Alberta's worse nightmare

[Topaz]

The minister of natural resources has gotten a memo saying that the oil sand ponds are leaking into the ground and therefore into the ground water, which has been predicted by many. Now, the question is what will the province, the feds and the oil sand companies do about it. Cancer is up in the First Nations living close by and the underground water will probably spread south into rural areas. http://www.edmontonjournal.com/business/Oilsands+tailings+leaking+into+groundwater+Oliver+told/7977885/story.html

[jacee]

I'm glad it's finally public.

A doctor tried to blow the whistle a few years ago, got shafted.

Some day I believe the oil sands will be just a bad memory, a monument to greed and disregard for human life.

I think Obama just got some help making his decision about Keystone.

[WWWTT]

That's kind of harsh jacee.

The tar sands are a fantastic recource Canada is blessed with.

What we need is stricter environmental process.

WWWTT

[jacee]

That's kind of harsh jacee.

The tar sands are a fantastic recource Canada is blessed with.

What we need is stricter environmental process.

WWWTT

A bit harsh perhaps.

So is the damage.

[sharkman]

The minister of natural resources has gotten a memo saying that the oil sand ponds are leaking into the ground and therefore into the ground water, which has been predicted by many. Now, the question is what will the province, the feds and the oil sand companies do about it. Cancer is up in the First Nations living close by and the underground water will probably spread south into rural areas. http://www.edmontonj...7885/story.html

Well I assume that they'll improve the appropriate legislation, and get them to construct new ponds at their own expense.

[jacee]

What we need is stricter environmental process.

WWWTT

Before the memo's release, the association's oilsands website said the existing monitoring programs had "not detected impacts from tailings ponds seepage on surface water or to groundwater."

"Impacts" ... that may take years to show up in disease and death. The companies don't care if the groundwater is contaminated. They only care that they can minimize it and hide it from the public long enough to maximize their profits. They figure out how to get around the regulations long enough, then the company dissolves or morphs into other entities that can no longer be sued or held accountable for the damage to the environment or the people.

I think the problem that I and many Canadians have is that we know the companies involved will minimize liability and maximize profits with total disregard for human devastation.

We're not naive anymore.

Nor are the people of the USA who oppose the pipeline through the US.

Why the hell would they want the risk of our dirty oil going through their country, primarily to be shipped to China from the Gulf?

I think there is a real tipping point occurring for the oil sands.

If it was a resource that was being extracted and transported in a safe and sustainable fashion, I'd be happy, even proud of such efforts in Canada.

But it isn't.

Public opinion matters ... and the oil sands industry has disrespected that and denigrated it at their own peril.

A lot of money has been invested in the oil sands, public and private. Jobs, livlihoods, communities, families, pensions and the whole economy are affected.

They owe us better.

Maybe there's still hope?

http://www.thestarphoenix.com/touch/story.html?id=7751069

In 2013, it could be technological collaboration, environmental initiatives and careful reputation management that will win the hearts and minds of Canadians in politically challenging locations like British Columbia. Working beyond regulatory standards of environmental stewardship may prove to be critical in garnering a social and political licence to develop new pipeline infrastructure and secure Canada's position among the world's oil-producing elite.

[jbg]

The minister of natural resources has gotten a memo saying that the oil sand ponds are leaking into the ground and therefore into the ground water, which has been predicted by many. Now, the question is what will the province, the feds and the oil sand companies do about it. Cancer is up in the First Nations living close by and the underground water will probably spread south into rural areas. http://www.edmontonj...7885/story.html

It's a cost-benefit issue.

How bad is the damage compared with the benefit of the resource?

[sharkman]

Apparently Obama is getting close to making a decision on Keystone, so of course those in the enviro religion are furiously throwing everything they can at the Tar Sands hoping something will stick. Is it a coincidence that this story appears now? Of course not. What's needed here is clearheaded thinking and appropriate measures, not leftwing scientists and activists trying to manipulate energy policies and world leaders.

[jacee]

It's a cost-benefit issue.

How bad is the damage compared with the benefit of the resource?

No.

It's a credibility issue.

The success of the oil sands now depends on public opinion.

Edited February 18, 2013 by jacee

[jacee]

Apparently Obama is getting close to making a decision on Keystone, so of course those in the enviro religion are furiously throwing everything they can at the Tar Sands hoping something will stick. Is it a coincidence that this story appears now? Of course not. What's needed here is clearheaded thinking and appropriate measures, not leftwing scientists and activists trying to manipulate energy policies and world leaders.

