Neil Young rocks the tar sands

[Accountability Now]

move along, little boy, move along!

Yup...still responding.

[jacee]

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.

Broadbrush negative generalizations.

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.

Ah! I see I did catch you playing a silly strawman game, trying to dismiss the Athabasca Chipewyan people's concerns by tying them to Neil Young's comments.

Well that's just ridiculous. Neil's just a musician bringing attention to issues. He's not a spokesperson for Athabasca Chipewyan or anybody but himself. He won't be at the negotiating table, has no official role, nor does Suzuki.

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.

It must be distressing at times in your world of black and white/all or nothing/either-or, when the world itself is so much more complex and interesting.

Environment, jobs, revenues. All are on the table, all need to be negotiated. And yes, it is a fine line.

Can you get your head around that complexity?

Adam has to.

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.

I don't see Indigenous Peoples "dictating" anything. They're just trying to negotiate uses of the land that preserve their lives and livelihoods and provide a better future for their children. They're well within their legal rights to do so.

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.

Irrelevant and inaccurate comparison. And you don't have mineral rights anyway.

Same thing here. The land was ceded and surrendered including all rights.

No, they did not cede all rights, as you already indicated above.

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 you "feel" or think "should" be is your choice and you can beat your head against that wall if you want to. Me, I'd rather try to understand and deal with what the reality is. Like I said, your world must be distressing to you at times. Too bad. So sad.

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?

About that case perhaps. Not really familiar with the ruling you're referring to.

This is interesting:

Weve lost a lot of litigation, but it evens out because the victories we feel have really changed things drastically in the way the oilsands are developed, says Eriel Deranger, communications co-ordinator and ACFN member.​

And this too:

ACFN owns and operates several business entities under an umbrella organization called ACDEN, made up of 17 businesses that largely provide services to the oil and gas industry.ACDEN calls itself "one of Canada's most successful Aboriginal enterprises." Its first company was started in 1994 with just 10 employees and now there are more than 3,000.

Last year, ACDEN generated between $200 million and $250 million in revenue.​

Environment, jobs, revenues.

Can you get your head around that complexity?

[Keepitsimple]

This is interesting:

Weve lost a lot of litigation, but it evens out because the victories we feel have really changed things drastically in the way the oilsands are developed, says Eriel Deranger, communications co-ordinator and ACFN member.​

And this too:

ACFN owns and operates several business entities under an umbrella organization called ACDEN, made up of 17 businesses that largely provide services to the oil and gas industry.ACDEN calls itself "one of Canada's most successful Aboriginal enterprises." Its first company was started in 1994 with just 10 employees and now there are more than 3,000.

Last year, ACDEN generated between $200 million and $250 million in revenue.​

Environment, jobs, revenues.

Can you get your head around that complexity?

Good post - it shows that when First Nations work with industry and find reasonable accommodation - everyone wins!

[Accountability Now]

Ah! I see I did catch you playing a silly strawman game, trying to dismiss the Athabasca Chipewyan people's concerns by tying them to Neil Young's comments.

Strawman? I note that you CONVENIENTLY left out the next part of my post where I said:

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.

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?

Well that's just ridiculous. Neil's just a musician bringing attention to issues. He's not a spokesperson for Athabasca Chipewyan or anybody but himself. He won't be at the negotiating table, has no official role, nor does Suzuki.

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.

It must be distressing at times in your world of black and white/all or nothing/either-or, when the world itself is so much more complex and interesting.

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.

Environment, jobs, revenues. All are on the table, all need to be negotiated. And yes, it is a fine line.

Can you get your head around that complexity?

Adam has to.

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.

I don't see Indigenous Peoples "dictating" anything. They're just trying to negotiate uses of the land that preserve their lives and livelihoods and provide a better future for their children. They're well within their legal rights to do so.

No, they did not cede all rights, as you already indicated above.

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.

AND WHEAND WHEREAS, the said Commissioners have proceeded to negotiate a treaty with the Cree, Beaver, Chipewyan and other Indians, inhabiting the district hereinafter defined and described, and the same has been agreed upon and concluded by the respective bands at the dates mentioned hereunder, the said Indians DO HEREBY CEDE, RELEASE, SURRENDER AND YIELD UP to the Government of the Dominion of Canada, for Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever, all their rights, titles and privileges whatsoever, to the lands included within the following limits, that is to say:

Commencing at the source of the main branch of the Red Deer River in Alberta, thence due west to the central range of the Rocky Mountains, thence northwesterly along the said range to the point where it intersects the 60th parallel of north latitude, thence east along said parallel to the point where it intersects Hay River, thence northeasterly down said river to the south shore of Great Slave Lake, thence along the said shore northeasterly (and including such rights to the islands in said lakes as the Indians mentioned in the treaty may possess), and thence easterly and northeasterly along the south shores of Christie's Bay and McLeod's Bay to old Fort Reliance near the mouth of Lockhart's River, thence southeasterly in a straight line to and including Black Lake, thence southwesterly up the stream from Cree Lake, thence including said lake southwesterly along the height of land between the Athabasca and Churchill Rivers to where it intersects the northern boundary of Treaty Six, and along the said boundary easterly, northerly and southwesterly, to the place of commencement .

AND ALSO the said Indian rights, titles and privileges whatsoever to all other lands wherever situated in the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, or in any other portion of the Dominion of Canada.

TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the same to Her Majesty the Queen and Her successors for ever.

And Her Majesty the Queen HEREBY AGREES with the said Indians that they shall have right to pursue their usual vocations of hunting, trapping and fishing throughout the tract surrendered as heretofore described, subject to such regulations as may from time to time be made by the Government of the country, acting under the authority of Her Majesty, and saving and excepting such tracts as may be required or taken up from time to time for settlement, mining, lumbering, trading or other purposes.

