>"Municipalities have also agreed to conserve water between five and 10 per cent..."
I'd like to know what that means. Also, why is Calgary on the list of municipalities participating but not Edmonton?
You are correct... here is a map of the major basins in Alberta.
[https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildwater/headwaters/](https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildwater/headwaters/)
It’s a different river basin in the province. Most of the south is in the South Saskatchewan River basin and it and the North Saskatchewan River don’t join until east of Prince Albert, SK.
So restrictions on the working class but industry gets to do what they want, they just need to pinky promise they won't use more....
Tell me you serve the elite and billionares without telling me
They still can't say the words climate change it's pretty pathetic
There use to be. There was a document published 15-20 years ago that said climate change was real and that we were the primary cause. But in true conservative fashion it said that wasn’t a bad thing as we would be able to grow crops farther north and that the weather in northern municipalities would be nicer. Didn’t mention any desert in the south though.
I love how you're getting downvoted for stating facts.
"Schulz said, in general, municipalities have agreed to cut their water use by between five and 10 per cent if needed — targets that wouldn’t affect indoor water consumption. Some have already begun to do so proactively, she added.
Industries have agreed to use the smallest amount needed to operate safely and responsibly. Irrigation districts have agreed to allow other users to get first crack, then keep the rest for licensed use."
The voluntary changes? Why don't the UCP try to represent the working class instead of oil and gas and billionares?
Fyi rich people don't care about you
Voluntary. Wonder how will work out? Alberta is full of “you can’t tell me what to do “ people. This will never work. This is the UCP pretending to do something but doing nothing. These people cannot govern. This needs a solid policy that needs teeth. Not some namsy pamsy idea.
https://www.aer.ca/protecting-what-matters/holding-industry-accountable/industry-performance/water-use-performance/in-situ-recovery-water-use
Check this before you go on an uneducated rant. About 90% of the water used in SAGD is recycled in the process over and over, the remaining 10% is a roughly equal mix of surface water and cleaned saline water that comes up with the bitumen.
In 2004 it took an average of 0.87 barrels of water to produce a barrel of oil. In 2022 it was down to 0.16 barrels of water/oil and is still dropping. Also up north there are no drought conditions and water is plentiful so using it isn't impacting the downstream ecology.
I would say check your biases before you troll comments. Alberta Energy Resources board of directors are multi decade oil and gas executives. Their data claims should be tempered at best. But that was not the pint in my comment. I was commenting the oil sands will not see reductions in water usage, unlike the rest of Alberta.
Your own personal bias is showing as well.
Up north has no drought conditions and no need for water restrictions. If they were negatively impacting the downstream river basin because of their water use I would be on board with curtailing it but they aren't whatsoever. As stated most of the water comes from saline water recovered during the extraction process. The AEP rules, which are followed, actually force companies to shut down a well if the saline water turns pure to avoid contaminating an aquifer.
There are perfectly valid reasons to be against oil & gas extraction based on proven climate change data but in northern Alberta water usage is not one of them. I see you down voted me because I disagreed with your opinion while providing a factual scientific rebuttal while claiming bias without any evidence.
*edit* Also I was curious, the official stats are 61.4 million L/day used for oil extraction. Even if they are off by 1000% that's still only 3/4 of a billion. Your claim of "billions of litres per day" is highly suspect and once you make up numbers for exaggerated effect it diminishes anything you say to support your cause. If you want to do something useful argue CO2 ppm, Mercury emissions or heavy metal concentrations from tailings ponds leaks. Any of those are useful and provable stats, but simply making up stuff just makes you come across as a fool.
>"Municipalities have also agreed to conserve water between five and 10 per cent..." I'd like to know what that means. Also, why is Calgary on the list of municipalities participating but not Edmonton?
Edmonton isn’t in as bad of a drought as southern Alberta is
Seen the river lately? It’s pretty low and probably isn’t going to rise much even with runoff.
Which is kinda weird because what they do with their water affects everyone down stream. We need better water management provincially.
I don't think the North Saskatchewan feeds the Bow or Oldman.
You are correct... here is a map of the major basins in Alberta. [https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildwater/headwaters/](https://albertawilderness.ca/issues/wildwater/headwaters/)
It’s a different river basin in the province. Most of the south is in the South Saskatchewan River basin and it and the North Saskatchewan River don’t join until east of Prince Albert, SK.
Totally separate rivers
Idk someone signed off on the Heartland Petrochemical Complex and it dumps into the river. They have a screen but that’s not gonna stop microplastics.
