U.S. ambassador in Alberta to learn about oilsands

[Kakato]

Heres a comprehensive unbiased study on oilsands reclamation.
Nitrogen Mineralization and Microbial Activity in Oil Sands Reclaimed Boreal Forest Soils -- McMillan et al. 36 (5): 1470 -- Journal of Environmental Quality

 

[Spade]

To quote from this study,
"Reclamation treatments that used organic amendments in the form of LFH material had higher microbial activity compared to the reclamation treatment that used peat material alone. However, in many cases the reclamation treatments were significantly different from the natural LFH site, indicating that the goal of re-establishing natural ecosystem functionality is not complete. This goal may only be realized after some period of time has allowed natural processes to become re-established, such as the development of soil structure and the establishment of biocycling feedbacks between soil and the re-growing vegetation. In the meantime, more research is needed to examine how management practices can help develop landscapes that require a minimum of time to rehabilitate, including a better understanding of microbial communities and mycorrhizal fungi in reclaimed soils in relation to the re-establishment of vegetation, and specific quantification of the influence of re-growing vegetation on microbial activity, as well as of its contribution to organic matter composition at the reclaimed sites through aboveground litter and root turnover. (Emphasis mine) Finally, in view of the relatively high nitrification rates observed at the reclaimed sites, nitrate leaching losses should be measured to test whether these represent a significant N loss from these soils.

"

 

[Spade]

Heres a comprehensive unbiased study on oilsands reclamation.
Nitrogen Mineralization and Microbial Activity in Oil Sands Reclaimed Boreal Forest Soils -- McMillan et al. 36 (5): 1470 -- Journal of Environmental Quality

Nothing is "unbiased."

 

[gerryh]

All reclaimed sites had lower MBC and MBN, and lower net ammonification and net mineralization rates than a natural forest site (NLFH) used as a control, but the reclamation treatment using LFH material by itself had higher gross and net nitrification rates. A positive correlation between in situ moisture content, dissolved organic N, MBC, and MBN was observed, which led us to conduct a moisture manipulation experiment in the laboratory. With the exception of the MBN for the L/S treatment, none of the reclamation treatments ever reached the levels of the natural site during this experiment. However, materials from reclamation treatments that incorporated LFH showed higher respiration rates, MBC, and MBN than the PM treatment, indicating that the addition of LFH as an organic amendment may stimulate microbial activity as compared to the use of peat alone.

still falls short.

 

[Kakato]

Nothing is "unbiased."

That report and the studys linked from it are about as unbiased as they get,no greenpeace or shell influencing the outcome.The changes in microbes have no real affect on the land re-establishing itself as can be witnessed by the many pictures available where the boreal forest was re planted.

 

[AnnaG]

Close to original as possible and they do a way better job then other operations.

Except nature. Screwing up all that just to make a dollar. I don't care how many links you post, or how much you excuse what they do, they still screw up our planet a LOT more than most other people.

 

[Johnnny]

--intermission-

 

[Spade]

That report and the studys linked from it are about as unbiased as they get,no greenpeace or shell influencing the outcome.The changes in microbes have no real affect on the land re-establishing itself as can be witnessed by the many pictures available where the boreal forest was re planted.

Everyone, researchers included, is value driven.

The research paper uses the more palatable term "oil sands" in its abstract.
Many opponents of unbridled development still use "tar sands."
Each presents "bias."

I can tell you this. If the tar/oil sands were within one hour's drive west of Calgary, they would be undeveloped. You know the arguments for and against strip mining. I come from the premise "Do least harm."

I am old enough to remember, as a babe in arms of course, that controlled underground nuclear detonations were being seriously proposed to extract oil from the sands. It was just a matter of time before some extraction method was adopted.

Only in Alberta, you say? Pity!

 

[Tonington]

Kakato,

The report stated that in reclaimed sites, microbial communities are 56% lower in microbial carbon mass than adjacent undisturbed sites, 20 years later. That is a real effect, and as Niflmir said to you earlier, the greatest impact in the soil community is amongst the mycorrhizal populations. That is huge for nutrient cycling, as the trees of the boreal forest rely on these fungi to fix nutrients in the soil to forms that they can utilize.

The conclusion of this study sums it up:

However, in many cases the reclamation treatments were significantly different from the natural LFH site, indicating that the goal of re-establishing natural ecosystem functionality is not complete.

You continue to post studies which you think are making your case. They are not. It helps to read things first...

 

[Kakato]

Everyone, researchers included, is value driven.

The research paper uses the more palatable term "oil sands" in its abstract.
Many opponents of unbridled development still use "tar sands."
Each presents "bias."

