Oilsands And Acid Rain

[SupremeLeader]

talk is cheap. that's the bottom line.

like elsewhere, these types of complex issues never seem to progress beyond/deteriorate quickly into grade school playground bullshit.

or maybe that's the desired result, and i continue to miss the point. i'm really not too bright.

so what's a reasonable solution, some alternatives, and what action is suggested?

otherwise i'll take my ball and go home.

 

 

Awareness and discussion is the first and most important step in change and progess.

 

 

[SupremeLeader]

My only question is if it is not beating a dead horse then why do we need 100 diffrent topics about the samething or same topic (In the end it is all about the enviroment, might be diffrent stories but in the end its all about the samething), why not have 1 topic about it. If it gets pushed down from other posts, instead of making a new post just reply on that one.

 

It is obviouse that you care for our evniroment and I can respect that but when I come onto the forum and I see a new topic about the same subject every week it starts to get on my nerves cause it is hard to shift through everything and read everything when it is scattered all over the place. If you think people will care then you don't need to start a new thread every time you find a new news artical.

 

So how about this. How about anyone concern or wants to debate over this subject keep it to this thread and have no other threads start?

 

My biggest complaint about alot of the things that you talk about is the fact that it is your way or the highway, alot of times you just back up your comments with news articals and personally I do not watch the news or read the newspaper because for the most half it is full of half truths and most of the time is a sespool (sp?) for inactrate information. Also if you are so concern with te species of the world then I guess you might as well hang up all of your fishing gear because it is more harmful to catch a fish then to leave it, but YOU IN YOUR GREED to catch a fish still do it. Might not happen in our lifes but sometime soon all the fishies in the river will be gone........

 

STOP FISHIN EVERYONE

 

(Incase you didn't get it I was beeing sarcastic with my stop fishing everyone comment)

 

You are correct, we should not discuss the news and new information regarding industrial environmental impacts on our forests and fisheries........everything on the news is full of half truths (interesting comment coming from someone who does "not watch the news or read the newspaper").

 

This article on CBC was new, and deserved a new thread. It is unfortunate that for you it's "hard to shift through everything and read everything when it is scattered all over the place"........

 

 

 

 

 

[bhurt]

You are correct, we should not discuss the news and new information regarding industrial environmental impacts on our forests and fisheries........everything on the news is full of half truths (interesting comment coming from someone who does "not watch the news or read the newspaper").

 

This article on CBC was new, and deserved a new thread. It is unfortunate that for you it's "hard to shift through everything and read everything when it is scattered all over the place"........

 

You know what I find you pretty funny, and I think half your posts are there just to argue.

 

Now if you are able to read you would of seen that I said to keep everything that has to do with the enviroment under the same thread and not to start 100 diffrent threads. NEVER DID I SAY WE SHOULD NOT DISCUSS THESE ISSUSE, instead I said tyo keep them to one thread, did you understand that or do I need to buy you hooked on phontics?

 

I would like to know where I said not to discuss these issuse, once again you are only reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest or you are trying to start a fight cause you get some weird kick out of sitting behind your computer at some board of education station and start fights?

 

Its not like none of us care about the issuse we are just sick and tired of YOU and the way you act and handle yourself. Nothing wrong with beeing passionate about what you belive in but I honestly think your main purpose, or hidden agenda is to start *hit here.

 

Anyways I am done with this topic, can't wait to see your new thread about the same issuses.

 

Oh and by the way it still has to do about the enviroment and the impacts to our enivorment and there are plently of tpoics about the enrivorment even opne about global warmming, and lots of topics about the oilsands and the impact it is having on our enviroment, so no thuis does not need to have a new topic, this threat is nothing but an argument anyways and is not talking about the issuses.

[reevesr1]

I agree. However, if you want to see some environmental impact right here in our own province, go to Coordinates 51.043229, -114.062419 and look at the devastaion. This location used to be pristine river landscape and now it has been scraped clean and is almost devoid of vegetation. Very sad.

