Accountability Now

Speaking of Leafs and Oilers....and D-man...the Leafs traded Mark Fraser to the Oilers today. Not sure how a guy who is a healthy scratch on anoter team is going to step in and be an impact. Having said that, a healthy scratch D-man on any other team is probably still better than the Oilers core. Lol

Actually the dewatering process allows oil companies to recapture the oil sitting in the MFT ponds which gives it some value. As such there was some initiative to clean these ponds once oil prices started climbing high back in 2008. Having said that, having some ducks die on the tailing ponds certainly pushed the issue. Quite sure the First Nations had nothing to do with it.The Mildred Lake site is where New Alta is working. It's a 1.9 billion dollar plant so I have to believe they're trying to be done soon. I originally heard it was a 5 year project starting in 2011 but I know it was delayed getting started. I think they're still delayed. Here's a good read on New Alta's part: http://www.newalta.com/users/getdownload.asp?DownloadID=921

Wouldn't touch this one...hey? Apparently you don't like it when I confuse the issue with facts.

I agree with you on the fact that he has nothing to lose by making this deal (at this point anyway). With that being said, it sure would be nice to remove the partisan side out of any government so that it could operate on issues and facts rather than party color. Of course....I'm probably dreaming that this will have that result.

Ah...there goes Jacee playing the race card improperly....ONCE AGAIN!

Interesting. If they don't know how to deal with it then why did Syncrude purchase a dozen Alfa Laval Lynx 1000s which are very large centrifuges to be used for the dewatering and then proper disposal of this material? Suncor is doing the same and as per the article Shell is on board too. Its pretty obvious they know how to deal with it. The reality is they didn't want to deal with it until Alberta Environment made them as it was a costly endevor to buy this equipment and to hire companies to operate and mange these sites. http://www.canadianminingjournal.com/news/tailings-newalta-to-reprocess-shells-oil-sands-tails/1002139148/?&er=NA

Interesting....so why is Adam so concerned about the wildlife that has gone missing if they have made such a switch from living off the lands in the traditional ways to the new resource based ways? Like I said, their company ACDEN doesn't make its millions in fur trading. As for the Supreme Court....so the ACFN is ok to take the Supreme Court's liberal interpretation on this account but then piss and moans when the Supreme Court won't hear their case. Live by the sword, die by the sword perhaps? Your thoughts?

Strawman? I note that you CONVENIENTLY left out the next part of my post where I said: Neil Young made his comments but Allan Adam made his too. Comments that put him on the wrong side of the equation if he is truly looking for resource development....as you suggest. What's next? Adam doesn't speak for the ACFN either? There is no table. The Supreme Court of Canada took it away. That's why they are resorting to the likes of Neil Young and blasting the environment. If they would have got their way from the start then everything would have been A-OK. Cancer rates.....nah...they're ok! Reduced wildlife....who cares. The fact is this is their last resort....a desparate last resort. Actually this situation shouldn't be complex at all however the bleeding hearts of past courts have favored such rulings to make things much more complex than they should. Obviously I did get my head around it. I was the one to point out how they have no problem shouting about the environment but then selling it off for jobs/revenue when the price is right. I was the one who pointed out this fine line that they are quick to jump over. I assume you have prioritized these from most important to least? Adam has already stated the Environment is a mess and that cancer rates are up 30% yet he wants to pursue this? He wants more development as long as he's a part of the financial equation. I don't think this is complexity that Adam is dealing with. Its greed. As I said....IF the oil sands development is in fact producing such issues, then they should STOP development. But of course, as you outline their business umbrella (ACDEN) wouldn't like that too much...would they? You might think this is complex but its fairly straightforward. They certainly are trying to dictate. Good thing the courts appear to becoming wise to their games. Of course, your concept of legal rights doesn't seem to be shared by the Supreme Court on this one anyway. How many of the ACFN actually live off the land versus the ones that benefit from the oil/gas via ACDEN? This intrusion into treaty 8 land probably doesn't affect any of that. AGAIN...as I stated earlier....if the development is causing an environmental issue then the development should stop. As for not ceding all rights...here's Treaty 8. I'm sure you've seen this before and refuse to acknowledge it in any fasion but for the sake of being thorough, I put the key parts in red. All rights surrendered leaving one right to hunt, fish and trap....EXCEPT on such tracts that are required for industry/settlements. Fairly straightforward. This is the one I was referring to where the Supreme Court won't take their case...http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/supreme-court-refuses-first-nation-s-appeal-over-oilsands-expansion-1.1412843 As for the victories....not sure if they mean real legal victories or moral victories because the oil sands decided to change their ways.

Yup...still responding.

Still responding...hey? I guess your 'ignore' threat was just another one of your great hypocrisies.

Post what ever you feel like. Maybe you should post that one where you said you were putting me back on ignore ABOUT 100 posts ago. I guess your desire to continue to learn from my business and life skills keeps you coming back for more.

Like I said...I've got you figured out now.

Scared....I get it. 6-0.

