Tar sands = filthy dirty bitumen "oil"

[Tonington]

With Kakato's years of hands on experience in the industry, I think it would be wise to accept his evaluation as his credibility is about as high as it gets. :smile:

As he will tell you, he's not the scientist. He moves the earth where the geologists and others tell him.

And the paper he posted as evidence did not support any contention that the reclaimed land was left in better condition than it was found.

If you wish to accept arguments based on authority, goody for you. I work in a scientific field, and we accept arguments based on what the analysis permits, not based on whom said what.

Argument from authority is a logical fallacy. Citing scientific findings is not a logical fallacy...

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Somehow, I doubt you trusted the authority of BP during the ongoing crisis...yet they are the ones with the expertise.

 

[captain morgan]

I've actually sampled soil...have you?

I've already quoted from a study that Kakato posted. Have you used any science to support a position?

The weak platform is the one which has no support. That would be you...

Unlike yourself, I am located in AB and work directly in the industry...

On that ote, seeing how you've this vast experience in reclamation based on seeing one sample; perhaps you'll recal the VOC levels or sulphur concentrations among the other contaminants in the soil (readily sandy "soil).

Any recollection of the aforemeioned components that comprised that clean, pristine soil?.. Any?

 

[Tonington]

Unlike yourself, I am located in AB and work directly in the industry...

So, what is your connection to reclamation efforts? Are you doing the sampling? What do you know about nutrient cycling?

Probably about as much as Kakato does...

And what exactly is this one sample you are referring to?

 

[captain morgan]

I am involved in the economic analysis and financing side, and make no mistake, this is an area that is of tremendous importance.. So yes, I am familiar with the sampling, tech, language and results.

.. But I digress, you deflected the conversation from the sampling results that you are familiar wth... How about addressing my previous questions.

 

[Avro]

I am located in AB and work directly in the industry...

Ah....now a clearer picture is in view.

Just like a tobacco employee would deny second hand smoke is bad for you, you defend a similar industry that puts scraps on your table.

What a joke.:roll::lol::roll::lol:

 

[Tonington]

I am involved in the economic analysis and financing side, and make no mistake, this is an area that is of tremendous importance.

So you have no knowledge of the actual soil science or quantitative environmental monitoring.

So yes, I am familiar with the sampling, tech, language and results.

Yet you can't grasp that land with lower net productivity is not even left in the same condition it was found in. Stick to your net present value and other forms of financial analysis. Hopefully you're more familiar with that, for the shareholders' sake..

But I digress, you deflected the conversation from the sampling results that you are familiar wth... How about addressing my previous questions.

You have repeatedly failed to provide a reference for how the soil is left in better condition than it was found before the mining began. That's all I'm interested in. Your claim. Provide evidence.

If you can't, then we're done here.

Ah....now a clearer picture is in view.

What's ironic is how that is even relevant. If I can't say anything objective because I don't work in that industry, then I'm prepared for him to admit now that he has no reason to dispute the abundantly evidenced relationship between human industry and it's forcing found in our climate.

 

[captain morgan]

Then stop buyng the product Avro.... The solution couldn't more simple.

Is this issue important enough for you to actually, personally do something ther that piss and moan?

.... I thought not:tool:

So you have no knowledge of the actual soil science or quantitative environmental monitoring.



Yet you can't grasp that land with lower net productivity is not even left in the same condition it was found in. Stick to your net present value and other forms of financial analysis. Hopefully you're more familiar with that, for the shareholders' sake..



You have repeatedly failed to provide a reference for how the soil is left in better condition than it was found before the mining began. That's all I'm interested in. Your claim. Provide evidence.

If you can't, then we're done here.



What's ironic is how that is even relevant. If I can't say anything objective because I don't work in that industry, then I'm prepared for him to admit now that he has no reason to dispute the abundantly evidenced relationship between human industry and it's forcing found in our climate.

 

[Avro]

Then stop buyng the product Avro.... The solution couldn't more simple.

Is this issue important enough for you to actually, personally do something ther that piss and moan?

.... I thought not:tool:

I have explained what I have done a few times Captain, so has AnnaG.

Would you like me to go through it again?

No need for name calling, unless that is where you want this to go?