If the public doesn't believe the companies will take "appropriate measures", frankly, it doesn't matter what they do: Too little, too late, and we don't believe what they say anyway.

Public opinion matters, and they squandered it early in the game with arrogance.

Obama's decision will be very significant to broader public opinion.

Edited February 18, 2013 by jacee

[waldo]

leftwing scientists

is there 'left-wing science' & 'right-wing science'?

[sharkman]

If the public doesn't believe the companies will take "appropriate measures", frankly, it doesn't matter what they do: Too little, too late, and we don't believe what they say anyway.

Public opinion matters, and they squandered it early in the game with arrogance.

Obama's decision will be very significant to broader public opinion.

True to a point. Public perception is only a part of the data that Obama needs to consider, and it can be shaped. Just look at how effective Harper's been at it while staying in power.

[Topaz]

It's a cost-benefit issue.

How bad is the damage compared with the benefit of the resource?

Well, what price do u put on one's life??? These toxins causes cancer.

[sharkman]

You said cancer rates are up, I couldn't find that in the link, which study shows this?

[jacee]

You said cancer rates are up, I couldn't find that in the link, which study shows this?

It's been controversial, and depends who you ask. The gov and oil industry want it suppressed.

It's from heavy metals/mercury in the river/lakes, fallout from emissions, not from the groundwater contamination being reported today.

http://northerninsights.blogspot.ca/2012/01/these-people-dont-believe-in-ethical.html?m=1

Dr. Gina Solomon, Professor of Medicine, University of California, speaking in Fort Chipewyan:

"The cancer rates is this community are quite a bit higher than would be expected. The rates of leukemias and lymphomas were about three times higher than would be expected. The rates of bile duct cancer were seven times higher than expected. The things that are interesting and worrisome about those particular cancers is that they have already in scientific studies been linked to exposures to petroleum products."

[sharkman]

That link reads more like a blog than anything else, and a professor of medicine from California on a crusade is not exactly the most qualified or trustworthy individual to base the decisions of a whole industry on. I was hoping for hard data, is all that's available opinions like the ones you've quoted?

[gunrutz]

So there is this place, with a bunch of petroleum mixed in with the soil, and for thousands, perhaps millions of years, rains fell from the sky, lakes formed on the surface and rivers flowed through the land. Meanwhile, in the present, people decided to pull the soil out of the gound and use it for things, other people, the stupids, don't seem to understand that before anyone touched this soil 'contaminants', those organic compounds that make up petroleum, were already being moved around, into the lakes and rivers. In some places you can see petroleum on the banks of these lakes and rviers no where near any current mining sites, this would be because the banks that line these lakes and rivers and made up of bitumen, raw petroleum sits on the banks, in fact it is the banks of some of these lakes and rivers.

But of course, none of the alleged contamination, or sickness, could have anything to do with the completely natural occurence of this petroluem and happening to live on or downstream from it, and no doubt, for those people who get sick becuase of radon in their homes the fault clearly lies with the guy who dug the foundation.

[Muddy]

Well alternatives to oil ,coal and gas tecknology that the west has thrown money into has been a complete failure. Cut off the big three and a heck of a lot more humans will die of cold hunger and disease. Do you think Saudi Arabia has a better record enviromentally ? Or do you think they just might be behind some of the misinformation we are fed ? It must be scarey to have such great source of money to one family put in jeopardy.

[waldo]

... other people, the stupids, don't seem to understand that before anyone touched this soil 'contaminants', those organic compounds that make up petroleum, were already being moved around, into the lakes and rivers.

speaking of "the stupids"... re: the cancer-causing chemicals, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) - study showing PAH levels from 2½ times to 23 times background levels in the early 1960s, before the start of tarsands operations in the region... identified by association to the particular 'fingerprint' of burning petroleum in the production of the tarsands:

Legacy of a half century of Athabasca oil sands development recorded by lake ecosystems

