Syncrude to Alberta: F*CK Y0 DUKZ!

[broken_legs]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/prairies/toxic-syncrude-tailings-pond-kills-hundreds-more-ducks/article1773540/



Hundreds of ducks are dead after landing in a toxic Syncrude tailings pond on Monday, igniting yet another public-relations disaster for a company and an industry that was slapped with the largest environmental penalty in Alberta court history just three days ago.

:facepalm:

[M.alex]

poor duckies :(

[Cooked Rice]

They'll just keep getting fined, and keep on pumping out the oil. I don't think anyone likes the idea of mass wildlife being killed off, but that's just how business and money is.

[DayGlow]

So when are the windmills in southern Alberta going to be investigated?

[themack89]

$3mil HAHA... Thats chump change for a company like Syncrude. Oh Canada.

R.I.P. Duckies.

[bjstare]

Originally posted by DayGlow
So when are the windmills in southern Alberta going to be investigated?

haha noo shit. Just because tailings ponds are big and yucky, people think all oil is bad. Heaven forbid we lose a few ducks here and there for the greater good of the economy and providing jobs for thousands of people. And what about all the ducks that get killed hunting (for fun)?

[JfuckinC]

They should just bring out some hunters and shoot any duck that gets near their ponds lol

[bjstare]

^Problem solved. haha

[jjmac]

Originally posted by JfuckinC
They should just bring out some hunters and shoot any duck that gets near their ponds lol

LOL :bigpimp:

[gretz]

Originally posted by JfuckinC
They should just bring out some hunters and shoot any duck that gets near their ponds lol

lol... I've got lots of buddies that would gladly save the ducks from a toxic demise ;)

[sillysod]

Apparently they flew into some ice (no lie) onboard de-icing systems must have failed. haha.

Next Syncrude is going to have to get a de-icing truck setup so birds can make the flight in ice.

[gretz]

They should be more concerned with cats and powerlines...

[Cos]

I bet you could hire a few hunters at 50k a year (drunks, retirees) and spend that $3,000,000 and take care of anything that gets near the ponds not just the ducks.

Dont get me wrong it is sad to see animals killed this way, it is obvious how a duck could be mistaken, however I dont see anyone offering a solution.

[revelations]

Could someone in the industry tell me why a large mesh/net cover has not been placed over these massive chemical lakes already?

[Feruk]

$3 Million? Haha the lawyers probably cost twice that if not more. What a joke. If the government wants oilsands companies to actually take this seriously, make them pay a REAL penalty. Proposition: $100K per duck. Otherwise I don't even see the point of the government pretending they care.

Also, they don't use mesh/nets because they instead rely on sound cannons. Typically quite effective.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by Feruk
$3 Million? Haha the lawyers probably cost twice that if not more. What a joke. If the government wants oilsands companies to actually take this seriously, make them pay a REAL penalty. Proposition: $100K per duck. Otherwise I don't even see the point of the government pretending they care.

Also, they don't use mesh/nets because they instead rely on sound cannons. Typically quite effective.

But why are birds' lives only important in the context of the oil industry? Or should every business face the same penalty for a dead bird? How many birds a year are killed at the airport to protect planes? How many bird strikes a year happen with buildings downtown? The list can keep going, but what is the point?

If this is truly about protecting birds then there are a lot larger fish to fry than what happens up in the oil sands. Or is this about dirty evil oil? If so then a little intellectual honesty should be expected from the people complaining about it.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by revelations
Could someone in the industry tell me why a large mesh/net cover has not been placed over these massive chemical lakes already?

My guess is that you'll have birds dying from being tangled in the mesh vs dying in the ponds.

[roopi]

Originally posted by revelations
Could someone in the industry tell me why a large mesh/net cover has not been placed over these massive chemical lakes already?

Never heard of this before?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/centennial/december/photo/StuckDuck.jpg

[Sugarphreak]

...

[msommers]

And bats.

But in all fairness, just because it's worse somewhere else doesn't make it ok. Why not have hunters setup shop which would help feed the camps? Is there a smell or frequency that can be put in place to deter wildlife from entering the area?

It's not like Syncrude is going to get shut down but I do think something needs to be done to at least alleviate the wildlife from getting killed.

[troyl]

Originally posted by DayGlow
So when are the windmills in southern Alberta going to be investigated?

Exactly!

[in*10*se]

http://www.gameroo.com/covers/0000/0426/duck-hunt.jpg

[Phenix]

Originally posted by roopi


Never heard of this before?

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/special/centennial/december/photo/StuckDuck.jpg

Hey that's ed the Duck!!!


But Syncrude has still killed Way less birds than the BP oil spill

[codetrap]

What a stupid thread title.


http://www.flyways.us/status-of-waterfowl/population-estimates


2010 Breeding Duck Population Estimates

In the traditional survey area, which includes strata 1-18, 20-50, and 75-77, the total duck population estimate (excluding scoters, eiders, long-tailed ducks, mergansers, and wood ducks) was 40.9 million birds. This estimate was similar to last year’s estimate of 42 million birds, and was 21% above the long-term average.