 

I'm happy to live in a country where there are people who are not intelligent enough to understand that the hypocrisy of their stated convictions is a subconscious effort to assuage their own guilt. I'm even happier that the small minority of rational thinkers are able to prevent these addlepates from having any real influence on policy.

 

I can almost hear the people typing coordinates into google maps, or looking up addlepate (I did both myself, though I suspected what the coordinates would show). Thanks for the laugh.

 

Dune,

I think many have tried to have rational discussions here, but it does tend to degenerate into playground bs on many subjects. But I gotta tell ya, that can be fun sometimes too, though utterly pointless. But in all the BS, often you do learn something. Like today I learned what addlepated means. Seriously, sometimes these things start rational, fall into name calling and getting locked. Sometimes however they pass through the name calling stage and make it back to rational. I don't agree with the thought that they should not be discussed. Of course they should, for the very few times they do make to the rational stage.

 

[SupremeLeader]

You know what I find you pretty funny, and I think half your posts are there just to argue.

 

Now if you are able to read you would of seen that I said to keep everything that has to do with the enviroment under the same thread and not to start 100 diffrent threads. NEVER DID I SAY WE SHOULD NOT DISCUSS THESE ISSUSE, instead I said tyo keep them to one thread, did you understand that or do I need to buy you hooked on phontics?

 

I would like to know where I said not to discuss these issuse, once again you are only reading what you want to read and ignoring the rest or you are trying to start a fight cause you get some weird kick out of sitting behind your computer at some board of education station and start fights?

 

Its not like none of us care about the issuse we are just sick and tired of YOU and the way you act and handle yourself. Nothing wrong with beeing passionate about what you belive in but I honestly think your main purpose, or hidden agenda is to start *hit here.

 

Anyways I am done with this topic, can't wait to see your new thread about the same issuses.

 

Oh and by the way it still has to do about the enviroment and the impacts to our enivorment and there are plently of tpoics about the enrivorment even opne about global warmming, and lots of topics about the oilsands and the impact it is having on our enviroment, so no thuis does not need to have a new topic, this threat is nothing but an argument anyways and is not talking about the issuses.

 

As I have posted before, and to reiterate; the topic is about pollution from Alberta oil sands projects destroying forest / lake areas in another province. It is not about me.

 

Ya, I'm sitting at a board of education station starting fights......

 

It's hooked on phonics.....not 'phontics'.

 

I never started a thread about this issue in the past.....it is totally new.

 

If you would like to personally attack me, pm me.

 

[bigbowtrout]

http://www.am770chqr.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1118372

 

 

http://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/

 

http://www.capp.ca/CanadaIndustry/OilSands...es/default.aspx

[Flytyer]

I see this thread being buried like every one before it because of BS attacks.....this point is that discussing it here and not doing anything else in places that matters accomplish nothing.

[SupremeLeader]

http://www.am770chqr.com/News/Local/Story.aspx?ID=1118372

 

 

http://www.canadasoilsands.ca/en/

 

http://www.capp.ca/CanadaIndustry/OilSands...es/default.aspx

 

 

You do have to admit those sources are bias.

[reevesr1]

You do have to admit those sources are bias.

 

Why is it those sources who are biased and not yours? Therein lies the problem. Everyone is biased, including you, me (ok, maybe not me as I'm fair and impartial), the CBC, the Gov of Alberta, the Gov of Sask, etc. And with the advent of the internet it does not take long to find a study or news article who's results line up with one's beliefs.

 

 

[bigbowtrout]

You do have to admit those sources are bias.

 

 

And yours is not biased? The article you posted is based on research done by the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and is very one sided.

[bhurt]

And yours is not biased? The article you posted is based on research done by the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and is very one sided.

I couldn't agree more with you on this. Biggest reason why I do not read newspapers (with the exception of the sports sections mainly to find out game scores) or watch the news cause most of the time it is pretty one sided, and there is a old saying "GOOD NEWS IS BAD NEWS"

 

If these are the only sources that I have in reserching something then so be it, but I do not look at it in Black and White.

