|
Justin Desrosier - 
March 11, 2019 |
|
|
|
|
Naomi Achus - 
September 23, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
Jackie Chander - 
January 27, 2016 |
|
|
|
|
ELIZABETH PIN - 
November 4, 2014 |
|
|
|
|
Karley Cowan - 
October 18, 2014 |
|
|
|
|
Kevin Richtscheid - 
September 12, 2014 |
|
|
|
|
Jeff Johnson - 
July 23, 2014 |
Very good and practical information. |
|
|
|
Steve Belisle - 
March 20, 2014 |
Fairly interesting. They could have given more examples of spillover effects for businesses located outside Alberta. |
|
|
|
Catharine Newton-Wowryk - 
October 31, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
Rahi Sanaee - 
September 18, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
James Prentice - 
September 9, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
Jerry Zhao - 
August 18, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
Andrew Edwards - 
August 5, 2013 |
Focuses exclusively on the positives. |
|
|
|
John Arnold - 
May 14, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
Matthew Ceh - 
March 4, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
Evan Jellie - 
February 6, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
Hong Tao Xu - 
February 5, 2013 |
very informative about the future of oil sand industry |
|
|
|
Saam Bandari - 
January 7, 2013 |
|
|
|
|
Tiffany Nyklickova - 
December 18, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Andy McDougal - 
December 3, 2012 |
Always good to have a reminder that positive economic activity just needs to be nearby (relatively) to be of benefit. |
|
|
|
Tyler Trafford - 
November 21, 2012 |
Very useful information |
|
|
|
Marianne Gianacopoulos - 
November 20, 2012 |
I too, agree with the view that we should not be so hasty to make our mark in the oil world. We would be better to sit back and wait. Perhaps we should see what the US will do given their pending oil boom? |
|
|
|
Dan Nifong - 
November 15, 2012 |
Broad based but statistically relevant for those investing in oil sands opportunities. |
|
|
|
Peter Jalkotzy - 
November 12, 2012 |
A most interesting review and perspective of a critical component to Canadian economic diversity and performance ~ of course it has its critics ~ there are always ways to improve. Canadians are working hard in that direction. |
|
|
|
Bruce Miller - 
November 8, 2012 |
This is a good report about the impact of an important segment of our economy |
|
|
|
Stephanie Penney - 
November 7, 2012 |
Concise summary of the benefits of the Oil Sands both within Alberta and across Canada (and to a small extent the US). Also appreciate the inclusion of some emissions statistics along with the economic information. |
|
|
|
Karla McConnell - 
November 7, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Amika Balram - 
November 7, 2012 |
This is an excellent report on the potential benefits, effects, and risks on oil sand development for Canada’s economy. --Policy-makers should take this report into account to help assess the economic potential of the oil sands. |
|
|
|
Kevin Girdharry - 
November 7, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Erik Pedersen - 
November 6, 2012 |
According to the "Fuel for Thought" report, 56 percent of total Canadian crude oil production is currently attributed to the tar sands of Alberta, and this is expected to massively grow to 86 percent by 2035. The report points out that the anticipated employment benefits to the country as a function of tar sands investments over the next 23 years are major, although 70 percent of the supply chain effects are enjoyed by Alberta alone. Ontario will see benefit in steel manufacture and instrumentation and share with B.C. the provision of required professional, scientific and technical services. Only about 8 percent of the total benefits are expected to accrue to Quebec, the other Prairie provinces and the Atlantic region. The report throws a sop to entrepreneurial businesses from these other provinces, suggesting that they can get in on the action by establishing Alberta branch offices, and repeats the observation that many Newfoundlanders who have moved to Alberta for work will also remit significant financial support to their families back home.
To me, however, the line "Funding for this report was provided by the Government of Alberta and Industry Canada" says it all. The report they purchased does not detail the significant economic costs that would arise from a pipeline bursting and leaking out vast quantities of diluent-emulsified tar sands into a salmon river, or of a tanker running aground on a reef or colliding with another vessel and polluting the B.C. coast for decades to come. Nor does it point out that promised spill-response measures are unlikely to be effectual, since they depend on booms to corral floating oil and provide no means to deal with tar that sinks to the bottom after the proprietary solvents evaporate.
The report displays ignorance of the real greenhouse gas emission problems that result from heavy fossil-fuel exploitation by being concerned only with the GHG "intensity" and saying little about the only GHG measure that matters: the actual volume. The volume of national GHG emissions is dramatically increasing, largely as a result of the oil sector which will be responsible for a projected 50 percent increase to 156 megatonnes of carbon dioxide by 2035, with concomitant disastrous effects on global climate change, and this has made Canada's legal commitments to Kyoto targets utterly hollow, long before the Harper regime arbitrarily cancelled them.
The report cheerfully predicts, "Canada is expected to become the fourth-largest oil producer in the world before 2035," but does not state why this is a good thing. What if, instead of spending the projected $283 billion in expanding production and adding new pipelines, Canada were to hold production at current levels and wait to fully exploit the tar sands resources until some time, say, 50 years in the future when the oil from the Middle East, Venezuela, Central Asia, Libya and Nigeria were approaching exhaustion? Even as more and more of the world converts to renewable energy sources, there will always be a need for petrochemicals; the report envisions a 40 percent rise in energy demand by 2035 and elevating world oil prices over the next 25 years. If we were to wait for a seller's market, Canadian federal and provincial governments could collect much greater resource royalties than the $79 billion investment revenues currently contemplated; by such a time, the country might also have learned to exploit the resource safely and to properly clean up after the almost inevitable spills.