About that case perhaps. Not really familiar with the ruling you're referring to.

This is interesting:

Weve lost a lot of litigation, but it evens out because the victories we feel have really changed things drastically in the way the oilsands are developed, says Eriel Deranger, communications co-ordinator and ACFN member.​

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.

Edited January 28, 2014 by Accountability Now

[jacee]

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.

Aboriginal rights on all traditional lands -hunting, fishing, trapping etc - are interpreted by the Supreme Court as the right to sustain themselves from the land. In the modern context, this includes primarily negotiating preservation of the environment, revenue sharing and jobs.

[jacee]

Good post - it shows that when First Nations work with industry and find reasonable accommodation - everyone wins!

When industry (edit) will work with them.

Edited January 29, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

Here's an eye opener:

/alberta_oil_sands:_seeing_is_disbelieving

If we forced oil sands companies to pay the real costs of their activities instead of externalizing them to future generations, the oil sands would very quickly lose their economic appeal.

...

The lake itself is referred to as a "tailings pond", a name that belies the massive scope of the body of toxic water that lays before you.Fed by large pipes spewing brown and black muck, the tailings ponds are a toxic soup of heavy metals, petroleum byproducts and other terrible stuff that should have been left underground. It's what is left behind once the oil and sand have been removed from the oil sands, and it's something that the industry still doesn't really know how to deal with.

To get a sense of just how big these tailings ponds are, and how unprepared the industry is to deal with them, wrap your head around this fact: the largest dam in the world is not in China - it's not the Three Gorges Dam, It's in Alberta.

It's the largest dam by material volume in the entire world, and it's holding back Syncrude's Mildred Lake Settling Basin from flowing into the Athabasca River.

[Accountability Now]

Aboriginal rights on all traditional lands -hunting, fishing, trapping etc - are interpreted by the Supreme Court as the right to sustain themselves from the land. In the modern context, this includes primarily negotiating preservation of the environment, revenue sharing and jobs.

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?

[GostHacked]

So burning plants/biomass that capture CO2 from the air through photosynthesis and releasing that CO2 back into the air..... this is reducing C02 emissions?

Can't we grow food for the world to eat instead of using fossil fuels to turn it into 'green' energy?

Kind of like how they say nuclear power is green, but does not take into account the amount of fossil fuels used to extract and refine nuclear material and build the facility.

Not buying it.

[Accountability Now]

...

The lake itself is referred to as a "tailings pond", a name that belies the massive scope of the body of toxic water that lays before you.Fed by large pipes spewing brown and black muck, the tailings ponds are a toxic soup of heavy metals, petroleum byproducts and other terrible stuff that should have been left underground. It's what is left behind once the oil and sand have been removed from the oil sands, and it's something that the industry still doesn't really know how to deal with.

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

[PIK]

Here is a question, if the eco freaks get thier way, oil production will be shut down in NA, so where will the jobs come from and how will anybody be able to live??? Who is going to pay for our health care and all other social programs?

[jacee]

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?

Life's complexities continue to elude your capacities, I see.

[jacee]

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[/b[ 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

Well that's some progress! Good things happen when the environmentalists and First Nations keep the pressure on, eh?

I wonder when Mildred 'Lake' will be cleaned up? Long way to go yet.

.

Edited January 29, 2014 by jacee

[jacee]

So burning plants/biomass that capture CO2 from the air through photosynthesis and releasing that CO2 back into the air..... this is reducing C02 emissions?

Can't we grow food for the world to eat instead of using fossil fuels to turn it into 'green' energy?

Kind of like how they say nuclear power is green, but does not take into account the amount of fossil fuels used to extract and refine nuclear material and build the facility.

Not buying it.

I agree. Using foodstocks isn't a viable energy solution.

But I really like waste-to-energy developments.

Solves two problems at once!

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waste-to-energy

.

[Accountability Now]

Life's complexities continue to elude your capacities, I see.

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

[Accountability Now]

Well that's some progress! Good things happen when the environmentalists and First Nations keep the pressure on, eh?

I wonder when Mildred 'Lake' will be cleaned up? Long way to go yet.

.

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

Edited January 30, 2014 by Accountability Now

[jacee]

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.

It's all about the money.

[Keepitsimple]

It's all about the money.

Of course it is. It's about making more money that you spend. The Oil industry makes billions of dollars because it takes billions of dollars to get products to market.

[waldo]

Of course it is. It's about making more money that you spend. The Oil industry makes billions of dollars because it takes billions of dollars to get products to market.

making just more than you spend? That's the measure? At large, profits for just 3 of the players (Chevron, Exxon & Shell) totaled ~$70 billion in 2013. With a narrower focus on the tarsands, "more" is quite relative, particularly in regards to just how much of that "more" is leaving the country.

[Guest Derek L]

And in related news:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/keystone-xl-gets-environmental-ok-from-u-s-state-dept-1.2518271

The U.S. State Department gave a vote of confidence to the Keystone XL pipeline on Friday, saying in a report that it has no major environmental objections to the construction of the megaproject.

The report says development of the massive pipeline to move oil from Alberta to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast won't significantly increase the rate of oil extraction and release an unacceptable level of greenhouse gases.

I like this part:

He noted that the report says that not building the project would actually lead to the release of as much as 28 to 42 per cent more greenhouse gases, because of energy consumed moving the same volume of oil via other means, such as by rail, trucks or barges.

Now just waiting on Obama.........As another Canadian once sung:

[Smallc]

I love it.