 

Plus how many times through history has a newspaper or media organization had to print a retraction for wrong information printed.

 

There are lots of problems in the world that we all need to get a handle on, but people that base everything they think and say in outside sources in my own opion are nothing but puppets for the large media organizations. Personally I look for mutilple sources and compare notes and see if there are the same. 90% of the time there are to many diffrent things.

 

I am reminded of another old saying" THERE ARE THREE SIDES TO EVERY STORY, YOURS, MINE AND THE TRUTH"

[SupremeLeader]

And yours is not biased? The article you posted is based on research done by the Saskatchewan Environmental Society and is very one sided.

 

Comparing the bias of a non-profit environmental society’s research to big-oil and their own slanted research is ridiculous. One side is based on preservation and sustainability; the other is based on multi billion dollar profits and exploitation.

 

The studies oil companies do on their own practices brings to mind other similar studies that have somehow proven the exact opposite of what logic (and sound research) indicates. For example, TELUS did a study that said that using a cell-phone while operating a motor vehicle is safe; we all know that is nonsense.

 

The same oil companies that are involved in the sites you posted BigBowTrout are the same companies that funded documentaries and research in The Great Global Warming Swindle. The 'scientists' these companies (Exxon aka Esso) used for their research are the same guys the tobacco companies hired to 'prove' that smoking doesn't cause cancer.

 

The truth about this (Oil Sands )and similar issues (Global Warming) is that the truth, is a threat to peoples jobs; hence the defensiveness expressed by so many people.

 

I wouldn't worry though, as long as multi-billion dollar oil companies keep making money, destroying the environment, and making deceitful documentaries and web-sites, the CBC and environmental groups that have nothing to gain (except the preservation of the wilderness, clean air, and water) don't stand a chance.

 

 

 

[bigbowtrout]

[bhurt]

Isn't CBC one of the largest broadcasting compaines in Canada?

 

Also do they not depend heavly on veiwership and ratings?

 

I dunno but I see lots that CBC has to lose.

 

I must be crazy though.

[tonyr]

Isn't CBC one of the largest broadcasting compaines in Canada?

 

Also do they not depend heavly on veiwership and ratings?

 

I dunno but I see lots that CBC has to lose.

 

I must be crazy though.

 

cbc did not do the research .

 

i have not seen any research that disputes that oil sands help with the production of acid rain.

if the oil companies wish too produce oil from the oilsands that is what they are going to do. i and many like me

will not stop trying to shut them down. i will vote and i will write letters. what really makes me mad is they try and convince us that what they are doing is not detrimental to us and our enviroment or that we have no other choice. if you work for the oil industry and you tell me that it is environmental sound industry you are ether brainwashed or are wrapped up in your own success $$$$$. i used to work in an industry that was indirectly affected by the oil industry. oil goes down less work for me and my friends. even then i never believed that my choice of work was morally right so i got a new job.i suggest all oil workers do this. with self sacrifice this is always possible.if you do not think what you are ding is wrong all the power to you but remember this. the oil industry does not care about you and your families look what they did 10 months ago. i sleep much better at night knowing that my choice of work does not help with the destruction of the human race and many other species on this planet.(by the way i left my job two years ago for less money, quit not fired)

[bhurt]

cbc did not do the research .

 

i have not seen any research that disputes that oil sands help with the production of acid rain.

if the oil companies wish too produce oil from the oilsands that is what they are going to do. i and many like me

will not stop trying to shut them down. i will vote and i will write letters. what really makes me mad is they try and convince us that what they are doing is not detrimental to us and our enviroment or that we have no other choice. if you work for the oil industry and you tell me that it is environmental sound industry you are ether brainwashed or are wrapped up in your own success $$$$$. i used to work in an industry that was indirectly affected by the oil industry. oil goes down less work for me and my friends. even then i never believed that my choice of work was morally right so i got a new job.i suggest all oil workers do this. with self sacrifice this is always possible.if you do not think what you are ding is wrong all the power to you but remember this. the oil industry does not care about you and your families look what they did 10 months ago. i sleep much better at night knowing that my choice of work does not help with the destruction of the human race and many other species on this planet.(by the way i left my job two years ago for less money, quit not fired)

Tonyr,

 

I don't think you will find one person on this site that wouldn't say that their is without a doubt some eviromental issuses surrounding the oilsands that needs to be addressed and fixed, but here is a question for you, is there not some sort of enviroment damage done when drilling for oil.