I can tell you this. If the tar/oil sands were within one hour's drive west of Calgary, they would be undeveloped. You know the arguments for and against strip mining. I come from the premise "Do least harm."

I am old enough to remember, as a babe in arms of course, that controlled underground nuclear detonations were being seriously proposed to extract oil from the sands. It was just a matter of time before some extraction method was adopted.


Only in Alberta, you say? Pity!

Yes they were planning on useing nukes,glad that didnt fly and they are oilsands,not tarsands.
Tar is a man made mixture so anyone who uses that term instead of the correct one is allready showing bias or just plain ignorance.

 

[Kakato]

Except nature. Screwing up all that just to make a dollar. I don't care how many links you post, or how much you excuse what they do, they still screw up our planet a LOT more than most other people.

Got some examples or comparisons of the oilsands reclamation compared to forestry,pulp mills or farming?
I have a few and it shows that people are real concerned about the oilsands but not very worried about the rest of the environment.
Funny how that works.

 

[AnnaG]

Kakato,

The report stated that in reclaimed sites, microbial communities are 56% lower in microbial carbon mass than adjacent undisturbed sites, 20 years later. That is a real effect, and as Niflmir said to you earlier, the greatest impact in the soil community is amongst the mycorrhizal populations. That is huge for nutrient cycling, as the trees of the boreal forest rely on these fungi to fix nutrients in the soil to forms that they can utilize.

The conclusion of this study sums it up:

However, in many cases the reclamation treatments were significantly different from the natural LFH site, indicating that the goal of re-establishing natural ecosystem functionality is not complete.

You continue to post studies which you think are making your case. They are not. It helps to read things first...

It does no good to read it unless you can understand it either.
Most people haven't a clue what "mycorrhizal" means and are too lazy to look it up, for instance.

 

[AnnaG]

Got some examples or comparisons of the oilsands reclamation compared to forestry,pulp mills or farming?

Gawd, you are dense. Who cares about off-topic stuff. This thread isn't about Logging or whatnot, It's about tarsands. Besides that, they ALL need a lot more work done before they can even come close to what nature has done.

I have a few and it shows that people are real concerned about the oilsands but not very worried about the rest of the environment.
Funny how that works.

For the 50th time, I don't care about how many or what red herrings you have.

 

[Kakato]

It does no good to read it unless you can understand it either.
Most people haven't a clue what "mycorrhizal" means and are too lazy to look it up, for instance.

Thats right and it's such a small thing but some will condem the oilsands if one single organism is killed.
The proof is in the pictures,the boreal forests and grasslands that have been reclaimed are doing just fine.

 

[AnnaG]

And on top of that, wood products and farming products have not had near the impact on our world's ecologies as oil products have had.

 

[Kakato]

Gawd, you are dense. Who cares about off-topic stuff. This thread isn't about Logging or whatnot, It's about tarsands. Besides that, they ALL need a lot more work done before they can even come close to what nature has done.
For the 50th time, I don't care about how many or what red herrings you have.

You said they are the worst so if you cant back it up with proof like I asked then its you throwing the herrings around.

And their oilsands,if you cant get tha part right then why are you even trying to participate in this discussion?

 

[AnnaG]

Thats right and it's such a small thing but some will condem the oilsands if one single organism is killed.
The proof is in the pictures,the boreal forests and grasslands that have been reclaimed are doing just fine.

And they weren't doing better than fine before? How would you know if they do fine or not? How would we know what all intricacies that nature can have? We don't even know how many bug species there are let alone how all the food chains and stuff are patterned.

 

[Kakato]

And on top of that, wood products and farming products have not had near the impact on our world's ecologies as oil products have had.

Riiiight *coughDDTcough*

Like I pointed out before,farmers are exempt from most permits and can do as they please.

 

[AnnaG]

You said they are the worst so if you cant back it up with proof like I asked then its you throwing the herrings around.

And their oilsands,if you cant get tha part right then why are you even trying to participate in this discussion?

To make it easy for you to understand here is an example: take a piece of wood and throw it in the ocean or on the ground. come back 20 years later and see how much is left. Now take some plastic and perform the same procedure.
Here's another, take 40,000,000 liters of wood and let it spill into the ocean and see what happens. Now take 40,000,000 liters of oil and spill it into the ocean and see what happens. That was the Exxon Valdez spill.

 

[AnnaG]

Riiiight *coughDDTcough*

What was the impact of DDT?

Like I pointed out before,farmers are exempt from most permits and can do as they please.

Evidence?