[texasnick]

Originally posted by Feruk
$3 Million? Haha the lawyers probably cost twice that if not more. What a joke. If the government wants oilsands companies to actually take this seriously, make them pay a REAL penalty. Proposition: $100K per duck. Otherwise I don't even see the point of the government pretending they care.

Also, they don't use mesh/nets because they instead rely on sound cannons. Typically quite effective.

So by that logic, if you are driving down the freeway and a duck decides to fly in front of your truck, killing it, should you be fined $100,000? Or are we going to implement a double standard that says if you an oil company kills a duck it's going to cost them $100,000, but if anything else kills a duck, it's all good?

Do you honestly think that not every effort possible was made to keep those damn ducks from landing in the pond? From what I've heard rumored around the office, they had employees with flares at the pond IN ADDTION TO the cannons to try to keep them from landing there. Trust me, that's the last thing anyone up there wants to happen.

This whole "it's a big deal" attitude is absolutely asinine. 100+ ducks die due to man's impact from a mine, yet it's completely fine to hunt ducks or kill them on accident in any other circumstance? In fact, in this thread, hunting them before they land has even been a suggestion as an alternative to having them die by landing in the wrong spot.

I am actually getting a bit sick of hearing about how dirty Canadian mining, oilsands, etc are. What kind of news do you think this would make if it was a Chinese company in China doing this? Probably wouldn't even hear a word. How many freaking ducks do you think die every die in the Niger Delta? Canada is a (if not THE) world leader in responsible resource extraction, both from an environmental and a social standpoint. To say otherwise is honestly just plain ignorant.

[kenny]

Originally posted by revelations
Could someone in the industry tell me why a large mesh/net cover has not been placed over these massive chemical lakes already?

Cost of Nets/Mesh > Penalties, Lawyer Fees, PR Costs

[bjstare]

Originally posted by Feruk
$3 Million? Haha the lawyers probably cost twice that if not more. What a joke. If the government wants oilsands companies to actually take this seriously, make them pay a REAL penalty. Proposition: $100K per duck. Otherwise I don't even see the point of the government pretending they care.


Look at the bigger picture. The government doesn't want to care, but environmentalists force them to act like they do. $3MM is nothing to the oil companies, and the government people know that, I'm sure. The point is, as long as the govt shows some kind of repercussion for birds in the ponds, then the general public will be happy.

[revelations]

Originally posted by kenny
Cost of Nets/Mesh > Penalties, Lawyer Fees, PR Costs

Ya thats probably it then - even with this extra PR fiasco. I'm sure James Cameron will have something to say about it... (not that I care about him).

The nets dont have to be of the duck strangler variety, there are many types out there.

This would be good PR for the big 3 to place nets around the ponds, showing action on their part, but not likely to happen for reasons mentioned by Kenny.

[CUG]

As much of a frothing-at-the-mouth capitalist as I am, this is total bullshit. They need to take it out on syncrudes asses. I don't think our wildlife needs to be paying the price for stuff that's making foreign investors millions.

"Our Jarrrbs" yeah, beat it you coke addicted redneck.

[texasnick]

^^ Yeah, let's punish one industry only.....actually, how about only one company in that one industry......yeah, that's what we should do. Makes total sense.

Seriously, what's with the double standard here? What about all the other wildlife elsewhere in the country "paying the price" so that foreign companies can turn a profit? Is it because it's an oil company, and people just want to feel good about themselves by condemning them or what?

[CUG]

Originally posted by texasnick
^^ Yeah, let's punish one industry only.....actually, how about only one company in that one industry......yeah, that's what we should do. Makes total sense.

Seriously, what's with the double standard here? What about all the other wildlife elsewhere in the country "paying the price" so that foreign companies can turn a profit? Is it because it's an oil company, and people just want to feel good about themselves by condemning them or what? :facepalm: that's PRECISELY what I said, too.

The oil and gas sectors impact on the environment isn't pretty, no matter how you cut it. If you disagree, I can't blame you for your lack of knowledge. I think anything that is environmentally intensive needs to be regulated and beaten into compliance. It should happen everywhere in the world, not just here, but more so here because I fucking live here.

[FraserB]

It is a double standard though, no one is complaining about the clear cutting going on in the Mclean Creeak and Waiparous areas. That causes hundreds of animals to lose their habitat and/or die. But its not on the news simply because the O&G sector is an easy target.

[kenny]

Decided to search for duck hunting in Alberta. On the first website i went to, they have a photo gallery showing hunters and their "catch".

2 guys had ~50 dead ducks, 25 geese in front of them. I've never gone hunting so I'm not sure if thats a typical day, but I'm assuming there are hundreds if not thousands of hunters that are taking out way more ducks and no one cares.

