How is the clean up job going with Puget Sound, 20-30+ years and still toxins and pollutants are flowing into it. Does anyone really think they can stop this polluting of the Athabasca River system. Man is to busy thinking about today.
Tar sands = filthy dirty bitumen "oil"
- Thread starter dumpthemonarchy
- Start date
Facts and common sense make fund raising far too hard for the greenies. Wonder what they would do if they ever had to work for a living? Sell gas and doughnuts at a convenience store?
Tonington; What's was your line of work anyway? I'll be sure to mention it from now on whenever you have something to say that isn't directly related to your work...[/QUOTE said:
Until the city of Victoria stops pumping sewage directly into the ocean, I think that it will take a very long time to fix that ridiculous mess.
Kinda makes you wonder where David Suzuki or Forest Ethics is on this, afterall, that ought to be a no-brainer as the technology has existed for decades... I guess that if you live on the Left-Coast of Canada, it's A-OK to poison the marine environment as long as you piss and moan about the oil sands.
It's already a battle royal...I don't want the tar sands shut down, but you wouldn't know that if you were going by what some in here say. I'm not even against using oil. But it's not so convenient to pigeon hole someone if you don't ignore the relevant parts. Gerry, Avro, myself, have all said we don't want the place shut down. But we're argued against by people who insist that we're vile hypocrites who want to destroy jobs. That's nonsense. And frankly, when you tell me that I should stick to what I know, I know ecology very well. You can't get a BSc in agriculture without understanding ecological principles.
I have two objections, and they're very simple to show. The first, is that these operations are adding heavy metals to the watershed, and that impacts the health of everything in that area, fish, insects, plants, and more importantly the people who live there. The second, is quite simple also. There is no way that humans can take a functioning eco-system, and destroy it, and then reclaim it to make it better. Technically, you need remediation to first remove all the toxins you've added, and there's no way that you can actually make the eco-system stronger afterward even if you've removed all the toxins. You've altered the conditions so radically during the process, that competition will favour certain species. That tips the balance, and when you tip the balance in an ecosystem, you are making it inherently unstable. That's standard ecological theory. We've changed the ecosystem dynamics. Rolled up in that is the reduced ecological servicing.
Now, here's the last and key point. The reclaimed land is far better than the industrial land it replaces. That's obvious, and not controversial at all. I'm glad that there are people like Kakato doing this work. If there wasn't then Northern Alberta would be a wasteland for millenia. However, just because it is improved from open pits and tailings ponds, has grass growing, trees, birds, etc does not mean that it has been improved from the pre-industrial condition. It maybe aesthetically pleasing, more so than the bogs, muskeg, fen that were growing there before the land was stripped, but that does not mean it is made better. Bogs, muskeg, fen, all have a role to play within boreal forests. The boreal forest requires these niches. That, also, is uncontroversial.
Does that make it clear? I'm not demonizing the work Kakato does, I'm just disagreeing that the reclaimed land is better than the undisturbed boreal forest it replaces.
It looks like there are Democrat and Republican senators that are lobbying in support for Alberta Oil sands oil.
Who are you gonna blame now for the US buying Ft.Mac black-gold?
U-S senator impressed with the oilsands
_QR77 Newsroom
9/17/2010
A U-S senator says he is very impressed with Alberta's oilsands after a tour with Premier Ed Stelmach and two other senators.
Republican Saxby Chambliss, of Georgia, was joined by Senators Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, and Kay Hagan, who is a Democrat from North Carolina.
Chambliss says he's also impressed with the technology and the way the land is reclaimed once the oil in the Fort McMurray region is extracted.
You bring up one good point Ton, when I first started working back in the 60s and there was a swamp right on line, they would build a highway right through the middle of it (just a waste of good land anyway!!!!!!!!). By the 70s and 80s they recognized swamps were a valuable part of the environment and avoided putting a road there if at all possible and if not they would replace it with another man made "swamp", probably not as good as the one lost but still better than nothing.
I seriously question the value of this thread. You guys are going to continue to insult each other, and completely dispute anything either one says.
Let's face it: the tar sands could be better from an environmental point of view.
Enough said.
You 3 all have your points of view, whether it's due to paychecks or whatever, and you aint gonna change. So why bother with the bull****.
Let's face it: the tar sands could be better from an environmental point of view.
Enough said.
You 3 all have your points of view, whether it's due to paychecks or whatever, and you aint gonna change. So why bother with the bull****.
I'm inclined to agree- along with a couple of other threads about global warming and cooling that after about day 3 just got to be a bunch of anal repitition.
I would, but I like to constantly post drivel because it supports my employer's perspective.
Once again as you dont seem to GET IT....the deposits are at the surface,thick black gooey bitumen ore,nothing is growing on it.You think there is a boreal forest on bitumen outcrops? Give your head a shake man.
