Tar sands = filthy dirty bitumen "oil"

[ironsides]

Some environmentalists are trying to stop it. Others want to see the companies abiding by our regulations. And despite what some might tell you, the rest of the Canadian tax payers should have a voice, because if it falls to government to start footing any of the bill, it will be our taxes that are used.

It's not an all or nothing situation, and anyone who attempts to frame it that way is only dealing with rhetoric/polemic.

From what I've learned about the Canadian goverment, it is the Albertans who should have a vote about the tar sands. If I'm not mistaken you are a confederation of Provinces that make up Canada. But I am pretty sure it will be the oil companies that have the final decision in the end.

 

[Tonington]

From what I've learned about the Canadian goverment, it is the Albertans who should have a vote about the tar sands.

They don't like it when you call them tar sands, they like oil sands, or just call it bitumen.

It's not just Albertans who should. There are non-Albertan Canadians downstream in the same watershed. And if you read the article TenPenny posted, the funds set up as insurance for clean-up are allegedly underfunded.

Do American tax payers enjoy footing the bill for Superfund sites?

 

[ironsides]

They don't like it when you call them tar sands, they like oil sands, or just call it bitumen.

It's not just Albertans who should. There are non-Albertan Canadians downstream in the same watershed. And if you read the article TenPenny posted, the funds set up as insurance for clean-up are allegedly underfunded.

Do American tax payers enjoy footing the bill for Superfund sites?

No we don't, but we have never been given a choice about them before anything became a problem. And what if the costs for the clean-up proposed turn out to be adequate. Will the companies get a refunded the excess?


"A 1996 study on northern river basins called for a specific examination on contaminants and health.
"Nothing was ever done."
In 2007, Environment Canada completed work showing high levels of deformities in fish embryos exposed to oilsands. In 2008, Schindler himself did research that led to two published studies showing that levels of hydrocarbons — some carcinogenic — and toxic heavy metals, including mercury and lead, are both growing and linked to industry."
Scientists want Ottawa to monitor oilsands fish - CTV News



Now finding out what is causing the fish mutations is something to look into, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be concluded soon with preventive measures being implemented immediately thereafter. There is no reason it should take 14-15 years and still nothing.

 

[captain morgan]

And what if the costs for the clean-up proposed turn out to be adequate. Will the companies get a refunded the excess?

I believe that the fund works based on (in part) the risk associated with the company and exactly what they are doing. Those companies that are contributing into the potential liability are required to post a bond against the opportunity that they do not comply with the regulation (go bankrupt or flee the jurisdiction, etc).

As an example, Suncor will announce next week that they have successfully remediated/reclaimed one of their tailings ponds. I believe that as this liability is now "off the books" (so to speak), they will be able to apply that bond towards another environmental (potential) liability.

The point of rationale used by the Pembina Institute in releasing their opinion was founded on the costs at today's prices based on existing technologies/practices. Now that Suncor has achieved a measure of success, the (new) costs can be calculated and Pembina Institute will probably re-issue their analysis based on the new #'s.

As an addendum to the point about Americans funding supersites (clean-up I assume), anyone that buys this product participates directly in the clean up costs as a cost of doing business.

 

[Tonington]

No we don't, but we have never been given a choice about them before anything became a problem. And what if the costs for the clean-up proposed turn out to be adequate. Will the companies get a refunded the excess?

That's typical. Not just for America I mean, but most places. The thing is, I'm sure you have groups out there fighting for that, but you won't see them in the media until you get a big problem, like the oil drilling rigs in the Gulf for instance.

The companies earn interest on the money while it's in the Alberta’s Environmental Protection Security Fund, and when their site is reclaimed, they get the security returned to them.
Security for land reclamation performance – Alberta Environment

There's over 10,000 abandoned mines in this country.

Maybe captain morgan can actually show us his expertise here. He says he works in financial planning for this industry, so surely he should be able to give us a range of expected costs per hectare for a reclaimed site.

Let's see him put his money where his mouth is. For a change.

 

[captain morgan]

Maybe captain morgan can actually show us his expertise here. He says he works in financial planning for this industry, so surely he should be able to give us a range of expected costs per hectare for a reclaimed site.

Let's see him put his money where his mouth is. For a change.

Contrary to your simplistic view of the industry, the regulations are very stringent and comprehensive.

There is no one-sentence answer or range of numbers that will satisfy the question. The nature and scope of the project are key variables as are the specific costs associated with equipment, labour, geographical location as well as the depth of the multi-phase assessments that are required (by law) at the inception and conclusion of the work.

Now finding out what is causing the fish mutations is something to look into, and there is no reason why it shouldn't be concluded soon with preventive measures being implemented immediately thereafter. There is no reason it should take 14-15 years and still nothing.

What do you want to bet that the potential for natural mutation will not be considered in any way, shape or form..... That will be specifically interesting in that the presence of heavy metals in the water will lead to the fish being poisoned before it mutates as a direct result of this exposure.

 

[Tonington]

Contrary to your simplistic view of the industry, the regulations are very stringent and comprehensive.

