Canada natural resource wealth

[GordonH]

3 big ones:
Mining (what’s left is basically grandfathered in) nothing new
Forestry (pretty close to deaths door) mills shutting down
Oil & gas (the writing is on the wall)

This is were the wealth of Canada comes from, taxes raise by our natural resources fund health care & education. Once it drys up or is forced to shutdown.
We essentially become a 3rd world nation... which still has huge wealth of natural resources untapped.

Oh ya a monstrous high debt to boot.

[liisgo]

Yep, and we are well on our way of giving up all three of those so many can have a feel good time about themselves. Having absolutely zero idea of where our wealth will come from to feed their every demand of need onto our government and people. There are a lot of people with in our society that have been sold the dream of an Utopia, a dream that has no plan or replacement for these economic wealth resource items we just happen to have in our possession.
So, we do what is being done right now. Just continually borrow money to support everyone.
At least the good old USA is enjoying watching us save all our much demand resources for their future need. Because when these resources become harder for the USA to source, they will very easily just take ours.
Cheers

[seewood]

3 big ones:
Mining (what’s left is basically grandfathered in) nothing new
Forestry (pretty close to deaths door) mills shutting down
Oil & gas (the writing is on the wall)

This is were the wealth of Canada comes from, taxes raise by our natural resources fund health care & education. Once it drys up or is forced to shutdown.
We essentially become a 3rd world nation... which still has huge wealth of natural resources untapped.

Oh ya a monstrous high debt to boot.

Kinda disagree.. There are plenty of undiscovered minerals under the ground. As these minerals become more expensive on the commodities exchange, ground with lower concentrations become viable to mine. However with UNDRIP the prospect of mining any of this becomes restricted. Therein lies the issue.

Forestry used to be the number one economic driver in BC and very important in other provinces as well. If provincial governments will finally state areas that are working forest, free of any encumbrances from tree huggers, and claims from various groups, forestry can continue to be a large economic influence. Mills are shutting down because of lack of saw logs and existing mills are upgrading to do the work of two mills.

Regarding oil and gas, I look around while driving and while stuck in Kelowna's "red light district" ( thanks for that one from a poster on another thread) one can only believe all the vehicles you see being electric is really a long time coming. take a drive to Vancouver and realize the number of vehicles on the roads and the current low numbers being electric compared to ice vehicles. Trains, transport trucks, freighters, airliners, military ships and aircraft will not be transitioning to electric anytime soon. Gas keeps us warm, fed and other household uses because of it's energy density and it's lower cost from electricity.
Yes, there will be a change but I think it will be glacial slow.

[GordonH]

3 big ones:
Mining (what’s left is basically grandfathered in) nothing new
Forestry (pretty close to deaths door) mills shutting down
Oil & gas (the writing is on the wall)

This is were the wealth of Canada comes from, taxes raise by our natural resources fund health care & education. Once it drys up or is forced to shutdown.
We essentially become a 3rd world nation... which still has huge wealth of natural resources untapped.

Oh ya a monstrous high debt to boot.

Kinda disagree.. There are plenty of undiscovered minerals under the ground. As these minerals become more expensive on the commodities exchange, ground with lower concentrations become viable to mine. However with UNDRIP the prospect of mining any of this becomes restricted. Therein lies the issue.

Forestry used to be the number one economic driver in BC and very important in other provinces as well. If provincial governments will finally state areas that are working forest, free of any encumbrances from tree huggers, and claims from various groups, forestry can continue to be a large economic influence. Mills are shutting down because of lack of saw logs and existing mills are upgrading to do the work of two mills.

Regarding oil and gas, I look around while driving and while stuck in Kelowna's "red light district" ( thanks for that one from a poster on another thread) one can only believe all the vehicles you see being electric is really a long time coming. take a drive to Vancouver and realize the number of vehicles on the roads and the current low numbers being electric compared to ice vehicles. Trains, transport trucks, freighters, airliners, military ships and aircraft will not be transitioning to electric anytime soon. Gas keeps us warm, fed and other household uses because of it's energy density and it's lower cost from electricity.
Yes, there will be a change but I think it will be glacial slow. its price of oil + shutdown of pipeline to US

I agree about what we have under our ground.
Mining companies are staying away from Canada due to mountain of red tape with absolutely no guarantee of actually allowed to mine.

[hobbyguy]

The tendency with natural resources is not to take a long term view.

I worked in the forest industry back in the bronze age. We knew what was going on and that it was NOT sustainable. Cutting down 500 year old trees and pretending that in 50 years we cut the same volume from a new tree. Doesn't work that way. A 500 year old tree 12 ft in diameter yields waaay more lumber than a 50 year old stick (relative size). It was obvious then that at some point, not too far in future, the industry would decline.