[freshprince1]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


....or we could just do what the New York airport does for bird control, they just gas the pesky birds. Just recently they gassed and killed 600 Canadian Geese. Kind of wondering where Greenpeace was on that one... probably too many green dollar signs in thier eyes from the grants they get to protest the oilsands.

They (The City of New York) will be gassing (i.e. killing) 170,000 Canadian Geese...

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/State-Plans-to-Reduce-Geese-Populations-by-Two-Thirds-Report-99127059.html

Where's all the activists?

[ekguy]

Originally posted by DayGlow


My guess is that you'll have birds dying from being tangled in the mesh vs dying in the ponds.

funny how quickly that came up and how it's ridiculous that the thought didn't occur to the poster of that post...It's like nets to protect swimmers from sharks...All they do is end up killing animals...Nets over huge ponds...Great idea there...

:banghead:

[texasnick]

Originally posted by CUG
:facepalm: that's PRECISELY what I said, too.

Yes, yes it is. Good job. You deserve a cookie.


Originally posted by CUG
The oil and gas sectors impact on the environment isn't pretty, no matter how you cut it. If you disagree, I can't blame you for your lack of knowledge. I think anything that is environmentally intensive needs to be regulated and beaten into compliance. It should happen everywhere in the world, not just here, but more so here because I fucking live here.

Woah there, I never said there wasn't an environmental impact from oil and gas extraction. Those are words you are putting into my mouth.

Ok, so what do you think about associating fines on par with what you propose the government does to Syncrude with the following environmentally intensive endevours?;

(a) hunting
(b) fishing
(c) hydro dams
(d) windmills
(e) airports
(f) traffic

???

edit:: CUG, do you have any idea how many environmental regulations there are in the Athabasca? Do you think that every oil company up there just runs around like a bunch of cowboys killing ducks and having bush parties?

...or, are you just talking out of your ass?:confused:

[msommers]

Originally posted by kenny
Decided to search for duck hunting in Alberta. On the first website i went to, they have a photo gallery showing hunters and their "catch".

2 guys had ~50 dead ducks, 25 geese in front of them. I've never gone hunting so I'm not sure if thats a typical day, but I'm assuming there are hundreds if not thousands of hunters that are taking out way more ducks and no one cares.

True. But what are they doing with them? I'm suspicious they aren't just checking them back into the lake...

[texasnick]

Originally posted by ekguy


funny how quickly that came up and how it's ridiculous that the thought didn't occur to the poster of that post...It's like nets to protect swimmers from sharks...All they do is end up killing animals...Nets over huge ponds...Great idea there...

:banghead:

LOL, no man.....it's obvious that the reason they don't use nets is because it's too expensive and they take pleasure in killing ducks.

[msommers]

Originally posted by texasnick
they take pleasure in killing ducks.

Are you implying that O&G likes killing wildlife?

[Sugarphreak]

...

[freshprince1]

.

[CUG]

"Just because they're an easy target" Texasnick, Fraser, by saying that, it sounds like you're suggesting they shouldn't be a target at all.

Duck hunting is a biiiit more noble than coating animals with poison and killing them for no reason. Hopefully I don't have to explain the purpose behind duck hunting versus ducks dying in a tailing pond.

More of your arguments make it sound like they shouldn't have to pay or comply at all?

That's like having a diseased hooker living in your house and not making her move out because she brings in money.

[Cos]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Way more ducks get killed by wind farms than tailings ponds


Because of the industry I am in I know lots about the wind farms. That being said I have never seen a comparison of duck deaths on Alberta wind farms let alone one that can compare it to tailings ponds death.

Have you seen one? I am kind of curious how they come out.

[Dycker]

Originally posted by CUG
Duck hunting is a biiiit more noble than coating animals with poison and killing them for no reason. Hopefully I don't have to explain the purpose behind duck hunting versus ducks dying in a tailing pond.

Not always more noble...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1862670


The Effects of Wind Farms, Hunting, and House Cats to Bird Populations-

Dead birds of a feather don't flock together
GWYN MORGAN
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20100419.MORGANATL/TPStory/?query=Companies

[Abeo]

Originally posted by Cos


Because of the industry I am in I know lots about the wind farms. That being said I have never seen a comparison of duck deaths on Alberta wind farms let alone one that can compare it to tailings ponds death.

Have you seen one? I am kind of curious how they come out.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376543308399048.html


According to the American Wind Energy Association, the industry's trade association, each megawatt of installed wind-power results in the killing of between one and six birds per year

and to calc the MW of wind energy:

http://www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.php

[Cos]

Originally posted by Abeo


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203706604574376543308399048.html



and to calc the MW of wind energy:

http://www.canwea.ca/farms/wind-farms_e.php

So that means that EACH turbine kills between .014 (assuming 15kW) and .3 (assuming 50kW) ducks a year. I dont know the exact number of turbines installed in the province but I will say there are 300 in each farm and probably 15 to 20 farms down south.