 

In a oil depended WORLD we need to do this so how do we fix it? Alternitive fuels, where are they? I see Hybrids but no true PRODUCTION vechilce that is 100% Alertintive fuel, so the blame is not only on the oil compaines but also the car maufactures that keep on producing vechicles that are depended on gas. Also you ccan blame the normal consumer also as they enable these compaines to keep on producting these types of vechicles.

 

Lots of people and lots of compaines do we have to blame for the current state our world is in, and for the most part the biggest blame is on us as we allow these things to happen and hmm and hoo about them.

 

Now for my quto. It was in reference to the current topic about things not beeing basis and Supremeleader comment that enviromental groups or CBC has nothing to gain. I disagreed with CBC having nothing to gain and stated why........

[gustuphson]

Comparing the bias of a non-profit environmental society’s research to big-oil and their own slanted research is ridiculous. One side is based on preservation and sustainability; the other is based on multi billion dollar profits and exploitation.

 

 

 

This statement pisses me off - bias is bias regardless of the motivation you think is behind it. Do you realize that you're posting topics here not for discussion but simply to hear yourself speak? If you don't go back and read a couple of your posts, it should become pretty evident. Pack up your soapbox and head home.

 

Don't worry, school will soon be back in and you can spout your crap at the kids - thank god for Charter Schools.

[reevesr1]

So tonyr,

I applaud you for being a man of your convictions and dropping out of the oil industry for one more moral. That is commendable, and I say that without a drop of sarcasm. Sticking to one's convictions is an admirable trait. I also applaud your efforts to change, or eliminate (good luck with that one-ok that was a bit sarcastic) the oil industry in an effort to better our planet. Again, I am sincere in that sentiment.

 

What I would like to ask is why, instead of taking the time to insult those of us still in the industry as uncaring, blind, money grubbing bastards (I apologize for putting some words in your mouth, but that was your intent unless I totally misread your post) you did not take the opportunity to tell everyone how they can help your cause? I'm quite sure you have changed many other aspects of your life to lower your carbon footprint, and could have shared those. If you are going to show how you are taking the moral high ground, is it really appropriate to point out how the rest of us are somehow immoral?

 

The oil industry is an absolute necessity in our world as currently constructed. To change that will take massive, massive effort. Until that day please do not kid yourself. Your world, like the world of all the rest of us needs fossil fuels and therefore needs money grubbing bastards like me working in it. Nobody here is disputing that it cannot be done better w/respect to the environment, and is currently done better now than it was 5, 10, 20 or 50 yrs ago. Much of that was mandated by changing regulations. Some of it, contrary to popular opinion, was done by the industry itself. People like yourself and others like you pointing our issues with any portion of the industry will help change practices if they strike a cord with the public. That is a great thing. But it serves no purpose for you, or others like you, to insult those of us in the industry. Your post implies I am somehow immoral for working in the industry I work in. I cannot tell you how wrong your are.

[bloom]

Comparing the bias of a non-profit environmental society’s research to big-oil and their own slanted research is ridiculous. One side is based on preservation and sustainability; the other is based on multi billion dollar profits and exploitation.

 

 

 

This statement pisses me off - bias is bias regardless of the motivation you think is behind it. Do you realize that you're posting topics here not for discussion but simply to hear yourself speak? If you don't go back and read a couple of your posts, it should become pretty evident. Pack up your soapbox and head home.

