|
02-14-2013, 09:36 PM
|
#21 | | | Quote: |
Originally Posted by Faceman It happens time after time after time, and has been particularly of note in the US in the last 20 years because of the poor financial condition of our state governments, who, hungry for the revenue provided by exploration, drilling, and production, join the industry in painting a rosey picture to their state residents of better roads and schools, and a better state economy due to the increased state revenues and (relatively) high paying jobs. States such as Pennsylvania and Arkansas, among others, have found out too late they have been sold a bill of goods. Most of the revenue has to be used to repair roads and infrastructure damaged by oil and gas company activities, and within a couple of years it becomes obvious that the "pristine" environment they promise turns out to be a fairy tale. The reality is they destroy the environment, affect ecological balances, and create Earth, air, water, and noise polution.
| From someone who daily has to deal with the direct impacts of the above-
*stands up from her chair in the audience and applauds* | |
| | |
02-14-2013, 11:42 PM
|
#22 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by ~*~anebel~*~ And you sound like the only website you read is Greenpeace and othe env. Act. Sites. There is a balance. | Not even close! Nice try, though. Quote: |
I do agree that peat bogs are not easily replaced, however, SAGD is not a solution and IMO will cause more long term damage. Mining is a proven technology and while our reclamation practices are not perfect and we can't recreate a landscape, contrary to your beliefs, there are millions upon millions of dollars poured into these issues and papers written 3-5 years ago are already considered to be obsolete in terms of reclamation technology.
|
And where did you ever get the idea that I supported SAGD? As with fracking, it is fraught with problems that are every bit as bad as open pit mining.
You are the one who painted the rosy picture of stellar land reclamation, not me. In fact, you seem to feel the whole process is clean and containable. You also said; Quote: |
The water removal systems for the tailings are absolutely unparalleled world wide as far as research and development, costs to implement and ingenuity. They have the worlds best working there year round to develop the best in mining technology. And as far as toxic tailings go - their tailings are actually quite benign.
| Yet again painting a rosy picture. I disagree, that's all.
As I have tried to make clear....this mining is going to happen, no matter what. My whole response was only because of your flippant remark that I took exception to; Quote: |
Well the oil sands killed a few ducks once and the world almost ended *rolls eyes*.
| If you decided to take us there, I was just pointing out that it was about WAY more than a couple of little duckies. | |
| | |
02-15-2013, 12:12 AM
|
#24 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Allison Finch OK, here's Tar Sands 101 Tar Sands Basics
If you think open pit mining is just fine and hunky dory, we will agree to disagree. The fact that the Alberta Environment has issued Environmental Protection Orders to address unacceptable levels of H2S emissions at oil sands site near Fort McMurray is a bit concerning for some. Tell me waht they are doing with the vanadium, nickel, lead, cobalt, mercury, chromium, cadmium, arsenic, selenium, copper, manganese, iron and zinc are naturally present in oil sands and may be concentrated by the extraction process? Why is the European Union considering labeling this product as "highly polluting". Yes, I know that the consultant hired by the oil companies, Jacobs Consulting, is claiming the EU used poor info, but they have not come up with the particulars, to my knowledge. However, even THEY admit that carbon emissions from this process emits 12% higher emissions than from regular crude.
Let's talk about the HUGE amount of water needed for this process. Even with recycling, almost all of it ends up in tailings ponds. As of 2007, tailing ponds in Canada covered an area of approximately 50 square kilometres (19 sq mi). However, in SAGD operations, 90–95% of the water is recycled and only about 0.2 volume units of water is used per volume unit of bitumen produced. This does NOT mean I support SAGD, but it serves to show that open pit mining is just not as "low impact" as you are claiming. They are STILL unable to track the release of the napthenic acids, to my knowledge.
How about the growing higher than normal cancer rate in the residents of Fort Chipewyan? In August 2011, the Alberta government initiated a provincial health study of the link between the higher rates of cancer and the oil sands. The fact that moose in the area now have 33 times the acceptable ARSENIC levels (one of the byproducts of this process), making it unsafe for human consumption, is worrying.
As for reclaiming the lands destroyed by open pit mining, I have done little delving into. I am not sure how many areas have actually had restoration attempted, other than some "showplace areas" that are meant for public viewing. However, some articles I have read make it sound a bit gloomy. Rebuilding land destroyed by oil-sands may not restore it, researchers say - The Globe and Mail
Good luck with your work in this area.
Gosh I could go on. Anebel, while I am not viewing this from the "inside" as you are, I am absolutely not unaware of this problem. In conclusion, I am not against the refining of oil from the sands. Do I think they are doing a poorer job than they could ($$$)? Yes, but the oil WILL be mined regardless. But to come here and trivialize the impact by saying it is all about little duckies is sad. | AF.....I really really have to disagree with you here. I HAVE worked in the Oil Sands, I have lived in Fort McMurray and my husband has a senior position and over twenty years of working directly in the oil sands mining industry - From running shovels to running training departments to HO&S.