So 20 x 300 x .3 = 1,800 birds a year

I wonder how many birds are killed each year in oilsands operations? Honest question.

[CUG]

Originally posted by Dycker


Not always more noble...
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1862670

That's poaching, and there's a legal penalty for that which may include jail time. I'm sorry, but if you're pulling a billions of dollars out of Alberta's back yard, I don't think you should be privy to a lesser punishment.

[msommers]

Originally posted by Dycker
Dead birds of a feather don't flock together
GWYN MORGAN
http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20100419.MORGANATL/TPStory/?query=Companies

My opinion on the matter to a 'T'; more elegantly put mind you ;)

[msommers]

Originally posted by Cos


So that means that EACH turbine kills between .014 (assuming 15kW) and .3 (assuming 50kW) ducks a year. I dont know the exact number of turbines installed in the province but I will say there are 300 in each farm and probably 15 to 20 farms down south.

So 20 x 300 x .3 = 1,800 birds a year

I wonder how many birds are killed each year in oilsands operations? Honest question.

Not sure on the oil sands...I will look. But don't forget bats too, another value animal to control pests and insects.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=wind-turbines-kill-bats

Solution?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32034204/

[Dycker]

Originally posted by CUG
That's poaching, and there's a legal penalty for that which may include jail time. I'm sorry, but if you're pulling a billions of dollars out of Alberta's back yard, I don't think you should be privy to a lesser punishment.

Those guys went out of their way to illegally kill ducks. Syncrude was trying not to kill ducks.

[FraserB]

CUG, thats not how I feel at all. I will admit that I do have a bias since both my parents work in O&G and I will be starting in the field in the spring.

I do think that there needs to be a penalty when operations result in the death of animals. Most everyone agrees with this position as reflected in the record judgment handed down just this week. Companies need to take all steps needed to have the minimal impact on their environment.

That aside, the only reason that this is getting so much publicity is because of where it happens and who is at fault. The oil industry is a large and easy target for environmental groups. I do think they have a right to do what they are doing, but it is not only the oil industry that has a detrimental effect on nature. No one is bashing the wind energy companies or the logging companies.

No one was up in arms when the loggers moved into Waiparous under the cover of darkness and then camo netted all the equipment. There were trails there that needed a 4x4 with mud tires to even start into that have been turned into roads that a lowered Civic can drive down. There are thousands of trees that were cut down and just left to rot due to being too small. Same with the area around Mclean Creek, ruts and holes all filled in so heavy equipment can be brought in

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by codetrap
What a stupid thread title.



... and yet here you are. It was 1am and I was excited. I will try harder next time :)



Originally posted by ekguy


funny how quickly that came up and how it's ridiculous that the thought didn't occur to the poster of that post...It's like nets to protect swimmers from sharks...All they do is end up killing animals...Nets over huge ponds...Great idea there...

:banghead:

Actually, netting is a great idea. Besides shooting all the ducks on purpose for sport, it's the only good idea I've read in this thread.

I'm guessing the snow & steam from the water that freezes into heavy ice on the netting has more to do with why they aren't using it.

Netting is used on commercial bird farms and zoos to keep birds in, and predatory birds out. Somehow, birds manage to escape death at the zoo... I guess the idea that the netting is dangerous hasn't occurred to them (or the birds) yet either.

[Unknown303]

Originally posted by Cos


So that means that EACH turbine kills between .014 (assuming 15kW) and .3 (assuming 50kW) ducks a year. I dont know the exact number of turbines installed in the province but I will say there are 300 in each farm and probably 15 to 20 farms down south.

So 20 x 300 x .3 = 1,800 birds a year

I wonder how many birds are killed each year in oilsands operations? Honest question.

There's about 629.3 MW of Wind generation available in Alberta as this very moment in time.

[Cos]

Originally posted by Unknown303


There's about 629.3 MW of Wind generation available in Alberta as this very moment in time.

Actually I should have asked you. Didnt think of that.

So what 629.3 x 1 or 629.3 x 6

So somewhere between 630 and 3776 birds

[texasnick]

Originally posted by CUG
"Just because they're an easy target" Texasnick, Fraser, by saying that, it sounds like you're suggesting they shouldn't be a target at all.

Duck hunting is a biiiit more noble than coating animals with poison and killing them for no reason. Hopefully I don't have to explain the purpose behind duck hunting versus ducks dying in a tailing pond.

More of your arguments make it sound like they shouldn't have to pay or comply at all?

That's like having a diseased hooker living in your house and not making her move out because she brings in money.

Actually, if you read carefully, you would see that I was suggesting that any penalties given to Syncrude need to be brought across (a) the rest of the mines (Syncrude isn't the only operator with dead ducks FYI), and (b) other industries who are doing the same damn thing.