Yet we see now that heavy metals are above minimum safety levels set out by Alberta and Canadian guidelines. Sure, the guidelines may be stringent, but that doesn't mean they are being followed.

There is no one-sentence answer or range of numbers that will satisfy the question. The nature and scope of the project are key variables as are the specific costs associated with equipment, labour, geographical location as well as the depth of the multi-phase assessments that are required (by law) at the inception and conclusion of the work.

So, you can't say that a range of costs per hectare runs as low as X and as high as Y?

And you're working in financial management?

That's frightening really...

 

[Avro]

If everything is so rosy then, can someone explain this.

What do you want to bet that the potential for natural mutation will not be considered in any way, shape or form..... That will be specifically interesting in that the presence of heavy metals in the water will lead to the fish being poisoned before it mutates as a direct result of this exposure.

You don't even know why and you're already making excuses?

Unreal.:roll:

 

[Tonington]

What do you even know about natural mutations captain? You think that these fish have a competetive advantage? If the mutation is natural, and becoming more prevalent, that means there is some measure of genetic fitness. A fish with open sores, bent spinal chord, and covered with tumors is not advanatged...

What rubbish you come up with...

 

[captain morgan]

Yet we see now that heavy metals are above minimum safety levels set out by Alberta and Canadian guidelines. Sure, the guidelines may be stringent, but that doesn't mean they are being followed.

... And because the levels are above minimum safety, that is the damning evidence that the oil sands are responsible?

That's extra, more gooder science that you got there.

So, you can't say that a range of costs per hectare runs as low as X and as high as Y?

And you're working in financial management?

That's frightening really...

I work in finance. You can learn the difference yourself science-boy.

As far as costs are concerned, I don't do oil sands, I do conventional and the measure is for the reclamation/assessments of leases or (possibly) acres. What you think is the standard for measure is a per acre cost is frivolous, and in large part, why the Pembina Institute's numbers lack credibility.

Fact is, the reclamation/remediation industry is market driven and the costs fluctuate wildly.... It has to do with economics (write that down; it's important). Now, I'd try to give you some insight, but for a student like you, I figure that it'd take a couple of lifetimes (and I just don't have the time).

If what you want is a range of the overall costs I've seen, sure. I've seen sites with limited contamination remediated, assessed and released for under $100K and I've seen sites that required a lot of work cost millions.

Not the simlpe answer you were looking for.

 

[ironsides]

There are natural mutations, but they are usually rare, not like what is being seen there, that is not natural. Down here in Florida, almost every lake is polluted enough that a person should eat only one or two fish caught from them a month at most. I only hope what happened here does not happen anywhere else. There is no fund I am aware of cleaning up our lakes, just laws preventing any more contaminants being released.


http://www.doh.state.fl.us/floridafishadvice/Final%202009%20Fish%20Brochure.pdf



By the way, we have 560,000+ abandoned mines on public lands in U.S.. Who know how many on private lands.

 

[captain morgan]

If everything is so rosy then, can someone explain this.

So, you are saying, unequivocally, that these mutations are the sole result of heavy metals sourced from the oil sands operations?

How about you Mr. Science.. Is this your position?

 

[ironsides]

Recent reports indicate that oil sands tailings ponds are rapidly producing large quantities of mercury, heavy metals, and arsenic. The volume of lead and arsenic produced by Canada’s bitumen mines produced and deposited in tailings ponds increased by 26% during the past four years. The Globe and Mail reported the numbers shown in Environment Canada’s national pollutant release inventory (NPRI) on August 9, 2010.


First Nations people living near the oil sands report high occurrences of fish and other wildlife displaying tumors and deformities. They are convinced that the industry is responsible for increased cancer rates. “The great economic boom is going to be the great economic disaster and devastation to our land and people…”, said Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

Eco justice lawyer Justin Duncan said that a tailings pond burst would be “a catastrophic risk to the Athabasca River system”. Dr. David Schindler stated that if that happened, “the world would forever forget about the Exxon Valdez". Renowned Canadian scientist Dr. David Suzuki believes the oil sands are an “environmental catastrophe that will take centuries to recover from…”.


​

Oil Sands Tailings Ponds Toxins Increase​

 

[Avro]

So, you are saying, unequivocally, that these mutations are the sole result of heavy metals sourced from the oil sands operations?

How about you Mr. Science.. Is this your position?

I'm not assuming anything.

 

[Tonington]

... And because the levels are above minimum safety, that is the damning evidence that the oil sands are responsible?

That's extra, more gooder science that you got there.

You need to see someone about your loss of short term memory. Remember, I told you already, that in the study, they took samples at various spots in the area. In areas up-wind from the oil sands, down-wind, on the oil sands sites, as well as reference samples outside the area. The pattern of deposition is consistent with industrial fallout. This is well established science. Coal fired generators, pulp mills, oil refineries, chemical plants...

Try to keep up, or go see someone about that memory loss. That's a serious concern...

I work in finance.

Yes, hence why I asked you specific questions related to finance.