All I can say is: Google earth northern AB look at the area of Wood Buffalo that is used for mining........pitiful amount. Also, the amount of reclamation up there is massive, just massive, compared to the amount that is actively getting mined. I have hiked through only a tiny tiny portion of it - the wildlife is teeming up there. I have seen the buffalo and often stopped on my way home to look at them......they do graze up there.
These oil companies are regulated under some very very very tight laws. The Eco-crazies that go up there, drive the whole five hours (burning petroleum) and photograph the tailings ponds with their plastic cameras (oh, that's an oil product) and show the world nothing but the LINED and CONTROLLED tailings ponds that ducks occasionally land on......they've fixed that issue with effigies and radar systems now, it's quite high tech......
It's similar to people harping on about the harms of rodeos......yet they've never lived the life or even been to one......they've just seen the PETA websites.......
The oilsands can be seen in the river banks (the stuff stinks too) and when your out around the rivers and such it's awful if you get it on your boots.....but it's naturally there.......
AF, have you ever visited the oilsands? | |
| | |
02-15-2013, 12:14 AM
|
#25 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Allison Finch | I would like to know where you got those pictures? | |
| | |
02-15-2013, 12:26 AM
|
#26 | | | Heres some REAL facts......the area that is in active reclaimation is larger than the area being actively mined.......at this point in time......
Here is some pretty darn accurate info......if anyone's interested: Alberta's Oil Sands Reclamation
Just a note here AF, your last set of photos, one showing a river and one showing a dirty tailings pipe, that is NOT a before and after.....that is a picture of the Athabasca river and a picture of a dirty tailings pipe.......no one pumps tailings into the river.......no one.......I think if the Athabasca looked like a dirty tailings pond we'd be in for some trouble....... | |
| | |
02-15-2013, 12:27 AM
|
#27 | | | Quote:
Originally Posted by Allison Finch |
Exactly, PRIOR to reclamation.
Sudbury, the Copper Cliff district, is built on the mine. Veery toxic  Ooohhhh scary.
I'm also not talking about the liquid tailings you mentioned (yes those fail all the time, as I've mentioned before *please read my posts*). I'm talking about waste piles, dewatered tailings and co disposal material. All of which actually can, and are, all over the place, contained nicely with current reclamation technology, which as I say is getting developed more and more and more. And then things like fishable lakes and crop land and *shock* yes even wetlands are developed. Would it surprise you to know that wetlands are actually a technology used to remove heavy metals from NMD? As long as the acid is neutralized to a certain pH - the water can be filtered through the wetlands and the toxic metals are removed and stored by the ecosystem. But of course that's just bull**** spread by mining companies and developed in the academic "bubble". F me, right? Because I've obviously never set foot on a mine site OH WAIT - that's right. Shoe meet the other foot. I've never said anything about O&G in specifically like all oil rigs must be rotated 13.5 degrees from magnetic north and all employees must do the hokey pokey before shift because I've never been on an oil rig. But some people who haven't seen a mine site except for a Greenpeace video are freaking experts on the subject.
That picture is very obviously from some Greenpeace site. Like holy **** do you WANT animals wandering around a mine site? Because as I said before the last time there were ducks on tailings everyone freaked out. Now we WANT moose and trees in the middle of an open pit?? Seems stupid to me, but whatever I guess I'm the uneducated one when it comes to mining and reclamation  | |
| | |
02-15-2013, 01:00 AM
|
#28 | | | I tend to respect Scientific American and have no problem using them as a source.
They say some of the eco claims are exaggerated. But, read between the lines. They admit that cancer rates around these mines are soaring, but cannot tie it to the mines directly. They basically say that way too little work is being done here.
The rest, I'll let you read, Impacts of Canada's Oil-Sands Operations 'Exaggerated': Scientific American
And with this, I am done and waiting for the next green energy discussion. This one is starting to go in circles. | |
| | |
02-15-2013, 07:36 AM
|
#29 | | | There is no need to assume an environmentalist is an "Eco-crazy", or in any way comparable to PETA or Greenpeace. I have been an environmentalist all my life, yet am conservative and about as far removed from tree huggers and bunny lickers as one can get.
ANY scientist knows we are damaging our environment and it is a matter of concern. Reclamation, when done properly, resolves some of the issues, but only the naive think there are not long term affects.
As to the bubble - yup. As I said earlier, unless you actually work for a corporation in a management position, you do not know and are not privvy to, the business side of the operation, where business decisions are made. As an observer or rank and file employee, you only see and hear what the company wants you to see and hear. That is not meant as criticism, it is merely a statement of fact.
I am going to be out of town today, but would ask the question - what do you do with your dirty water, and will check back this evening... | |
| | |
02-15-2013, 11:34 AM
|
#30 | | | I grew up in a UK below ground coalmining/farming community and although the landscape looks OK the fertility of the land from a farming perspective was terribly affected and its taking several generations to return to anything like what it used to be.
The same goes for waterways where industrial and agricultural waste has caused so much pollution all aquatic life has been destroyed and water that ends up in reservoirs or wells is a health risk.
A lot is being done to address these issues and the results are clearly visible but its like shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted | |
| | | |
55Likes