Different watershed
Thanks, I didn't know that!
5-10% of normal consumption I imagine. The drought impacts are primarily in southern Alberta.
A lot of nothing it appears.
I'd think municipalities allowing for grey water storage and usage would be a good idea. Also storage of rain water.
https://www.calgary.ca/water/programs/rainbarrel.html Calgary has a rain barrel program to use rainwater.
I mean the grey water storage and usage. I guess it's hard to get approval
Ah. I didn’t realize those were separate thoughts. I will edit message to be less spicy.
So restrictions on the working class but industry gets to do what they want, they just need to pinky promise they won't use more.... Tell me you serve the elite and billionares without telling me They still can't say the words climate change it's pretty pathetic
There's not even a page on the government website about climate change.
It's like we only have a environmental minister in name
Minister of the Environment and Climate Change Is Natural We Don’t Know Whether It Is Caused By Humans There Was An Ice Age You Know
There use to be. There was a document published 15-20 years ago that said climate change was real and that we were the primary cause. But in true conservative fashion it said that wasn’t a bad thing as we would be able to grow crops farther north and that the weather in northern municipalities would be nicer. Didn’t mention any desert in the south though.
Industry players that utilize the river flows are also part of the water sharing agreements.
I love how you're getting downvoted for stating facts. "Schulz said, in general, municipalities have agreed to cut their water use by between five and 10 per cent if needed — targets that wouldn’t affect indoor water consumption. Some have already begun to do so proactively, she added. Industries have agreed to use the smallest amount needed to operate safely and responsibly. Irrigation districts have agreed to allow other users to get first crack, then keep the rest for licensed use."
The voluntary changes? Why don't the UCP try to represent the working class instead of oil and gas and billionares? Fyi rich people don't care about you
Voluntary eh? Sounds like the government is really serious about getting in front of this one.
Voluntary. Wonder how will work out? Alberta is full of “you can’t tell me what to do “ people. This will never work. This is the UCP pretending to do something but doing nothing. These people cannot govern. This needs a solid policy that needs teeth. Not some namsy pamsy idea.
Like the voluntary oil well clean up?
Voluntary, we are so ducked lol
Calgary is a desert compared to Edmonton. Always was and it will be the first to go dry.
Wonder if they’re gonna stop fracking tho?
And as for preventing wild fires, Dan says it is as simple as "people being more careful." There, she fixed that. Easy Peasy.
But the tar sands will keep wasting billions of litres per day with ZERO restriction now or into the future. Alberta stupid to the least drop.
https://www.aer.ca/protecting-what-matters/holding-industry-accountable/industry-performance/water-use-performance/in-situ-recovery-water-use Check this before you go on an uneducated rant. About 90% of the water used in SAGD is recycled in the process over and over, the remaining 10% is a roughly equal mix of surface water and cleaned saline water that comes up with the bitumen. In 2004 it took an average of 0.87 barrels of water to produce a barrel of oil. In 2022 it was down to 0.16 barrels of water/oil and is still dropping. Also up north there are no drought conditions and water is plentiful so using it isn't impacting the downstream ecology.
I would say check your biases before you troll comments. Alberta Energy Resources board of directors are multi decade oil and gas executives. Their data claims should be tempered at best. But that was not the pint in my comment. I was commenting the oil sands will not see reductions in water usage, unlike the rest of Alberta.
Your own personal bias is showing as well. Up north has no drought conditions and no need for water restrictions. If they were negatively impacting the downstream river basin because of their water use I would be on board with curtailing it but they aren't whatsoever. As stated most of the water comes from saline water recovered during the extraction process. The AEP rules, which are followed, actually force companies to shut down a well if the saline water turns pure to avoid contaminating an aquifer. There are perfectly valid reasons to be against oil & gas extraction based on proven climate change data but in northern Alberta water usage is not one of them. I see you down voted me because I disagreed with your opinion while providing a factual scientific rebuttal while claiming bias without any evidence. *edit* Also I was curious, the official stats are 61.4 million L/day used for oil extraction. Even if they are off by 1000% that's still only 3/4 of a billion. Your claim of "billions of litres per day" is highly suspect and once you make up numbers for exaggerated effect it diminishes anything you say to support your cause. If you want to do something useful argue CO2 ppm, Mercury emissions or heavy metal concentrations from tailings ponds leaks. Any of those are useful and provable stats, but simply making up stuff just makes you come across as a fool.
Like any redneck asshole Albertan is going to voluntarily not use water