 

[Tonington]

For the record, trying to get captain morgan to address his claim:

Go read (or re-read) this thread. Your assertion is not a fact. Pay attention to the studies which have found reduced fungal communities in the soil, reduced biodiversity, reduced nitrogen cycling, and reduced carbon cycling for starters. On land supposedly returned to a condition better than that of the pre-industrial use.

Better than it was before? I think not. If you think that is better than it was before, I'd like to know just what better than before means to you...

Attempt #1

So, what data can you post that is any better than his, which didn't support the contention that land is left better than the condition it was in before mining?

Let's see your links. I won't hold my breath, you've proved time and again that you can't even provide links to scientific findings.

Attempt #2

Change course, present the evidence against, perhaps he will address that:

And you contend they are leaving the land in better condition. I disagree.

Since you refuse to look for yourself, I've made an image from a screen capture of the study Kakato submitted to us in the other thread I informed you of.

The study analyzed the microbial activity in the soil and the nitrogen mineralization in the soil of reclaimed sites at the Syncrude Midred Lake mine site.

I've included their Table 1 as an attachment to this post.

If you look at it, you'll see that the reclaimed sites are characterized by:

• more dense soil than undisturbed boreal soil, which will have consequences on soil gas exchanges and penetration of surface water;
• warmer soil temperature than the undisturbed boreal soil;
• soil which is less acidic than the undisturbed boreal soil,
• soil with far less total carbon and nitrogen than the undisturbed boreal soil,
• soil with far less dissolved organic nitrogen and carbon than undisturbed boreal soil.

In no way can that reclaimed land be called better than the condition it was found.

This is the study that Kakato thought is evidence of improved land left by companies like Syncrude.

So, sure companies have been reclaiming land for 20 years. But what they have left behind is not better than what was found there before. It's arrogant in the extreme to think we can engineer wilderness better than nature has already provided. It's ignorant in the extreme to think that what is left behind is "better".

Nope, still nothing from captain morgan.

This is the closest he came to addressing his assertion:
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

I'm not saying that they didn't do a good job. I'm saying they didn't return the land to it to a similar level of functionality, and they certainly didn't make it better. If you missed it, that's what Captain Morgan claimed, much like you and kryptic had claimed in the other thread.

​

You've never seen, or better yet, visited this region. You aggressively seek the sensationalist pap by biased groups and then pretend that this is fact... This is your MO on all issues, establish your predetermined outcome and select a convenient "science" to fit it.

Suncor just announced the successful reclamation of one of their tailings ponds.. I'm going to predict that you'll challenge it via moving the goal posts..

Big surprise there.

And I'm accused of moving goal posts...he still hasn't referenced how it's better, nor has he addressed evidence to the contrary.

Oh, apparently he did somewhat address a question:
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington

YOU claimed that the land is left in better shape, and you haven't provided any evidence at all. Kakato claimed the same, and the report he cited was evidence against what he claimed.
​

It is. In terms of the oil sands, in particluar, those areas wherein the hydrocarbons were at (or just below) surface.. That is what I was talking about and made clear.

Unless your desire is that the lands be returned to the oily quagmire that they were before development is your definition of how you want it to be returned, then, yeah, it will be better.

What was it that he made clear?

Read what pembina's goal is/was: "to return north-eastern Alberta’s open pit mines and lakes of mine effluent to an “equivalent land capability".. Much of that land was sparsely vegetated to begin with due to the fact that the oil sands are at surface (or very close) and is of limited use to anyone... So, it really wouldn't take much to return it useless land, would it?

Fact is, the land will be returned to better than it was before. And the money is there Cliffy, Ten Penny, Bar Sinister and Dumpthemonarchy choose to ignore it as they wouldn't have any conspiracy theories to flock towards.

He calls it the land before useless. Well, the land before was undisturbed boreal forest. It was muskeg, it was forest. Reclamation is supposed to re-establish a functioning ecosystem. It involves the creation of soil-like profiles. It's been shown already that using machinery, and stockpiled material, combining topsoils and sub soils, and using other sources of organic matter alter the soil densities, organic matter content, and the microbial biomass. And it's not an improvement.

So how is it made better?

Yet, I'm the one dodging...I'm the one moving goal posts...

captain morgan should come with warnings, you may get a burning sensation:

 

[captain morgan]

Such a big long post with no answers to the simple little question I asked earlier... Way to go Mr. Science, but it still is nothing more than a:

I have explained what I have done a few times Captain, so has AnnaG.

Would you like me to go through it again?