If you suggest Syncrude be fined heavily for having ducks land in their pond, then there should be, IMHO, the same penalties applied for when an airliner hits one, or a windmill blends one into a duck shake. Hunting, I'm fine with, as long as it's used for a purpose that helps people ie to be used as food. You can't honestly come here and say that a hunter who shoots and kills a goose and then takes it to a taxidermist and gets it stuffed is more noble than ducks landing in the wrong spot at a mine.

It's not the fine I have a problem with (although I would never pay that much for a duck to use as dinner :poosie: ). It's the double standard that suggests that Syncrude and the oil sands are evil and must be punished for killing ducks when it happens all over the continent in other industries that you don't hear a single bad word about.

[Unknown303]

If utilities had to pay everytime a bird was killed in a transmission line or wind farm I think everyone would crap their pants with how much power would cost. Crap your pants.

[msommers]

:rofl:

[Redlyne_mr2]

Just the media doing what they do best. Making people freak out about everyday normal issues.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Cos]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Not for Alberta specifically, but the statistics in California for example are that 7000 birds get killed annually.... the part that is especially alarming is that of those being killed are endangered species such as owls and eagles.

This doesn't include bats; I think they peg that at around 5000 per year in Cali.

It is sad. I personally think wind is a crock. We need nukes

[Sugarphreak]

...

[syeve]

DeRAIled!!

JaF-fq2Zn7I

I think there should be a fine for anyone who kills an animal outside of licensed hunters and accidental highway deer smashings.

[DayGlow]

Originally posted by Cos


It is sad. I personally think wind is a crock. We need nukes

The C-Trains run on blood-energy.

[derpderp]

I always say this and it is still a concern I've never had answered, what exactly do we do when we use up all the Uranium? It has so many useful medical and scientific applications it would seem really important for us to be keeping this stuff on reserve and not wasting it on energy needs.

I'm ignorant on the subject though :nut:

[Cos]

Originally posted by derpderp
I always say this and it is still a concern I've never had answered, what exactly do we do when we use up all the Uranium? It has so many useful medical and scientific applications it would seem really important for us to be keeping this stuff on reserve and not wasting it on energy needs.

I'm ignorant on the subject though :nut:

At current rates of use we have about 150 years of uranium left. However if Breeder reactors werent banned we would have many many times more. Regular reactors only use about 1% of available fuel source in uranium. So if we can use a breeder it uses 97% less uranium and also extracts more energy from the same mass.

In a breeder:
Breeders can be designed to use thorium, which is more abundant than uranium. Currently, there is renewed interest in breeders because they would consume less natural uranium (less than 3% compared to conventional light-water reactors), and generate less waste, for equal amounts of energy

Read more:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor


Reason Breeder reactors were banned:


Actually, Jimmy Carter banned reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, which is part of the breeder reactor life cycle. Reprocessing spent fuel creates two product streams: uranium and plutonium. The fear was that it would be easier for "bad people" to steal the plutonium once it has been separated from the uranium. This was a central concept in past US nonproliferation policy. However, we have seen the spread of nuclear weapons to North Korea, Pakistan, India, etc without using reprocessing. Therefore, one might ask if reprocessing isn't such a bad idea. Actually, someone did. Ronald Reagan reversed Carter's ban on reprocessing, but US technology is so far behind, it is currently non economical.

Reprocessing spent nuclear fuel is the best way to reuse the energy left over in uranium and plutonium. This also closes the fuel cycle and generates much less waste.

[Unknown303]

Take your crazy nuke talk elsewhere this is a dead bird thread!

[texasnick]

Also, as supply goes down, as long as demand doesn't also go down, price will go up and they will be able to dig deeper and at a lower grade.

The definition of a reserve is what can be extracted today, in today's dollars and with today's commodity prices, and still be valuable.

Quoted reserves do not include every ounce of uranium on the earth, just what can be extracted at the price it is right now (or what they predict the price to be). There is surely a finite amount of uranium in the ground, but by no means have we discovered every deposit on earth, and I'm sure a lot of deposits that aren't feasible at this point in time will be one day.

[texasnick]

oops sorry double post. :facepalm:

[Nissan_Fanboy]

http://i844.photobucket.com/albums/ab9/nissan_fanboy/dunkhunt.jpg

[themack89]

Stories like these actually paint the wrong picture about the oil industry. If you have worked in O&G you would know that it is probably the industry that is on the fore front of taking environmental and safety precautions to some pretty good levels. However, there is so much shit to take care of it literally comes down to the law of large numbers. Something is bound to happen somewhere at some point in time, and when it does, such as now, the media is jumping all over that shit showing you "how bad the oil industry is".

Unfortunately when shit goes sideways it can get pretty bad (like the gulf). Actually that should put it in perspective: how many holes do you think were run successfully (from rigging in all the way to production) without a hitch? A LOT! you better believe it--and how they can drill so many holes without large incidents occurring is a good indicator of how good the precautionary measures are. It just sucks the big one when a gulf of mexico happens (nobody wins, everyone loses).