Fisheries have a similar stories.

Mining resources have a similar cycle, but not as obvious. The easy stuff goes first. The most valuable stuff goes first.

That general reality is why for many, many years the emphasis from governments was to shift Canada away from "cutters of wood and drawers of water".

The future is not in the past. Forestry etc. will continue to be part of things, but a much smaller part. The "sustainable" part of it is now much smaller. There are many things that were undervalued in the past that emerge has having great value in the present, and future.

Tourism is a key industry now. Tourists don't come to see cut blocks and tailings ponds and rivers turned orange with foamy scum.

At the industrial heart of resources different resources present new opportunities. Spodumene? Yup, Canada has a LOT of Spodumene. Nope, I had no clue what Spodumene was until the last short while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spodumene

Yup, lithium production could become a big thing in Canada. Who knew? Not me. But some people obviously did:https://www.frontierlithium.com/deposits-discoverieshttps://www.mining-technology.com/news/ ... um-canada/https://www.mining-technology.com/proje ... ay-quebec/ - and I'm sure there's a lot more. There are known deposits in the Yellowknife area, and in Manitoba, and in Atlantic Canada as well as in Ontario and Quebec.

I'm sure there are lots of other "niches" in terms of resource opportunities that I have no clue about. The trick is trying to make sure that we don't just ship the resource out for others to take advantage of, but to process and manufacture things here in Canada from those resources.

[Hurtlander]

The tendency with natural resources is not to take a long term view.

I worked in the forest industry back in the bronze age. We knew what was going on and that it was NOT sustainable. Cutting down 500 year old trees and pretending that in 50 years we cut the same volume from a new tree. Doesn't work that way. A 500 year old tree 12 ft in diameter yields waaay more lumber than a 50 year old stick (relative size). It was obvious then that at some point, not too far in future, the industry would decline.

Fisheries have a similar stories.

Mining resources have a similar cycle, but not as obvious. The easy stuff goes first. The most valuable stuff goes first.

That general reality is why for many, many years the emphasis from governments was to shift Canada away from "cutters of wood and drawers of water".

The future is not in the past. Forestry etc. will continue to be part of things, but a much smaller part. The "sustainable" part of it is now much smaller. There are many things that were undervalued in the past that emerge has having great value in the present, and future.

Tourism is a key industry now. Tourists don't come to see cut blocks and tailings ponds and rivers turned orange with foamy scum.

At the industrial heart of resources different resources present new opportunities. Spodumene? Yup, Canada has a LOT of Spodumene. Nope, I had no clue what Spodumene was until the last short while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spodumene

Yup, lithium production could become a big thing in Canada. Who knew? Not me. But some people obviously did:https://www.frontierlithium.com/deposits-discoverieshttps://www.mining-technology.com/news/ ... um-canada/https://www.mining-technology.com/proje ... ay-quebec/ - and I'm sure there's a lot more. There are known deposits in the Yellowknife area, and in Manitoba, and in Atlantic Canada as well as in Ontario and Quebec.

I'm sure there are lots of other "niches" in terms of resource opportunities that I have no clue about. The trick is trying to make sure that we don't just ship the resource out for others to take advantage of, but to process and manufacture things here in Canada from those resources.

Good points, but as someone further back pointed out, if UNDRIP is ever fully implemented in Canada we may never have the opportunity to recognize more jobs, wealth creation and a good tax base from any future new mining or forestry projects. I fully understand the concept of consulting with First Nations peoples about any future resources extraction projects, but the reality is that because of their own internal fighting and squabbling between elected chiefs and hereditary chiefs etc, our resource extraction industry will undoubtedly come to a standstill if UNDRIP becomes a reality.

[hobbyguy]

The tendency with natural resources is not to take a long term view.

I worked in the forest industry back in the bronze age. We knew what was going on and that it was NOT sustainable. Cutting down 500 year old trees and pretending that in 50 years we cut the same volume from a new tree. Doesn't work that way. A 500 year old tree 12 ft in diameter yields waaay more lumber than a 50 year old stick (relative size). It was obvious then that at some point, not too far in future, the industry would decline.

Fisheries have a similar stories.

Mining resources have a similar cycle, but not as obvious. The easy stuff goes first. The most valuable stuff goes first.

That general reality is why for many, many years the emphasis from governments was to shift Canada away from "cutters of wood and drawers of water".

The future is not in the past. Forestry etc. will continue to be part of things, but a much smaller part. The "sustainable" part of it is now much smaller. There are many things that were undervalued in the past that emerge has having great value in the present, and future.