No need for name calling, unless that is where you want this to go?

You still use oil (or their derivatives) right? Then explain the hypocrisy...

In the end, if you and Mr. Science and Anna, etc are really and truly aghast with the oil industry, why are you supporting it?

 

[ironsides]

Dang the cost, lets suck every bit of oil out of those pesky tar sands, then grow tomatoes or potatoes.

 

[captain morgan]

The cost is not prohibitive... And yes, even on the (approx) 2% of the oilsands developments that are mined (ie at surface), the rest is extracted in situ wherein there is no topical effects to speak of. That said, you can grow whatever you like.

 

[Tonington]

And yes, even on the (approx) 2% of the oilsands developments that are mined (ie at surface), the rest is extracted in situ wherein there is no topical effects to speak of.

Yeah, it's not like you build lakes of toxic chemicals proliferated during the processing of the bitumen...oh wait. Yeah you do. And then of course, the heavy metals that are spewed from the upgraders and fallout over the land.

You must get issued rose coloured glasses as personal protective equipment when you take a job there...

 

[captain morgan]

... And?

The air in Ft Mac is cleaner than in Toronto. Spare me the rhetoric.

Still haven't answered the Q about the VOC's etc, I see.... Exactly what kind of sampling did you do Mr. Science?

 

[Tonington]

... And?

So when you say in situ produces no topical effects to the landscape, it's not true.

The air in Ft Mac is cleaner than in Toronto.

Depends what chemical species you're referring to doesn't it? And what a lousy comparison. Compare Ft. Mac to a region with similar industry and population density.

Spare me the rhetoric.

Spare us your lies.

Still haven't answered the Q about the VOC's etc, I see.

Remind me again, what your question was.

Exactly what kind of sampling did you do Mr. Science?

Nitrification rates in one course, and heavy metal clean-up using bio-remediation in another. How about you?

 

[ironsides]

"People like Governor Schwarzenegger and his Midwestern colleagues had better think twice before banning carbon-dirty fuels such as the oil made from Canadian tar sands. If they don’t like the fuel Canada has to offer, their only other choice is to get off the road entirely.

But Mr. Schwarzenegger and his fellow governors should realize one thing before they ban dirty fuels. The reason the United States will be so dependent on Canadian tar sands is that there ain’t a whole lot else left."



Why the U.S. needs all the tar sands oil it can get - The Globe and Mail



We have to face it, the tar sands both here in the U.S. and Canada will be utilized and there is nothing anyone or environmentalist can do to stop it, it will happen. Electric and automobiles fueled by other technology's are years away. It would be nice if it could happen now, but it won't. Just look what kind of future they promised us at the 1939 Worls Fair.

 

[Tonington]

We have to face it, the tar sands both here in the U.S. and Canada will be utilized and there is nothing anyone or environmentalist can do to stop it, it will happen.

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.

 

[Avro]

You still use oil (or their derivatives) right? Then explain the hypocrisy...

In the end, if you and Mr. Science and Anna, etc are really and truly aghast with the oil industry, why are you supporting it?

Yes I do use oil.

So what?

You rant about high Canadian tax but still pay it....why not move to Mexico where they pay less?

Plus I never said I was aghast now did I?

Are you ever going to answer my Questions about fraud and IPCC retractions?

Have a good one.:smile:

 

[captain morgan]

So when you say in situ produces no topical effects to the landscape, it's not true.

That is the most retarded comment yet. Someone walking across a field has a topical effect...

Depends what chemical species you're referring to doesn't it?

The toxic kind.

And what a lousy comparison. Compare Ft. Mac to a region with similar industry and population density.

I see.. So the air isn't polluted because Mr. Science doesn't like the comparison of jurisdictions... Gotcha.

I'm guessing that you have a study that says this?

Remind me again, what your question was.

Nah... If Mr. science wasn't capable of answering it before then there is no hope now.

In your multiple evasions, you made it perfectly clear that any answer you could possibly provide (that had any truth to it, that is) would cause your fragile house of cards logic to come crashing down.

Yes I do use oil.

So what?

It makes you a hypocrite.. That's all.

You rant about high Canadian tax but still pay it....why not move to Mexico where they pay less?

You don't know what my arrangements are.

Have a good one.:smile:

You too

 

[gerryh]

You don't know what my arrangements are.

arrangements? are you saying you have made arrangements with your employer to evade paying your share of taxes?