 

Don't worry, school will soon be back in and you can spout your crap at the kids - thank god for Charter Schools.

 

 

Nice, nailing a guy for generalizations and then going ahead and make one of your own about public schools...guessed I missed somewhere what this had to do with schools???

 

Don't have a clue who Supreme Leader is, but I hope he sticks around. It's nice to have fresh blood on the boards, especially from someone who is somewhat eloquent and knowledgeable...even if you disagree with him, and I do at times. Kind of nice to stir the pot every now and then.

 

I like people who are passionate, even if they are in total disagreement with me, I can at least respect that they care and I run into this quite a bit in my job.

[tonyr]

Isn't CBC one of the largest broadcasting compaines in Canada?

 

Also do they not depend heavly on veiwership and ratings?

 

I dunno but I see lots that CBC has to lose.

 

I must be crazy though.

 

bhurt read this sentence slowly

 

CBC DID NOT DO THE RESEARCH THEY JUST PUBLISHED IT.

 

[AndyW]

"Also do they not depend heavly on veiwership and ratings"

 

If the survival of the CBC was dependant on viewership and ratings the only show that would survive is Hockey Night in Canada!

[tonyr]

. I cannot tell you how wrong your are.

 

I WAS NOT SPEAKING TO YOU PERSONALLY. PLEASE TELL ME HOW I AM WRONG. I AM FAR FROM PERFECT

there is much more i can do to lower my carbon footprint. most of my carbon footprint comes from my pursuit of fish and nature.i just think that in this province that we are so caught in the fear that the oil industry push on us that oil is the only way. we should have taken all the money the government made in the last boom and put it toward renewable energy technologies. instead we are going to get caught sitting on your hands we are reacting to slow. this thread is a microcosm of what is wrong with our government. i wonder how you would all feel if the oilsands were up stream of the crowsnest or the bow or the oldman i bet not one of you can tell me you would not want it stopped without delay. down stream of the oil sands there is increased cases of cancer, there maybe no direct link to the oil sands but would you not want it stopped if you lived there. if five hundred trout died because of tailing pond entered the bow how would you feel. if the oil sands were stopped it would force us to change.the oilsands is in a very special place the destruction of it is not worth your house in douglasdale. you know a trout will rise to caddis untill there is none left or if he gets hooked by one.

[reevesr1]

. I cannot tell you how wrong your are.

 

 

I WAS NOT SPEAKING TO YOU PERSONALLY. PLEASE TELL ME HOW I AM WRONG. I AM FAR FROM PERFECT

there is much more i can do to lower my carbon footprint. most of my carbon footprint comes from my pursuit of fish and nature.i just think that in this province that we are so caught in the fear that the oil industry push on us that oil is the only way. we should have taken all the money the government made in the last boom and put it toward renewable energy technologies. instead we are going to get caught sitting on your hands we are reacting to slow. this thread is a microcosm of what is wrong with our government. i wonder how you would all feel if the oilsands were up stream of the crowsnest or the bow or the oldman i bet not one of you can tell me you would not want it stopped without delay. down stream of the oil sands there is increased cases of cancer, there maybe no direct link to the oil sands but would you not want it stopped if you lived there. if five hundred trout died because of tailing pond entered the bow how would you feel. if the oil sands were stopped it would force us to change.the oilsands is in a very special place the destruction of it is not worth your house in douglasdale. you know a trout will rise to caddis untill there is none left or if he gets hooked by one.

 

We are all far from perfect. I was saying you were wrong in calling me (however indirectly you were doing it), and the thousands and thousands others like me somehow less than moral for continuing to pursue a career in the oil industry. And my house is in Chaparral, but not on the lake. And I've worked my butt off to get it for about 30 yrs now.