Tourism is a key industry now. Tourists don't come to see cut blocks and tailings ponds and rivers turned orange with foamy scum.

At the industrial heart of resources different resources present new opportunities. Spodumene? Yup, Canada has a LOT of Spodumene. Nope, I had no clue what Spodumene was until the last short while. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spodumene

Yup, lithium production could become a big thing in Canada. Who knew? Not me. But some people obviously did:https://www.frontierlithium.com/deposits-discoverieshttps://www.mining-technology.com/news/ ... um-canada/https://www.mining-technology.com/proje ... ay-quebec/ - and I'm sure there's a lot more. There are known deposits in the Yellowknife area, and in Manitoba, and in Atlantic Canada as well as in Ontario and Quebec.

I'm sure there are lots of other "niches" in terms of resource opportunities that I have no clue about. The trick is trying to make sure that we don't just ship the resource out for others to take advantage of, but to process and manufacture things here in Canada from those resources.

Good points, but as someone further back pointed out, if UNDRIP is ever fully implemented in Canada we may never have the opportunity to recognize more jobs, wealth creation and a good tax base from any future new mining or forestry projects. I fully understand the concept of consulting with First Nations peoples about any future resources extraction projects, but the reality is that because of their own internal fighting and squabbling between elected chiefs and hereditary chiefs etc, our resource extraction industry will undoubtedly come to a standstill if UNDRIP becomes a reality.

Actually that does NOT seem to be the case. There are plenty of FNs that given half a chance are quite willing to be partners in economic projects. The LNG projects in BC are one example, as is the group of FNs that are looking at buying the TMX. There are many more. A fair deal seems to have many FNs on side, the key being a fair deal.

FNs are not some "other" to be feared, they are just a key part of the tapestry that is Canada.

[Hurtlander]

Good points, but as someone further back pointed out, if UNDRIP is ever fully implemented in Canada we may never have the opportunity to recognize more jobs, wealth creation and a good tax base from any future new mining or forestry projects. I fully understand the concept of consulting with First Nations peoples about any future resources extraction projects, but the reality is that because of their own internal fighting and squabbling between elected chiefs and hereditary chiefs etc, our resource extraction industry will undoubtedly come to a standstill if UNDRIP becomes a reality.

Actually that does NOT seem to be the case. There are plenty of FNs that given half a chance are quite willing to be partners in economic projects. The LNG projects in BC are one example, as is the group of FNs that are looking at buying the TMX. There are many more. A fair deal seems to have many FNs on side, the key being a fair deal.

FNs are not some "other" to be feared, they are just a key part of the tapestry that is Canada.

Certainly there are many First Nations that want to be involved in growing Canada’s economy, but there’s just as many that want to stop all resource extraction. Three examples that come to mind are; The recent old growth logging protests on Vancouver Island, The First Nation band that controls the area in question wanted to hire Teal Jones to do the logging, but due to pressure from environmentalists and First Nations from other parts of the province, they were forced to temporarily halt the logging of their old growth forest. Second: The new natural gas pipeline to feed the LNG plant under construction in Kitamat was fully supported by all the elected chiefs along the length of the pipeline corridor, but the hereditary chiefs put up blockades a couple winters ago because they don’t support the pipeline. Third: A great number of First Nations are involved with the building of the TMX pipeline project, and yes a group of First Nations have put in a bid to buy the pipeline...

but there’s still a fairly large radical group of First Nations trying to stop the project, this radical group is heavily funded by the Suzuki foundation and the Sierra Club, they got their protest camp set up in Blue River. The rather lengthy section of the pipeline corridor that runs through Blue River is the only section of the entire pipeline corridor that hasn’t seen any activity whatsoever, no widening the right of way, no stockpiles of pipe, no machinery etc... there’s much speculation that that section of pipeline will never be completed, because after four full years the government has been too afraid to have the protesters removed ...

. these First Nations protesters claim that the elected First Nation chiefs didn’t have the authority to agree to the pipeline....
Regardless, I’ve never said there aren’t progressive First Nations, but there’s also an equal number of First Nations that don’t want any future economic activity that involves resources extraction. A lot of First Nations peoples claim that elected chiefs only have a say within the confines of their reservation boundaries, not traditional territory, what happens on unceded territory off the reservation any agreements with the white mans government has to have 100% total support and consent from all First Nations groups which are represented by the hereditary chiefs, the government only deals elected chiefs .

