Indigenous Canadians take leading role in battle against TAR SANDS pipeline


mentalfloss
#1
Indigenous Canadians take leading role in battle against tar sands pipeline

Chief Na’Moks stood in the dark of a small smokehouse nestled in the Coast range of British Columbia. Hanging above him were nearly a thousand fish which glinted over the fire below.

“For us, it’s one of the most highly prized commodities that we have,” he said, pulling one of the glistening candlefish off the rack. “People don’t get why we want to keep what we have. We don’t want anything from anyone. We just want to keep what we have.”

Not so long ago, the chief’s ancestors traded fish oil along the grease trails up and down the coast of British Columbia. Today, however, Chief Na’Moks and many other First Nations leaders are at the forefront of a struggle against a very different kind of oil business: Canada’s largest proposed tar sands pipeline, the Northern Gateway.

It is the country’s environmental battle of the decade, uniting a wide variety of citizens’ groups against the billions of dollars of investment by oil companies and millions in secret funding from the government. First proposed in 2004, the Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline was planned for a 731-mile (1,177km) stretch from the center of Alberta to the coast of British Columbia.

The plan was to carry diluted bitumen from the tar sands, across hundreds of waterways, over two major mountain ranges and through some of the wildest country in North America. It was approved, with 209 conditions, in June of 2014.

Environmental groups, citizen activists and First Nations have used everything from lawsuits to old-fashioned civil disobedience to battle the project – and so far they have been successful. No mean feat, considering that Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper took office in 2006 pledging to make the country into an “energy superpower”.

Indigenous Canadians take leading role in battle against tar sands pipeline | World news | The Guardian
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
AnnaG
+5
#2  Top Rated Post
We can always count on Flossy to start new threads on old topics. What is your count up to now, Floss?
 
petros
+2
#3
Nice. How did trying to stop the CPR work out for Chief Piapot?


PS what are tar sands?
 
mentalfloss
#4
You don't know what the tar sands are?

 
AnnaG
#5
The Composition of Oil Sands - Alberta Energy Heritage
 
petros
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

You don't know what the tar sands are?

I know what oilsands are. Do you?
 
mentalfloss
#7
Oilsands makes them sound like a good thing.

Tar sands are the proper term.

 
petros
#8
Quote:

Each grain of sand is surrounded by a film of water that is in turn covered by the heavy bitumen.

They could be called water sands too but never tar.

Hooray for the water sands. Water is sacred.
 
mentalfloss
#9
Tar sands.
 
Johnnny
No Party Affiliation
#10
I think the economy is taking a leading role against the bitumen fields :P
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#11
Yes it looks like hell and is an eye sore. Now it could be said the same for the
above ground mining in parts of Europe. It is not what it looks like right now it
is a question of what will it look like after reclamation.
I am not against the oil sands or tar sands i am against leaving a mess behind.
I am not against pipelines just against this one for two reasons one its the
company in charge and secondly I think we should have an east west line and
use the stuff ourselves giving Canadian companies an edge screw international
agreements. The bit we would export would be at hugely beneficial prices for
Canadian companies and the Canadian economy. For those about to be critical
yes I am an economic nationalist. Canada looking after Canadians first period.
 
petros
#12
Mess? Are you serious? Please!
 
PoliticalNick
Free Thinker
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Yes it looks like hell and is an eye sore. Now it could be said the same for the
above ground mining in parts of Europe. It is not what it looks like right now it
is a question of what will it look like after reclamation.
I am not against the oil sands or tar sands i am against leaving a mess behind.
I am not against pipelines just against this one for two reasons one its the
company in charge and secondly I think we should have an east west line and
use the stuff ourselves giving Canadian companies an edge screw international
agreements. The bit we would export would be at hugely beneficial prices for
Canadian companies and the Canadian economy. For those about to be critical
yes I am an economic nationalist. Canada looking after Canadians first period.

After reclaimation...


 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Yes it looks like hell and is an eye sore.

Unlike the clear-cutting in BC... A national treasure to be sure



Ahhh, breath taking

Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Now it could be said the same for the
above ground mining in parts of Europe.

Europe?... What about your province?


Beauuuuuu-ti-ful



Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

It is not what it looks like right now it
is a question of what will it look like after reclamation.


See Nick's image


Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

I think we should have an east west line and
use the stuff ourselves giving Canadian companies an edge screw international
agreements.

Ummm, Ab to BC is East to West
 
AnnaG
+2
#15
Let me see, clearcutting is more like wildfire, and trees and bushes grow back. Forest companies have decided it is wise to replant. And the land around Brenda Mines is reclaimed. etc. It is not all bad over here. lol
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+3
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Oilsands makes them sound like a good thing.

Tar sands are the proper term.

Uhhh no, not it's not. Tar is a distillate. You don't get oil from tar, you get tar from oil (and other resources) Same with the Le Brea Tar pits in LA. That ain't tar, it's actually asphalt. "Tar sands" is only a "proper" term among tree hugging idiots to make them sound much worse than they actually are.
If you really want to get technical, the correct term would be "bitumen sands".
 