I'm not suggesting the tar sands should never be exploited, just that we should do it in a far more thoughtful manner, drawing lessons from the Norwegian experience with their exploitation of their North Sea oil, for example, in which that nation has thoughtfully reinvested their oil revenues into a sovereign wealth fund that has increased the sustainability of a very progressive social system, including fully funded pensions, generous paid maternity leave, heavily subsidized child care and free university education. More coverage in your report of what Canada could do with the oil revenues it collects, especially if all or part of the tar sands exploitation were nationalized as Norway did, would have been very beneficial to readers of the report.
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gould - 
November 6, 2012 |
This report uses the term “sustainable development” a total of three times, once in the executive summary and twice in the conclusions. Sustainable development is relegated to an “issue” that policy makers need to consider. The economic implications of for companies or organizations specializing in sustainable development has been either excluded or grouped into another industry. I would imagine that NGO’s and consultants specializing in sustainable development would benefit in some manner. The level of impact for this industry must be so small that it does not warrant its own category, or it has not been investigated in this report. |
|
|
|
Fred O'Brien - 
November 6, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Cam Edgar - 
November 6, 2012 |
Timely information. Justification for further investment while cautioning that workforce capacity may be insufficient. |
|
|
|
Carmela Krebes - 
November 5, 2012 |
Excellent report! |
|
|
|
Nina Reilly - 
November 5, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Jessie Gill - 
November 5, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Colin McFadyen - 
November 5, 2012 |
Great article and summary! |
|
|
|
Dubravka Babic - 
November 5, 2012 |
Report is very useful for policy areas, especialy sections related to labour market demands forecast. This directly informs employment-related programs design to meet those future labour demands. |
|
|
|
Carol Easton - 
November 5, 2012 |
This is all very interesting,but incomplete. I think we all realize that tar sands extraction creates wealth, but there is also an environmental cost that is overlooked in this analysis. Until we can get some frank assessment of what those costs are,both short and long term, analyses like this are partial at best. |
|
|
|
Brad Densmore - 
November 5, 2012 |
Well organized and only limited by scope. |
|
|
|
Duff MacKinnon - 
November 5, 2012 |
The report seems very biased.
All analysis seems to focus only on the positive.
Nowhere does the effect of a higher currency impact on exports and increased imports get factored in on jobs lost, reduced taxes...etc.
Other parts of Canada may be getting some benefit from the tar sands but there are also costs being born which may or may not be higher than the benefits.
Your analysis does not cover this. Was the report paid for by the tar sands indusrty? |
|
|
|
Stanley Wong - 
November 5, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Tuan Bui - 
November 5, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Sylvain Bernard - 
November 5, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Christopher Mason - 
November 5, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Bertrand Marotte (use 1088614) - 
November 5, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Peter Nicol - 
November 5, 2012 |
This report is informative and well organized although I believe the benefits still need more balance against the overall environmental impact of an operation of this magnitude. |
|
|
|
James Anderton (use 3066035) - 
November 5, 2012 |
Well researched, succinct and to-the-point. Data is presented clearly. A useful study. |
|
|
|
Matthew Gierc - 
November 5, 2012 |
Deeply insightful. Appreciated the depth of industry statistics combined with interesting (and unexpected) anecdotal evidence. |
|
|
|
Stelios Loizides - 
November 5, 2012 |
Very timely and useful research. Thank you |
|
|
|
Dennis Seebach - 
November 5, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Jack Leung - 
November 5, 2012 |
The document is useful for guiding future industry and academic research. |
|
|
|
David Wong - 
November 2, 2012 |
Very detailed and useful report |
|
|
|
Mahmood Iqbal - 
October 27, 2012 |
* In the study, I don't see the environmental impact of exploration, distribution and trade of oil sands. * Any study of this magnitude is incomplete unless it estimates the NET effect (benefit-cost) to the economy and society. * The funding of the study (Alberta government and Industry Canada) which have already made their minds to go ahead with the oil sand project -- makes the finding of the study questionable. |
|
|
|
Lance Wilson - 
October 26, 2012 |
Very informative, includes good overview of potential aggregate investments in oil sands development, and good review of the economic benefits to not only Alberta, but ROC (and the United States) |
|
|
|
Gerry Stroshein (use 30281) - 
October 25, 2012 |
Like all the research the Conference Board undertakes this captures the real economic benefits the oil sands will continue to provide to all of Canada over the next 25 years.Very well presented. |
|
|
|
Dokyung Pyon - 
October 25, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Tomas Nilsson - 
October 25, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Mike Turnbull - 
October 25, 2012 |
Lots of details for consideration. Very informative. |
|
|
|
Michael Khadempour - 
October 25, 2012 |
The report contained in depth, high quality research on a topic of great importance to Canada |
|
|
|
Jacques Lemieux - 
October 24, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Alana McDonald - 
October 24, 2012 |
|
|
|
|
Rudy Madsen - 
October 24, 2012 |
Good to see that someone is connecting the dots; Ontario with underutilized manufacturing base = Alberta with under serviced manufacturing requirements... |
|
|
|
Katia Caporiccio - 
October 24, 2012 |
Informative and well-organized. |
|
|
|
Chaiwat Sorntirux - 
October 24, 2012 |
|
|
|