Untill after it's reclaimed that is.;-)
All the toxins we added? Where do you think they came from? oh ya....the oilsands themselves,which were removed and a small percentage get put back in the tailings ponds(approx 2% bitumen) so thats more toxins removed from the environment then existed prior to mining.
Man,you may have schooling but your not very well schooled in the oilsands.
Theres very little boreal forest disturbed and what is disturbed is for access to said deposits,same as logging,highways,municipal developments,I could go on and on,it's all dealt with the same way so why the focus on the oilsands when the rest of the world is doing the same thing?
We all deal with reclamation the same way,it's the law.
The oilsands at least have mega bucks to throw at their reclamation and they arent scared to spend whatever it takes,cant say that for logging,highways,developments etc.
Where reclaim is concerned their wallet is wide open,from 400 million in the TRO project's budget this year to 800 million in the budget next year.
And you say they arent doing anything?
Stick to what you know bud,this is all available in the media though so I can only surmise that you have either a hate on for Alberta,are jelous,or have some agenda.
No wonder no one takes the oilsands "internet experts" like yourself serious anymore.
I usually save that one for later,when the oilsands internet experts say they have no agenda.;-)
Production-quality oil sands are not found on the surface. Those accessible by surface mining are found about 50 to 75 metres under the surface in large underground deposits. To reach deposits deeper than that, “in situ,” underground-only methods must be used. The deposits in the Athabasca region are known as the McMurray Formation, a Lower Cretaceous oil-bearing quartz sandstone, thought to have formed 130 million years ago. The deposit lies below marine clays of the Clearwater Formation and above Devonian limestone of the Beaverhill Lake Group.
To get to the oil sands, mining companies take away all the timber at a mining site, remove the top meter or two of topsoil and clear away the “overburden” — the mix of sand and clay that lies directly atop the oil sands. Then extraction begins.
http://magazine.mining.com/issues/1009/Vol03-06-TheChallengesAndPotentialOfCanadasOilSands-06-09.pdf
And, I distinctly remember you and kryptic saying that the soil layers are stockpiled separately. Something about big fines if you mixed soil horizons.
Where do you think they come from? From the bitumen. Emissions come from the upgraders. Just like burning coal proliferates the mercury stored in the coal.
There ya go JLM, cappy's answer to everything. If you don't like what the oil company's are doing, stop using oil. If you don't like what's being posted, stop reading. I guess if you don't like the pollution in the air his answer would be to stop breathing.
Hope that you're getting paid for your drivel.
Give it a try gerry and get back to me and get me know that works out for ya.
Which of you greenie weenies wants to come make planet saving bio-diesel for me?
I'll supply the canola, the oil extractor, the chems, tanks, pumps, and I'll pay $0.30L for the end product but you'll have to provide your own bail money, lawyer money and money for the fine.
Who is up to the task?
I'll supply the canola, the oil extractor, the chems, tanks, pumps, and I'll pay $0.30L for the end product but you'll have to provide your own bail money, lawyer money and money for the fine.
Who is up to the task?
Canada’s Environment Minister will review the Alberta agency responsible for overseeing water quality in rivers around the province’s oil sands, including the Athabasca River.
Minister Jim Prentice said Friday he was “disgusted” by images released this week showing deformities of fish pulled from the Athabasca. He made the comments two days after travelling to Edmonton to meet with David Schindler, a University of Alberta researcher who authored a report last month revealing levels of harmful elements, such as mercury, found in the Athabasca.
Dr. Schindler, a vocal oil sands critic, was also among the group who made public the images of deformed fish, and gave Mr. Prentice a sneak peek.
“I will tell you the photographs of the fish I've seen are disgusting. As somebody who's been a fly fisherman my whole life, you know, this is something we need to take seriously and get to the bottom of,” Mr. Prentice told The Globe and Mail.
He’s going to commission a Canada-wide panel of researchers to review whether the model used by Alberta’s Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program is appropriate. The agency is led by industry and the provincial government, but is criticized by environmentalists as toothless.
Alberta's water watchdog under tighter scrutiny over oil sands - The Globe and MailMinister Jim Prentice said Friday he was “disgusted” by images released this week showing deformities of fish pulled from the Athabasca. He made the comments two days after travelling to Edmonton to meet with David Schindler, a University of Alberta researcher who authored a report last month revealing levels of harmful elements, such as mercury, found in the Athabasca.
Dr. Schindler, a vocal oil sands critic, was also among the group who made public the images of deformed fish, and gave Mr. Prentice a sneak peek.
“I will tell you the photographs of the fish I've seen are disgusting. As somebody who's been a fly fisherman my whole life, you know, this is something we need to take seriously and get to the bottom of,” Mr. Prentice told The Globe and Mail.
He’s going to commission a Canada-wide panel of researchers to review whether the model used by Alberta’s Regional Aquatic Monitoring Program is appropriate. The agency is led by industry and the provincial government, but is criticized by environmentalists as toothless.