Cliffy
Free Thinker
+1
#17
Doesn't matter what you call them, they still look like the azzhole of the world and its suffering from a.n.a.l leakage.
 
skookumchuck
Free Thinker
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Oilsands makes them sound like a good thing.

Tar sands are the proper term.

Have you looked at a photo of a major city lately, how about thousands of miles of grain land? No harm done there right? Ya need to take away all the white mans goodies and leave that poor chief alone. He would be in real trouble if it was someone with actual intelligence he was talking (whining) to.
 
#juan
No Party Affiliation
+1
#19
One thing the pictures don't show is the God-awful stench of the tar sands.
 
skookumchuck
Free Thinker
+2
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by #juan View Post

One thing the pictures don't show is the God-awful stench of the tar sands.

And there is nothing but rosewater in your septic tank? Or local sewage facility?
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Doesn't matter what you call them, they still look like the azzhole of the world and its suffering from a.n.a.l leakage.

The area where much of the extraction is taking place was a friggin' toxic wasteland long before it ever got developed. In fact many of the reclaimed areas look better than they did before they were mined.
Although they are digging deeper in some areas now, much of what has been extracted was only inches below the surface, toxifying and ultimately killing anything that grew there. Brown patches of grass and scrub. Trees that were deformed and dead or dying. Seepage into the waterways after a good rain or heavy thaw.
It was no pure, pristine landscape.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
#22
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Let me see, clearcutting is more like wildfire, and trees and bushes grow back. Forest companies have decided it is wise to replant. And the land around Brenda Mines is reclaimed. etc. It is not all bad over here. lol

The oilsands are a by product of a natural event and the reclamation efforts are intense and heavily scrutinzed
 
skookumchuck
Free Thinker
+2
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

The area where much of the extraction is taking place was a friggin' toxic wasteland long before it ever got developed. In fact many of the reclaimed areas look better than they did before they were mined.
Although they are digging deeper in some areas now, much of what has been extracted was only inches below the surface, toxifying and ultimately killing anything that grew there. Brown patches of grass and scrub. Trees that were deformed and dead or dying. Seepage into the waterways after a good rain or heavy thaw.
It was no pure, pristine landscape.

I have posted my own experience in the oilsands in 1965/66. Along with the truth about seepage into the waterways, most notably the blobs of oil floating down the river after a rainfall. cliffy however was a hippee, believing any BS he was fed while happily eating anything else that was free.
 
Jinentonix
No Party Affiliation
+1
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuck View Post

I have posted my own experience in the oilsands in 1965/66. Along with the truth about seepage into the waterways, most notably the blobs of oil floating down the river after a rainfall. cliffy however was a hippee, believing any BS he was fed while happily eating anything else that was free.

My first eyes on experience was from the air. While there was a noticeable difference between the area that was being developed and the areas that hadn't been touched yet, most of what hadn't been touched at that point sure wasn't going to win any prizes for its "natural beauty" and "diverse ecosystem".
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by skookumchuck View Post

And there is nothing but rosewater in your septic tank? Or local sewage facility?

The folks South of Victoria just love the 100s of thousands of liters of raw sewage that is pumped into the sea daily by the BC gvt... Adds even more cred to the moniker 'Beautiful BC'
 
petros
#26
The largest single "ecodisaster" is when they clear cut Manitoba for grain farming. Every last one of us dines from that clear cut.
 
pgs
Free Thinker
+2
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The folks South of Victoria just love the 100s of thousands of liters of raw sewage that is pumped into the sea daily by the BC gvt... Adds even more cred to the moniker 'Beautiful BC'

But didn't Victoria elect a green MP . They want to vote green but oppose any tax hike to rectify that sewage outflow .
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

Yes it looks like hell and is an eye sore. Now it could be said the same for the
above ground mining in parts of Europe. It is not what it looks like right now it
is a question of what will it look like after reclamation.
I am not against the oil sands or tar sands i am against leaving a mess behind.
I am not against pipelines just against this one for two reasons one its the
company in charge and secondly I think we should have an east west line and
use the stuff ourselves giving Canadian companies an edge screw international
agreements. The bit we would export would be at hugely beneficial prices for
Canadian companies and the Canadian economy. For those about to be critical
yes I am an economic nationalist. Canada looking after Canadians first period.

Looks far better than any city I ever seen. At least after extracting the oil the land is reclaimed. WHat is done to improve cities after they get infested with stupid people?

Quote: Originally Posted by mentalfloss View Post

Tar sands.

Try reding Anna's link. A little education will do you good after all that indoctrination.
 
petros
+2
#29
Reclamation laws are super f-cking strict and the fines are heavy.
 
MHz
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by Jinentonix View Post

U
If you really want to get technical, the correct term would be "bitumen sands".

Wrong again, 'heavy crude'.