And you won't answer, typical.

As far as costs are concerned, I don't do oil sands

Ahh, so when you said you work in the industry, you weren't actually referring to the oil sands. Gotcha.

If what you want is a range of the overall costs I've seen, sure. I've seen sites with limited contamination remediated, assessed and released for under $100K and I've seen sites that required a lot of work cost millions.

Not the simlpe answer you were looking for.

Yah, it must be quite a burden for someone like you to take those figures and determine a cost per unit area...

I forgot that you're math challenged as well as science challenged...

 

[captain morgan]

Recent reports indicate that oil sands tailings ponds are rapidly producing large quantities of mercury, heavy metals, and arsenic. The volume of lead and arsenic produced by Canada’s bitumen mines produced and deposited in tailings ponds increased by 26% during the past four years.
​

Increased production of the oil from the sands results in this. It is an unfortunate byproduct of the process no different than massive amounts of sewage being the byproduct of a city.

First Nations people living near the oil sands report high occurrences of fish and other wildlife displaying tumors and deformities. They are convinced that the industry is responsible for increased cancer rates. “The great economic boom is going to be the great economic disaster and devastation to our land and people…”, said Chief Allan Adam of the Athabasca Chipewyan First Nation.

This is a complex issue ironsides. There are conflicting reports that present opposing results.

To date, no one has proven that the health issues in Ft. Chip are the result of the development upstream. The speculation is promoted by specific individuals that have an axe to grind.... That said, the aforementioned doesn't eliminate the possibility, but it is no where near proven.

Eco justice lawyer Justin Duncan said that a tailings pond burst would be “a catastrophic risk to the Athabasca River system”. Dr. David Schindler stated that if that happened, “the world would forever forget about the Exxon Valdez". Renowned Canadian scientist Dr. David Suzuki believes the oil sands are an “environmental catastrophe that will take centuries to recover from…”.

Eco-lawyers and Suzuki are hardly objective sources of anything. In terms of the potential, sure, there is potential for all kinds of bad things to happen, but that exists in any and all facets of life.

I'm not assuming anything.

Then, what exactly are you saying?

 

[Tonington]

So, you are saying, unequivocally, that these mutations are the sole result of heavy metals sourced from the oil sands operations?

How about you Mr. Science.. Is this your position?

It's illuminating that you're calling them mutations...that isn't founded at all. Nobody has presented evidence that these abnormalities are related to genetic code changes.

Mutation has a specific meaning.

Heavy metals have known impacts on the ontogenic changes (careful now, that doesn't mean changes in the genetic code, look it up:Ontogeny - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) in fish. The evidence is very strong that industrial pollutants are the culprit.

 

[captain morgan]

You need to see someone about your loss of short term memory. Remember, I told you already, that in the study, they took samples at various spots in the area. In areas up-wind from the oil sands, down-wind, on the oil sands sites, as well as reference samples outside the area. The pattern of deposition is consistent with industrial fallout. This is well established science. Coal fired generators, pulp mills, oil refineries, chemical plants...

Didn't Kakato already own you on this? Opps, my mistake, he blasted you out of the water on your ridiculous position on soil... But come to think of it, didn't you refer to a bunch of studies and proven science on that one too?

Regardless, you've narrowed-down the source to a myriad of industrial activities. All you need to do is pin it on the oil sands now.

Yes, hence why I asked you specific questions related to finance. And you won't answer, typical.

You asked about financial management Mr. Science and the questions you asked were some of the most naive and simple that I have ever come across. You may have well of asked: "hey, how much does it cost to build something"?

Ahh, so when you said you work in the industry, you weren't actually referring to the oil sands. Gotcha.

There isn't a special and unique industry that is exclusive to oil sands and another (with no overlapping practices/tech) for conventional, or industrial... Man, you have got to be the most naive person that I have ever come across.

Yah, it must be quite a burden for someone like you to take those figures and determine a cost per unit area...

Go out and experience life a little... You reeaallyy need to grow up.

 

[Avro]

Then, what exactly are you saying?

I'm not making excuses or assumptions.

I want to know why.

Don't you?

Eco-lawyers and Suzuki are hardly objective sources of anything. In terms of the potential, sure, there is potential for all kinds of bad things to happen, but that exists in any and all facets of life.

Neither is industry.

 

[Tonington]

Didn't Kakato already own you on this?

No, he didn't. He didn't address the findings at all.

But come to think of it, didn't you refer to a bunch of studies and proven science on that one too?

Yes, I did. You can't explain away those measurements, not without a plausible explanation, which nobosy has offered...

Regardless, you've narrowed-down the source to a myriad of industrial activities. All you need to do is pin it on the oil sands now.

See, there is that faulty memory again. If the concentration is high in the OIL SANDS WORKING SITES, and falls off as you move downwind, and is absent in the upwind, and much higher than the reference samples outside the oil sands area, then it's pretty clear where it's coming from.

Even you should be able to understand that.

If you can't, then you're beyond helping.

Better still, read the paper. Educate yourself. Or don't.