{"slice_names":["facebook_like","facebook","twitter","googleshare","linkedin","pinterest","email","comments"],"slice_params":{"facebook_like":[],"facebook":{"share_amount":"65"},"twitter":{"short_url":"http:\/\/huff.to\/HhNq5K","tweet_text":"Alberta will take $1.2 trillion in oil sands profits as emissions triple ","views_amount":"1"},"googleshare":[],"linkedin":{"linkedin_amount":"0"},"pinterest":[],"email":{"emails_amount":"23","emails_title":"Alberta Oil Sands Royalties To Bring In $1.2 Trillion Over 35 Years: CERI","emails_text":"Alberta\u2019s government will collect $1.2 trillion in royalties from the oil sands over the next 35 years, and emissions from oil and gas extraction are expected to triple during that time, a new report from an industry group says.\r\n\r\nThat stunning number -- equivalent to the entire annual economic output of Australia, or two Switzerlands, and equivalent to 10 times the annual budget of the province of Ontario -- will likely be welcomed by Albertans who can look forward to decades of budget surpluses and low taxes, but will likely raise alarm among economists about the future shape of Canada\u2019s economy.\r\n\r\nThe Canadian Energy Research Institute projects that Alberta\u2019s oil production will rise from 1.6 million barrels per day at present to 5.4 million barrels by 2045<\/a>, and efforts to curtail greenhouse gases will have virtually no effect on emissions.\r\n\r\n\u201cWhile technological innovation within the oil sands industry (in addition to carbon capture and storage) is expected to help reduce these emissions, the emissions are still expected to rise,\u201d the report states. \r\n\r\nIts base scenario foresees an increase in carbon emissions from 45 million tonnes currently to 159 million tonnes per year by 2045 -- an increase of 3.5 times, roughly the same as the increase in oil output.\r\n\r\nIncluding the oil sands, Alberta has 170 million barrels of proven oil reserves -- the world's third-largest supply, behind only Saudi Arabia and Venezuela.\r\n\r\nThe report predicts the royalties Alberta collects from the oil sands will double within four years, to $10 billion per year, reaching $30 billion in 2024 and $52 billion in 2040.\r\n\r\nBut Alberta\u2019s emissions rules mean oil producers will pay in the billions, the report states. Assuming the provincial rules remain the same as they are today, oil producers will see their emissions penalties rise from $747 million in 2011 to $12 billion annually by 2045.\r\n\r\nAlberta\u2019s green rules require companies to buy carbon offsets at $20 per tonne for anything above their emission target this year. The amount paid is to be increased incrementally, by 4.5 per cent per year over the next 35 years. In total, the industry will have paid more than $200 billion in compliance costs by 2045, the study predicts.\r\n\r\nThe report will likely raise new concerns among some economists concerned that increasing dependence on energy exports is damaging Canada\u2019s other economic sectors.\r\n\r\nAs oil sands profits and royalties grow, the economic gap between Alberta and the rest of Canada continues to expand. This can be most obviously seen in federal transfer payments, which equalize provincial revenue between \u201chave\u201d and \u201chave-not\u201d provinces. \r\n\r\nTraditionally, Alberta and Ontario were \u201chave\u201d provinces that contributed more tax money than they received from the federal government. But today, with Ontario\u2019s manufacturing sector slumping (some say because of the oil sands-linked \u201cpetro-dollar\u201d) and oil prices above $100, Alberta and the other \"energy\" provinces -- British Columbia, Newfoundland and Saskatchewan -- have become \"have\" provinces<\/a>, and Ontario is a net recipient of transfer payments -- $3.2 billion for 2012-2013<\/a>.\r\n\r\nCanadian economists have been warning for years that excess reliance on oil and gas could cause Canada to suffer from \u201cDutch Disease,\u201d<\/a> which occurs when a country\u2019s currency rises in value as a result of an oil boom, making non-energy industries uncompetitive in the global economy, and \u201chollowing out\u201d the country\u2019s manufacturing and knowledge base. This phenomenon occurred in the Netherlands in the 1960s and 1970s, hence its name.\r\n\r\nOntario Premier Dalton McGuinty recently found himself in a spat with Western premiers when he complained that the \u201cpetro-dollar\u201d was driving manufacturing out of his province.\r\n\r\n\"If I had my preferences as to whether we have a rapidly growing oil and gas sector in the West or a lower dollar benefiting Ontario, I stand with the lower dollar<\/a>,\u201d McGuinty said, reflecting the views of many economists.\r\n\r\nBut that drew a sharp rebuke from Alberta Premier Alison Redford, who called McGuinty\u2019s argument a \u201cfalse paradigm.\u201d\r\n\r\n\"We know how the value of the dollar works<\/a>,\u201d she said. \u201cIt's in relation to an overall national economy. The reason the Canadian dollar is high is partly because the United States has been going through some economic difficulties.\u201d\r\n\r\nInfighting among provinces is not the only front where the oil sands are causing controversy. Another front is the Keystone XL pipeline, whose proposed construction to carry Alberta oil to Texas refineries has caused numerous protests in the U.S. Keystone builder TransCanada Corp. recently announced the start on construction of the southern leg of the pipeline<\/a>, even as a final decision on the matter awaits the White House in 2013.\r\n\r\nAnother front is Europe, where the EU has delayed a decision on labelling oil sands bitumen as a particularly dirty form of energy<\/a>, a move that would effectively bar oil sands product from EU countries. \r\n\r\nOpponents of Alberta bitumen argue it is a particularly high-emission form of oil, but oil sands industry backers argue that characterization is unfair, as oil sands product is only slightly more polluting than Venezuelan crude<\/a>, which doesn\u2019t face the same \u201cdirty oil\u201d label from the EU.\r\n"},"comments":{"comments_amount":"155"}}}