There needs to be a reasonably practicable level to where the environment is protected and the production of OnG products is still efficient and cheap. Things will be fucked when we spend so much money on protecting the environment that we can't afford food anymore. Wtf am I talking about food lol.. O, wait.. How does your fish get from the boat to your supermarket? EVERYTHING is moved with diesel, its crazy when you think about it. Even wind mill farms are transported with diesel lol.

A fun little activity: next time you are driving, just take note of how many heavy trucks you see putt-putting around and look at the type of stuff they are transporting. Its pretty ridiculous how dependent on trucks the economy is. But what other option is there?? This might make you think twice about advocating super hardcore policies for the oil companies because they are evil and kill off some duckies once in a while. When it comes down to the ducks, or whether you can afford to noname mac and cheese versus KD, you will probably choose KD.

[WhippWhapp]

Any incident that brings attention to the 170+ square km environmental disaster up north is good in my books.

The industry could make these safe, the industry could manage the waste created in a timely fashion...of course doing this would cut into the almighty profit that's funnelled out of the province.

Like Alberta would turn into a ghost province if the development up north was paced more responsibly- just means all these easterners would have to find work in the Maritimes.

What happened to the Danube has nothing on what's coming for the Athabasca. Who's going to maintain/ reclaim when profit margins go down or the money dries up? Every taxpaying Albertan who actually grew up here and stays when the oil money is gone.

Does anyone actually believe the O&G industry will behave any differently than any other mining company that abandons a mine when it is bled dry?

I'd like to ship the polluted water from downstream to all those who say it's not contaminated- let's see you bathe and drink it... and not only you but your children and loved ones too!

[WhippWhapp]

In my eyes, it is an acceptable trade off to a have smaller/sustainable O&G industry and the province collecting the proper amount of royalties.

We are a petro-state, and we can't have our roads cleared of snow in the winter? The city doesn't have money for the southwest LRT line or airport tunnel? Wait times at our hospitals are longer than need be!

With the amount of money being made in the province we should not be wanting for anything here...

[b_t]

Originally posted by WhippWhapp
In my eyes, it is an acceptable trade off to a have smaller/sustainable O&G industry and the province collecting the proper amount of royalties.

We are a petro-state, and we can't have our roads cleared of snow in the winter? The city doesn't have money for the southwest LRT line or airport tunnel? Wait times at our hospitals are longer than need be!

With the amount of money being made in the province we should not be wanting for anything here...

You are completely right. Alberta actually has infinite money, and it holds all but a few billion back so that they can punish the poor damned souls who choose to live here.

[texasnick]

I know we're getting trolled, but....


Originally posted by WhippWhapp
Any incident that brings attention to the 170+ square km environmental disaster up north is good in my books.


No offense man, but the operations in the Athabasca are pretty much the largest oil spill cleanup in the history of the world. ;)


Originally posted by WhippWhapp
The industry could make these safe, the industry could manage the waste created in a timely fashion...of course doing this would cut into the almighty profit that's funnelled out of the province.

Oh really? They can wave a magic wand now and fix everything that you're (unfortuneatley, uneducated) unhappy with? Would you care to share these technologies with us?


Originally posted by WhippWhapp
What happened to the Danube has nothing on what's coming for the Athabasca. Who's going to maintain/ reclaim when profit margins go down or the money dries up? Every taxpaying Albertan who actually grew up here and stays when the oil money is gone.

So you're an expert in earth dam construction too? And you know all the details and criterion that are/were involved in constructing a containment dyke in Europe, then compare it to all of the design criterion involved in dyke construction in the oilsands, and you're convinced that it will happen here? Wow, where were you when they were constructing all of these dykes to tell them how to do it?



Originally posted by WhippWhapp
Does anyone actually believe the O&G industry will behave any differently than any other mining company that abandons a mine when it is bled dry?

No, they will comply with the environmental and social obligations set upon them by the province, just like every other mine that's open and will one day close. What mines do you speak of that just abandoned a mine after it was "bled dry"?


Originally posted by WhippWhapp
I'd like to ship the polluted water from downstream to all those who say it's not contaminated- let's see you bathe and drink it... and not only you but your children and loved ones too!

I'd like to ship a sample of "fresh, untainted" water, from the Athabasca, upstream of ANY mining operation, to you and have you say that mining is the reason the water is the way it is up there.

Would you care to back up any of these blanket statements with something concrete?

[stefan15]

I don't think we're getting trolled, I think he's literally just an idiot.


Originally posted by WhippWhapp
In my eyes, it is an acceptable trade off to a have smaller/sustainable O&G industry and the province collecting the proper amount of royalties.

bla bla bla I know literally shit all about O & G but feel qualified to comment bla bla

What you tools / hippies don't understand is that there is a price to be paid for the way of life you hold so dear. How'd you get around today? Your car? How are you heating your home? Natural gas? Are you planning to take yourself off these fuels and stop using all petroleum-based products? Didn't think so... "In my eyes" you're being hypocritical.

