ÜberFly Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 An interesting read (especially the blog comments)... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/calgary/story/200...ands-toxin.html Quote
dube Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 "quote"Funny how the oil sands area is the worlds largest natural oil spill. We have many companies up there cleaning up natures mess, yet they are criticized. Hell we should be thanking them for their clean up efforts. What would it look like if civil disobedience and criticism was continually perpetuated/hurled upon the folks who were cleaning up Prince William Sound years after the Exxon Valdez spill?"quote" Never heard this slant before. I guess we should feel fortunate. Quote
ÜberFly Posted December 8, 2009 Author Posted December 8, 2009 I would think that the situation is like asbestos (just a speculating here, no scientific basis)... If left undisturbed, no real threat, but when it starts to degrade (or is disturbed - in this case is extracted) that is when the problems (threat) start(s)... "quote"Funny how the oil sands area is the worlds largest natural oil spill. We have many companies up there cleaning up natures mess, yet they are criticized. Hell we should be thanking them for their clean up efforts. What would it look like if civil disobedience and criticism was continually perpetuated/hurled upon the folks who were cleaning up Prince William Sound years after the Exxon Valdez spill?"quote" Never heard this slant before. I guess we should feel fortunate. Quote
Guest Sundancefisher Posted December 8, 2009 Posted December 8, 2009 I would think that the situation is like asbestos (just a speculating here, no scientific basis)... If left undisturbed, no real threat, but when it starts to degrade (or is disturbed - in this case is extracted) that is when the problems (threat) start(s)... Actually the oil from the oil sands have been draining into the Athabasca for millions of year. The water effluent from rainfall has also been pouring directly into the river. I am not sure we have enough basin line data to prove these issue have always existed. We do know that two headed fish was just a healthy dried up goldeye. We also know a dioxin sludge mat has been migrating downstream from the various upstream pulp mills. Massive volumes of effluent has also been discharged from the pulp mills. I guess the most reasonable thing to do is to remove all the nasty oil sands from the area as quickly as possible so that their is no more natural drainage into the river. As for airborne particulates...that is something that the regulators should be monitoring closely. Filters and burners and current technology should work fine to that regard. If not I see that as unacceptable if over the guidelines. Quote
SupremeLeader Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 I guess the most reasonable thing to do is to remove all the nasty oil sands from the area as quickly as possible so that their is no more natural drainage into the river. Indeed, and make sure you also leave a hole in the Boreal forest the size of Great Britain in the process of being such concerned stewards of the environment. On another topic you mentioned pumping nutrients into the upper bow to increase nutrients. Sun, your suggestions are akin to one who thinks of themself as some kind of fifth element. All of your suggestions are slanted to suit a better life for.....yourself. On one hand you say we have no part in climate change and converting 65 millions barrels of oil per day into a gas has no effect, and on the other we should remove oil from the Athabasca region to make the river less toxic because 'it is the most reasonble thing to do'. Reason, that's a good word..you should look it up. Quote
canadensis Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Indeed, and make sure you also leave a hole in the Boreal forest the size of Great Britain in the process of being such concerned stewards of the environment. On another topic you mentioned pumping nutrients into the upper bow to increase nutrients. Sun, your suggestions are akin to one who thinks of themself as some kind of fifth element. All of your suggestions are slanted to suit a better life for.....yourself. On one hand you say we have no part in climate change and converting 65 millions barrels of oil per day into a gas has no effect, and on the other we should remove oil from the Athabasca region to make the river less toxic because 'it is the most reasonble thing to do'. Reason, that's a good word..you should look it up. Great commentary from someone who lives in a big developed hole in the forest- well the size of Banff in a federally protected "Park", smack dab in the center of one of North Americas most important wildlife corridors, and a world heritage site.... Nothing like elbowing out a Grizzly bear and a cougar because of where you choose to reside, eh? Since you are looking up words in the dictionary you should look up necessity and purpose.. Quote
SupremeLeader Posted December 10, 2009 Posted December 10, 2009 Great commentary from someone who lives in a big developed hole in the forest- well the size of Banff in a federally protected "Park", smack dab in the center of one of North Americas most important wildlife corridors, and a world heritage site.... Nothing like elbowing out a Grizzly bear and a cougar because of where you choose to reside, eh? What? Another excellent comparison from Candensis. You just compared a National park to the Oil Sands. You do know Banff has a cap on development? Is there one on the Oil Sands? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.