[Randall T]

There is great wealth in Canada. We simply need new, innovative ways to responsibly harvest it with the future in mind. We can't keep doing things the way they have been done for the past century. Innovation creates new jobs and will be beneficial to future generations. The problem with forestry and mining is that it is presently being done in a way that puts corporate profit over responsible practices. The same as land development with no regard to our wildlife. Corporate mentality needs to change in order to bring the other side closer. But as long as the money is in easy reach, responsible practices are just another expense that affects the bottom line. Unfortunately that kind of change is near impossible due to immediate gratification and greed. A day or reckoning will come, and I'm not talking about the religious version.

[rustled]

There is great wealth in Canada. We simply need new, innovative ways to responsibly harvest it with the future in mind. We can't keep doing things the way they have been done for the past century. Innovation creates new jobs and will be beneficial to future generations. The problem with forestry and mining is that it is presently being done in a way that puts corporate profit over responsible practices. The same as land development with no regard to our wildlife. Corporate mentality needs to change in order to bring the other side closer. But as long as the money is in easy reach, responsible practices are just another expense that affects the bottom line. Unfortunately that kind of change is near impossible due to immediate gratification and greed. A day or reckoning will come, and I'm not talking about the religious version.

It's the same mindset, though, IMO. We are still expected to suspend disbelief and go along with doom and gloom prophesies of the coming apocalypse. The objectives of today's prophets are no different than the objectives of previous religions.

We have been innovating over the past century - and for all of the centuries before that. It is human nature to innovate, and it is human nature to gravitate toward better ways of doing things - just as it's human nature for some to exploit opportunities.

This talk of "corporate mentality needs to change in order to bring the other side closer" - that's all about convincing us there are two clear-cut sides, and that we should collectively consider one side moral and the "other" side immoral, and take the "moral" side in all of our conversations with everyone else. This is precisely, IMO, the unhelpful divisiveness we need less of in Canada. IMO, the suggestion there's "no regard to our wildlife" when we develop land in Canada is another vague and illogical assertion intended to support divisiveness - blaming, shaming, othering.

Because responsible practices often do affect the bottom line, rational folk (IMO) ought to insist we define responsible practices realistically, rather than using loaded language to manipulate emotions, pit people against the "other side", and bog us down in foolish moral arguments.

Our government subsidizes the import of "green" materials which require other countries to access resources that our own "responsible practices" insist we leave in the ground.

There is nothing moral about appeasing people who are utterly illogical in their demands (and blind to the consequences of their demands), particularly when that appeasement is to curry votes or access public funds. Morally, environmentally and financially, this ongoing appeasement of illogic makes no sense whatsoever.

[Randall T]

It's the same mindset, though, IMO. We are still expected to suspend disbelief and go along with doom and gloom prophesies of the coming apocalypse. The objectives of today's prophets are no different than the objectives of previous religions.

We have been innovating over the past century - and for all of the centuries before that. It is human nature to innovate, and it is human nature to gravitate toward better ways of doing things - just as it's human nature for some to exploit opportunities.

This talk of "corporate mentality needs to change in order to bring the other side closer" - that's all about convincing us there are two clear-cut sides, and that we should collectively consider one side moral and the "other" side immoral, and take the "moral" side in all of our conversations with everyone else. This is precisely, IMO, the unhelpful divisiveness we need less of in Canada. IMO, the suggestion there's "no regard to our wildlife" when we develop land in Canada is another vague and illogical assertion intended to support divisiveness - blaming, shaming, othering.

Because responsible practices often do affect the bottom line, rational folk (IMO) ought to insist we define responsible practices realistically, rather than using loaded language to manipulate emotions, pit people against the "other side", and bog us down in foolish moral arguments.

Our government subsidizes the import of "green" materials which require other countries to access resources that our own "responsible practices" insist we leave in the ground.

There is nothing moral about appeasing people who are utterly illogical in their demands (and blind to the consequences of their demands), particularly when that appeasement is to curry votes or access public funds. Morally, environmentally and financially, this ongoing appeasement of illogic makes no sense whatsoever.

Simply, and without getting into a lengthy rebuttal, shutting the barn door after the horses have run off is the problem. That's where we are now. So what is your solution at this place in time? Just keep on keeping on? Then expect things to get uglier and much quicker than originally thought. There's no simple and immediate solution now as we've lost a few decades for the opportunity of gradual and cleaner positive change. Alberta has their oil woes, BC lumber and mining. Industries that should have seen troubles on the horizon but went for instant gratification instead. We have managed to screw up everything we touch. The lip service is "responsible management" which always turns out to be disastrous because the word "responsible" is just the lipstick on the pig.