Is it bad that ducks died? I guess. Lots of animals die in lots of places. Lots of animals die from many different man-made constructs that ensure our survival and also grant us an extravagant way of life that we have become so accustomed to. It would be desirable that they do not die.. but it happens. And I love driving my car and burning gasoline. I think NG is an excellent fuel. I'm not willing to give that up and so I say, screw the ducks. $3M in fines for ducks is MASSIVE.. are you even comprehending that? That's on top of all the money spent to construct bird warning devices and other wildlife deterrents.

Also you clearly know nothing about royalties or the regulation the our provincial government imposes on operators in AB. I have no idea what your idea of "sustainability" is; do some homework and you may find that current conservation regulation appears to do a decent job of supporting sustainability of our cash cow.

Posts like ones by freshprince1 highlighting mass goose deaths in NYC (http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local-beat/State-Plans-to-Reduce-Geese-Populations-by-Two-Thirds-Report-99127059.html) basically prove that the oilsands issue is a bunch of overzealous environmentalist hype.

That said; I also don't really get the problem with going nuclear either--but I imagine theres quite a bit of public resistance on that issue as well. Interesting reads there about Thorium reactors..

[msommers]

Originally posted by stefan15
Is it bad that ducks died? I guess. Lots of animals die in lots of places.

....

$3M in fines for ducks is MASSIVE.. are you even comprehending that? That's on top of all the money spent to construct bird warning devices and other wildlife deterrents.



1) How can you just say, "I guess." Clearly something more needs to be done.

2) 3 million is really fuck all the grand scheme of things. Sure legal fees and infrastructure are additional but still, it's a slap on the wrist.


The fine, however, represents a small figure for the massive oil sands company, which despite a low price of oil had revenues of over $7-billion in 2009. Syncrude produces about 350,000 barrels of oil a day and, along with Suncor, is one of the two longest-tenured producers in the oil sands. The total penalty (which breaks down to $1868 per duck) is slightly less than Syncrude's daily net profit in 2009. Total profit that year was $1.175-billion.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/syncrude-to-pay-3m-for-duck-deaths/article1769027/

[stefan15]

Originally posted by msommers

1) How can you just say, "I guess." Clearly something more needs to be done.

What do you mean "how can I just say that"? When pigeons die en-masse nobody cares. But ducks are cute and cuddly so their deaths tend to make people furious? Accept that it is a natural byproduct of our lifestyle. Syncrude is merely providing us that lifestyle, while doing more than is logical to prevent duck deaths.


Originally posted by msommers

2) 3 million is really fuck all the grand scheme of things. Sure legal fees and infrastructure are additional but still, it's a slap on the wrist.

I'm not going to disagree with you in regard to $3M as a percentage of Syncrude's total revenue. It's small.. But as you said, it's $1800 per duck. Does that seem reasonable to you? As was mentioned earlier by another poster, if you hit a duck on a highway, should you be fined $1800 for not being careful enough? Maybe you should put a giant net in front of your car so you won't kill the odd duck. Better get after those hunters as well.

[msommers]

Originally posted by stefan15

What do you mean "how can I just say that"? When pigeons die en-masse nobody cares. But ducks are cute and cuddly so their deaths tend to make people furious? Accept that it is a natural byproduct of our lifestyle. Syncrude is merely providing us that lifestyle, while doing more than is logical to prevent duck deaths.

My career is based in the O&G industry. That's not to say I don't give a shit about our Earth. If you go out hiking, do you toss your shit in the bush? Or are you one of those people (like me) that picks up selfish folk's garbage? Accepting that it is a part of our lifestyle is really a guise to say "I honestly don't give a shit." And if you don't, just fucking say it. If there is more that can be done to prevent accidental deaths of wildlife, they should be liable to do it.

Parks Canada has taken action to avoid more wildlife ending up on the road. Is that a bad thing? Or is wildlife on the road just a byproduct of my mountain driving lifestyle?



I'm not going to disagree with you in regard to $3M as a percentage of Syncrude's total revenue. It's small.. But as you said, it's $1800 per duck. Does that seem reasonable to you? As was mentioned earlier by another poster, if you hit a duck on a highway, should you be fined $1800 for not being careful enough? Maybe you should put a giant net in front of your car so you won't kill the odd duck. Better get after those hunters as well.

A net on your fucking car? See you cannot even have an intellectual conversation without going to extremes.

Going after hunters would only be worthwhile if they were shooting wildlife for fun. The only hunters I know take everything they kill and eat it. Try blasting a bear for fun and see how far that gets you if you get caught.

$1800/duck as a percentage to an O&G is like me getting fined a penny.

The bottom line is that accidents happen, to humans and wildlife. Accidents happen and people pay the consequences. For you to sit there with your selfish attitude and say, "well that's the cookie crumbles, sorry" is brutal.

