTA’s general investment and national treatment provisions.” Moreover, many trade specialists see the new moratorium as a temporary case in which Ottawa and the provinces need time to devise a coherent water policy and pricing strategy.

Some provinces such as. British Columbia and Alberta have already took serious actions towards this issue. While Ontario’s regulation about this issue is still in progress.

A clear example of the ban was when the province of British Columbia imposed a complete halt on water shiploads to California. Sun Belt Water Inc. of Santa Barbara who used to have a permit to ship water in the mid 1990s to California was deprived from having this permit. Thus, Sun Belt now seeks compensation of $220 million from Canadian governments and filed a complaint under chapter 11 of the North American Free Trade Agreement.

I do agree that water is the 'new oil', and theoretically, I'd be willing to export it, as long as it was strictly regulated. I think we could afford to send a few hundred million litres of rainwater south every year, but I'd make sure that ALL the profits stayed in Canada (meaning that the exporter would have to stay Canadian-owned or even government-owned). I'd also want to ensure that Canadians needs are meet first, by a strict cap on how much could be shipped and a stipulation that in drought years our needs are met first, not those of our customer. For example, I'd never promise more than perhaps 5-10% of our 'excess' (meaning over and above our own needs). Offering 40% of your water (like those communities in California) is a stupid thing to do...if they want more, than they can drink saltwater (or better yet, use it in their pools).

I think that by making the collection points for our exports in the northern, sparsely populated parts of the provinces (especially where the runoff heads into the Arctic/Pacific Oceans/Hudson Bay), we could lessen the impact on both our industry and society.

Ziggy, I know Canada has a lot of water. But you're missing the point and I'm saying it as an American that if you can get screwed over for *all* of your water then America will do it to you.

When the subject is water you cannot trust us. For God's sake, believe me.

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Ziggy, I know Canada has a lot of water. But you're missing the point and I'm saying it as an American that if you can get screwed over for *all* of your water then America will do it to you.

When the subject is water you cannot trust us. For God's sake, believe me.

Here is one of the aqueducts feeding Los Angeles. This one is hundreds of miles long, and has been diverting water from Northern California to Southern California for decades.

In return, what does Northern California get? Why the undying gratitude of Southern California, of course! :lol:

(I'm kidding, the north and south hate each other, and would like nothing better than to see the other half fall into the Pacific.)

In the second half of the 1970s, California entered a period of extended drought. What was the response from Southern California? "We need more, MUCH more!" They began a campaign to put in "The Peripheral Canal," which would drain off another river's worth from the water-rationing North. Only extreme opposition in the north stopped this from happening, although the idea is resurrected every couple of years -- the latest version of it is in the legislative works now.

It's a door you don't even want to open.