[PoplarSoul]

There is great wealth in Canada. We simply need new, innovative ways to responsibly harvest it with the future in mind. We can't keep doing things the way they have been done for the past century. Innovation creates new jobs and will be beneficial to future generations. The problem with forestry and mining is that it is presently being done in a way that puts corporate profit over responsible practices. The same as land development with no regard to our wildlife. Corporate mentality needs to change in order to bring the other side closer. But as long as the money is in easy reach, responsible practices are just another expense that affects the bottom line. Unfortunately that kind of change is near impossible due to immediate gratification and greed. A day or reckoning will come, and I'm not talking about the religious version.

[rustled]

It's the same mindset, though, IMO. We are still expected to suspend disbelief and go along with doom and gloom prophesies of the coming apocalypse. The objectives of today's prophets are no different than the objectives of previous religions.

We have been innovating over the past century - and for all of the centuries before that. It is human nature to innovate, and it is human nature to gravitate toward better ways of doing things - just as it's human nature for some to exploit opportunities.

This talk of "corporate mentality needs to change in order to bring the other side closer" - that's all about convincing us there are two clear-cut sides, and that we should collectively consider one side moral and the "other" side immoral, and take the "moral" side in all of our conversations with everyone else. This is precisely, IMO, the unhelpful divisiveness we need less of in Canada. IMO, the suggestion there's "no regard to our wildlife" when we develop land in Canada is another vague and illogical assertion intended to support divisiveness - blaming, shaming, othering.

Because responsible practices often do affect the bottom line, rational folk (IMO) ought to insist we define responsible practices realistically, rather than using loaded language to manipulate emotions, pit people against the "other side", and bog us down in foolish moral arguments.

Our government subsidizes the import of "green" materials which require other countries to access resources that our own "responsible practices" insist we leave in the ground.

There is nothing moral about appeasing people who are utterly illogical in their demands (and blind to the consequences of their demands), particularly when that appeasement is to curry votes or access public funds. Morally, environmentally and financially, this ongoing appeasement of illogic makes no sense whatsoever.

Simply, and without getting into a lengthy rebuttal, shutting the barn door after the horses have run off is the problem. That's where we are now.

This is a slogan to support a talking point to support a narrative.

So what is your solution at this place in time? Just keep on keeping on?

Yup.

Then expect things to get uglier and much quicker than originally thought.

That's what the narrative requires us to believe.

There's no simple and immediate solution now as we've lost a few decades for the opportunity of gradual and cleaner positive change.

So is this. It's remarkably similar to quoting biblical scripture to convince the non-believers to suspend disbelief.

Alberta has their oil woes, BC lumber and mining.

Yup, environmental activism has resulted in consequences - some positive and some distinctly negative.

Industries that should have seen troubles on the horizon but went for instant gratification instead.

A first world country engaged in resource extraction, which improved the standard of living for all Canadians - just as people have done since we lived in caves. You can call it "instant gratification" if you wish, but IMO most people would just call it "making the best possible use of what we have".

Progress used to be something people who considered themselves progressives understood - today, progress is routinely vilified by fear-mongering puritans.

We have managed to screw up everything we touch.

Hogwash hyperbole. We've made messes, and we've cleaned up messes, too, and we're getting better at understanding how to not make big messes in the first place. That's part of progress - and IMO no one genuinely thinks we should all be living in mud huts and caves with high child mortality rates and low life expectancies.

The lip service is "responsible management" which always turns out to be disastrous because the word "responsible" is just the lipstick on the pig.

More hogwash. Canadian resource extraction has become so responsible, we now import resources from countries without our level of responsible management rather than extract them here.

There's plenty of lipstick smeared all over the faux environmentalism of importing instead of extracting and refining our own resources.

[foenix]

More hogwash. Canadian resource extraction has become so responsible, we now import resources from countries without our level of responsible management rather than extract them here.

Hmmmmm......

Today, mining in Canada generates over 30 times the volumes of solid waste that all citizens, municipalities & industries combined produce on a yearly basis.

As the grades of the ore deposits that are mined get lower and lower over time, the more waste is generated.

Mine waste sites are also failing at an increasing rate, with more and more catastrophic spills documented in recent years.

Many Canadian lakes, rivers and watersheds are already contaminated by mining, some very recently.

Dozens of mine waste sites will require wastewater treatment for the next 200 to 400 years, or more.

https://miningwatch.ca/blog/2020/10/5/m ... -liability

This is the world's most destructive oil operation—and it's growing

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/envi ... fight-back

[crookedmember]

"Canadian resource extraction has become so responsible"

I suggest anyone buying this hogwash take a look at the Alberta orphan well situation and the hundreds of billions of dollars in liabilities Alberta taxpayers inherited when those responsible resource companies walked away from them.