Do you have a citation for this? One showing their request to meet with the CAPP, government officials and of course the other missing stakeholders. Ok...so you just want an Order of Canada recipient? How about Allan Markin. I trust he would do a good job. http://www.uleth.ca/unews/article/markin-promoted-order-canada

The quote you called me out on the second time had ZERO racial connotation or implication whatsoever yet you threw down the race card because that's what you do. The two other members called you out on it and you DID NOT respond to any of them or my own request to know how it was racial. No...at this point you were responding to another post...not the Globe and Mail article. I do appreciate your honesty in comments about him as this situation clearly proves his naivety. Really? So the ACFN have no problem lettting Neil speak for them when it benefits them but the minute that it doesn't they can dust him off? Sorry Jacee...but when the ACFN took Neil on as a spokesman they took on everything. If they didn't like what he was saying then they should have spoken up and shut him down. Its like when Flanagan piped up last year about child pornography and the U of C immediately fired him. Your spokespeople represent you which can be a good or a bad thing but in the end Neil Young and Allan Adam sat at the same press conferences with the same message. Now...you pass this off as if Adam doesn't fully agree with Neil Young? Adam has numerously stated how the cancer rates are high in his areas due to the oil sands development. ASSUMING this was true....then why would anyone be in favor of ANY sort of development. The only reason....$$$$$. Like I said....the "whoa is the environment" is put out there but seems to become a non-factor if the price is right. Even Adam said this as he said its a fine line. I have previously posted in past threads my exact thoughts on this and have never hid behind anyone or anything. I believe that any resources on their land (reserve land) is completely and totally theirs as is the case in Onion Lake or Samson Cree. Any land outside of their reserves is NOT their land. The treaties say cede and surrender all land meaning its now the property of Canada. Sure..the treaties then say that the natives are allowed to use this land for their uses but that does not mean its theirs nor does it mean they should be able to dictate what we do on it. If I bought land off my neighbor but said he/she can still use it, that doesn't mean that he/she should share in revenues if I were to find oil or other minerals. Nor should he/she be able to impede on my development of this land. Same thing here. The land was ceded and surrendered including all rights. If activity on that land has proven to cause an environmental concern to their land, then YES....they should be compensated. However, they should not be compensated just for the resources. I know what you're going to say....the way it is in reality is not the way I think it should be. The courts have given many rights to native groups based on these lands being their 'hunting grounds' and of traditional use. As such, the environmental impacts need to be considered to those activities that will impede their ability to hunt or perform traditional. However, I don't feel that the environmental impacts should be any greater for these lands as they would be for any other part of Canada. What seems to be the issue is actually defining these traditional lands. Take for example the ACFN. As per the CBC article (http://www.cbc.ca/news/aboriginal/neil-young-tour-5-facts-about-the-first-nation-he-s-singing-for-1.2497824): The land associated to treaty 8 is the northern half of Alberta!! You're telling me that this group is entitled to work happening in Grande Prairie? There is an awful lot of talk about the 'intent' of treaties. I trust the ol' Brits signing this one didn't INTEND on this being the case. With all this being said, you have repeatedly told me that you will let the courts decide....that its not up to us. Well...in this case the Supreme Court of Canada has decided. Their decision is to not even listen to the case. Doesn't that tell you something?

Again...you continue to make stuff up and for the same purpose. CAPP offered to meet with Neil Young and Allan Adam before the show. THEY declined and in turn offered to have that meeting at their press conference. CAPP said they would attend IF they were given FAIR representation and a NEUTRAL moderator was present. David Suzuki was the 'neutral' moderator proposed by the Young/Adam side which of course is as neutral as haveing Ezra Levant moderate. There weren't two other proposed meetings. It was an intial offer and a counter offer with of course the counter offer being a sham offer considering their biased moderator.

I didn't presume anything. I quoted Jacee's exact words. Do you have an issue with her statements or not?

I know that this is your only place to converse with people...I get that....but you really do have to stop making shit up just to carry on a conversation. I've already shown the hypocrisy involved so if the issue is that you don't know what that word means then I suggest you ask your 18 year old shift supervisor. Those bastards at the CAPP! Wanting a neutral moderator and fair representation!!! How dare they!!!

Pointing out the obvious....that is help that you clearly need. Now are you saying that Mr Young should NOT be listened to?

LOL!!!!!! This is hilarious. I'm playing both sides? I am perfectly happy with the expansion of the oil sands. Always have been and always will be. Neil Young, on the other hand, first says its like Hiroshima and there is no land left to develop BUT NOW says its ok as long as its slower development??? Will this stop the noxious fumes that he described in Washington? Will this stop it from turning Alberta into the moon? Give it up waldo....you're reaching really bad on this one. Yes....let's talk about fair shall we.... I guess it is one sided!!

I thought I would bump this forward since you want to avoid it. Even Jacee realizes how naive and uninformed Neil Young is. Yikes....looks like you are all alone on this one waldo.

I think you are actually close to understanding the hypocrisy involved here however as always...you are a few steps behind. I took the liberty (for the sake of this thread) to correct a few errors in your statement above and replace them with the proper words. Is this Hiroshima, where there is no land to develop because its all poisoned....or is it now ok as long as we do it slowly. WOW!!! It is my multi-national business experience that taught me to never pass up the opportunity for a meeting. I guess they don't teach you any of that stuff down at Overwaitea.

Um no....I criticized Neil because he's a hypocrite.

I have shown quotes including a DIRECT quote from the Honor the Treaties website saying they want to STOP development. I have also shown that STOPPING development will reduce the green house gases. Show me your quote on them supporting reasonable expansion of oil sands. Or as they call it...the tar sands...aka Hiroshima....aka the cause of cancer in that area. Yes...waldingo....they really have gotten behind the responsible expansion train. Again...as I see you side stepped it....WHY did they avoid the opportunity to meet with the oil industry execs if they wanted support a slower expansion rather than rapid? Why would you NOT take that opportunity?

Hmmm....don't know...or don't care?