 

The oilsands are not at the head of the crow, or the bow. A better question in my mind would be what if a multi billion barrel oil field was found at the head of the crow. What would I do then? I'm not sure. But there are tons of gas wells around Nordegg. Seems like the fishing is pretty good there still. And I come from a state (two of them) that have supplied North America with oil and refined products for my whole life, and much of my parents lives as well. Fishing there is still fantastic, off the charts fantastic at times. So I don't think that the environment and industry cannot coexist. But as I said, I don't know what I would do, but the Bow has a city of 1 million sitting on it and does not seem all the worse for wear from a fishing perspective. Though not the best sometimes from a experience perspective (trash and such).

 

The problem with the case for stopping the oil sands, from my narrow perspective, is you can't stop it. In the next several decades this oil is necessary. In fact, I believe that the floor in oil prices will eventually be the cost to produce in the oilsands as more and more of these fields are developed. So the challenge, to me, is to not try to stop it but to put regs in place to mitigate environmental impacts. There will always be those who try to stop any industrial advance-and that is not necessarily a bad thing. And sometimes they will succeed. But if the project is valuable enough it will not be stopped, but changes can be made to lessen the impact on the environment. These changes cost money, upping the price of the product. If these prices get too high then alternative fuels become more attractive and will be developed more, lessening the demand for oil. The other way to lessen is for the entire world, particularly North America, China, India (not as big now but getting bigger all the time), Europe, etc., etc. to change the way they live their lives. Not an impossible task, but pretty nearly so.

 

You can always energize much of the younger consuming generation to try to make changes to better the planet. But as they age (and remember that I come from the generation that was going to change the world, and didn't) they become more conservative. Has happened all through history, and will probably happen to this generation as well. As we accumulate more stuff, and kids, we tend to become more interested in protecting what we think we have and less interested in the world at large. Very sad, but very true. I was at a Folk Music Festival this weekend (learning how to think for myself, didn't see Glen Beck there). There was this old Scottish folk singer at a workshop with The Oyster Band and Chumbawumba-all UK folkies and all pretty angry. He sang a song lamenting how he came from the generation that would change the world who became a bunch of p*%%ies. True. But I was struck with the thought that iwhen you are young and don't have anything (and as an old folk singer he probably still doesn't have anything) it is easier to think you can continue to live without anything and spend your time making the world a better place. As you marry, get kids, a mortgage, more kids, those things get harder to think about when its 5 days from payday and you don't have any money left. Your perspective changes. Not everyone's, but most of us.

 

Again, a sad commentary. But a true one I think.

 

Oh, and if anyone wants to discuss alternative energy I also worked in the Nuclear Industry before the oil industry. Lesser of two evils?

[bigbowtrout]

Well said Rickr

[SupremeLeader]

This statement pisses me off - bias is bias regardless of the motivation you think is behind it. Do you realize that you're posting topics here not for discussion but simply to hear yourself speak? If you don't go back and read a couple of your posts, it should become pretty evident. Pack up your soapbox and head home.

 

Don't worry, school will soon be back in and you can spout your crap at the kids - thank god for Charter Schools.

 

Where is the article specifically bias?

 

Acid rain is falling into lakes and forest areas in northern Saskatchewan; it is coming from Alberta.

 

It is amazing how many people in this community seem to continually question and doubt impartial scientific research. The research non-profit environmental groups most often use in their assessments come from Universities. University research is publicly funded, and free for anyone to use. If you really understood the scientific community in these institutions you would know that they stand nothing to gain by slanting their research. Scientists taking water and rain samples from northern Saskatchewan will (unless he/she wants to destroy their career) publish the truth in their journals; there is simply no point or necessity to be bias on either side. The only type of research that is bias is one that sets out to prove something; like the research done in The Great Global Warming Swindle.

 

Just because the news or impartial research reports something you don't agree with does not mean it is bias.

 

Apparently your own bias gustuphson seems to extend on this board; only I like to hear myself speak.

 

Just an FYI people, the Saskatchewan Environmental Society obtained their information from the Saskatchewan Environment Ministry which is a branch of the Saskatchewan Government; the ministry obtained their information through publicly funded impartial educational institutions in Saskatchewan.