The absence of well-executed environmental monitoring in the Athabasca oil sands (Alberta, Canada) has necessitated the use of indirect approaches to determine background conditions of freshwater ecosystems before development of one of the Earth’s largest energy deposits. Here, we use highly resolved lake sediment records to provide ecological context to ∼50 y of oil sands development and other environmental changes affecting lake ecosystems in the region. We show that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) within lake sediments, particularly C1-C4–alkylated PAHs, increased significantly after development of the bitumen resource began, followed by significant increases in dibenzothiophenes. Total PAH fluxes in the modern sediments of our six study lakes, including one site ∼90 km northwest of the major development area, are now ∼2.5–23 times greater than ∼1960 levels. PAH ratios indicate temporal shifts from primarily wood combustion to petrogenic sources that coincide with greater oil sands development. Canadian interim sediment quality guidelines for PAHs have been exceeded since the mid-1980s at the most impacted site. A paleoecological assessment of Daphnia shows that this sentinel zooplankter has not yet been negatively impacted by decades of high atmospheric PAH deposition. Rather, coincident with increases in PAHs, climate-induced shifts in aquatic primary production related to warmer and drier conditions are the primary environmental drivers producing marked daphniid shifts after ∼1960 to 1970. Because of the striking increase in PAHs, elevated primary production, and zooplankton changes, these oil sands lake ecosystems have entered new ecological states completely distinct from those of previous centuries.

[waldo]

Well alternatives to oil ,coal and gas tecknology that the west has thrown money into has been a complete failure. Cut off the big three and a heck of a lot more humans will die of cold hunger and disease. Do you think Saudi Arabia has a better record enviromentally ? Or do you think they just might be behind some of the misinformation we are fed ? It must be scarey to have such great source of money to one family put in jeopardy.

complete failure??? Of what... details, details!

what misinformation are 'we' being fed? By the Saudis? Do tell, do tell...

[jacee]

So there is this place, with a bunch of petroleum mixed in with the soil, and for thousands, perhaps millions of years, rains fell from the sky, lakes formed on the surface and rivers flowed through the land. Meanwhile, in the present, people decided to pull the soil out of the gound and use it for things, other people, the stupids, don't seem to understand that before anyone touched this soil 'contaminants', those organic compounds that make up petroleum, were already being moved around, into the lakes and rivers. In some places you can see petroleum on the banks of these lakes and rviers no where near any current mining sites, this would be because the banks that line these lakes and rivers and made up of bitumen, raw petroleum sits on the banks, in fact it is the banks of some of these lakes and rivers.

But of course, none of the alleged contamination, or sickness, could have anything to do with the completely natural occurence of this petroluem and happening to live on or downstream from it, and no doubt, for those people who get sick becuase of radon in their homes the fault clearly lies with the guy who dug the foundation.

Red herring.

It's not just petroleum in the tail ings ponds that are now known to be leaking into the groundwater.

It's waste from the process, especially solvents.

http://oilsands.alberta.ca/tailings.html

Tailings management remains one of the most difficult environmental challenges for the oil sands mining sector. There are currently more than 170 square kilometres of tailings ponds in Alberta.

Edited February 19, 2013 by jacee

[sharkman]

So Topaz starts a thread(this one) in which he claims that tailing ponds leaking into ground water or the aquifer is causing cancer rates to rise among the First Nations communities. He declines the request of hard data on this, but seems to feel making the accusation is enough, also including the thought that this development is also going to "spread south into rural communites", although nothing in his link indicates this or any data about cancer rates. Jacee provides a link that suggests the health issues may be related to air pollution, though it's mostly opinion.

Then in another thread the claim that Canada has broken many treaties with the First Nations has been made repeatedly, but when pressed on which treaties there is a decided lack of specifics. It seems that for some it's enough to simply make the accusations.

Edited February 20, 2013 by sharkman

[jacee]

So Topaz starts a thread(this one) in which he claims that tailing ponds leaking into ground water or the aquifer is causing cancer rates to rise among the First Nations communities. He declines the request of hard data on this, but seems to feel making the accusation is enough, also including the thought that this development is also going to "spread south into rural communites", although nothing in his link indicates this or any data about cancer rates. Jacee provides a link that suggests the health issues may be related to air pollution, though it's mostly opinion.

There are tailings pond solvents leaking into the groundwater. From there, they will leach into the entire watershed. No cases of disease or death have yet been linked to the toxins in the groundwater.

So ... would you fill a nice big pitcher with that water and serve it to yourself and your family? Do you think the CEO of the oil company that owns the tailings pond would drink that groundwater or serve it to his/her family?

Yes, the emissions fallout in waterways has been linked to disease. The company still denies responsibility. Do the oil execs. pipe water from those waterways into their homes? Would you?

Then in another thread the claim that Canada has broken many treaties with the First Nations has been made repeatedly, but when pressed on which treaties there is a decided lack of specifics. It seems that for some it's enough to simply make the accusations.

Wrong thread.