[stefan15]

Originally posted by msommers
My career is based in the O&G industry. That's not to say I don't give a shit about our Earth. If you go out hiking, do you toss your shit in the bush? Or are you one of those people (like me) that picks up selfish folk's garbage?
I do care, and I do pick up. I see you aren't assuming one way or another but still. Your example of trash is something I can take care of directly. I can't do anything about what happens to ducks in freezing rain over a tailings pond; other than voice my opinion. My opinion is that $3M in fines is sufficient for dead ducks.

I don't see you offering any suggestions for improvements. If you work in O&G you are likely aware of the difficulties in keeping wildlife away from tailings ponds. You will also be aware of the current devices in service.

Just because I acknowledge wildlife deaths will happen to supply us with PNG products, doesn't mean I "don't give a shit". I do, but I'm not about to go up to Fort Mac and protest.


Originally posted by msommers
A net on your fucking car? See you cannot even have an intellectual conversation without going to extremes.
Have you even begun to think about the logistics of attempting to string a net across an entire tailings pond? I'm going to extremes (sarcastically) in order to draw attention to this fact. It is extreme.


Originally posted by msommers
Going after hunters would only be worthwhile if they were shooting wildlife for fun. The only hunters I know take everything they kill and eat it. Try blasting a bear for fun and see how far that gets you if you get caught.
Ok so the hunters "you know" are representative of all hunters? Regardless of this rant, I don't hunt, and I do care about wildlife. I won't be "blasting bears" anytime soon. However, these are ducks vs our petroleum products. Ducks whose lives are somehow valued above magpies, pigeons, etc. It's environmentalist hype because they are "cute".

As I said, you are right.. $1800/duck isn't much. I have yet to hear an additional suggestion from you, but I assume you'd like to see higher fines.


Originally posted by msommers
For you to sit there with your selfish attitude and say, "well that's the cookie crumbles, sorry" is brutal.
That is your interpretation of what I'm saying. As there's nothing I can do about it. I enjoy the lifestyle O&G provides me and the relatively small cost; and rather than being hypocritical and demanding higher fines for duck-collateral-damage, I prefer not to bite the hand that feeds.

TL;DR: don't get your panties in a bunch.

[codetrap]

Originally posted by stefan15
Ok so the hunters "you know" are representative of all hunters? Regardless of this rant, I don't hunt, and I do care about wildlife. I won't be "blasting bears" anytime soon. However, these are ducks vs our petroleum products. Ducks whose lives are somehow valued above magpies, pigeons, etc. It's environmentalist hype because they are "cute".

As I said, you are right.. $1800/duck isn't much. I have yet to hear an additional suggestion from you, but I assume you'd like to see higher fines.


I'd love to know where all these amazing hunters are that can nail a duck each and every time, then be sure to retrieve every single duck. Especially when I've read reports that for every duck that's brought home, there's one left out in the woods that just got winged, or wounded.

According to the US Fish and Wildlife page, about 1.2 Million hunters harvested 14.5 MILLION ducks in 2007. And yet, here we are getting all upset about 1600 ducks that died in a tailings pond.

Source (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/HIP/HuntingStatistics/Migratory%20bird%20hunting%20activity%20and%20harvest%20during%20the%202007%20and%202008%20hunting%20seasons.%20Preliminary%20Estimates,%20July%202009.pdf)



Originally posted by msommers

Parks Canada has taken action to avoid more wildlife ending up on the road. Is that a bad thing? Or is wildlife on the road just a byproduct of my mountain driving lifestyle?

$1800/duck as a percentage to an O&G is like me getting fined a penny.

The bottom line is that accidents happen, to humans and wildlife. Accidents happen and people pay the consequences. For you to sit there with your selfish attitude and say, "well that's the cookie crumbles, sorry" is brutal.

Parks Canada didn't want to do anything in Banff about the willdlife. That was a political decision made by the GoC to avoid losing the unesco world heritage status.

1800/duck is FAR TOO MUCH. There should never have been a trial. The whole thing is arguing about mice nuts. Just another distraction blown out of proportion by the media to sell copy.

[texasnick]

I bet an $1800 duck doesn't taste $1780 better than a $20 duck

[msommers]

Originally posted by stefan15
I don't see you offering any suggestions for improvements. If you work in O&G you are likely aware of the difficulties in keeping wildlife away from tailings ponds. You will also be aware of the current devices in service.

.....

I have yet to hear an additional suggestion from you, but I assume you'd like to see higher fines.

I'm not entirely sure why you asked me the same question twice in one post. But here is something I suggested on page 1:


Originally posted by msommers
Why not have hunters setup shop which would help feed the camps? Is there a smell or frequency that can be put in place to deter wildlife from entering the area?

Radar has shown to deter bats away from wind turbines, however they use echolocation. Is there something for ducks? I don't know, I'm not a biologist.

Other efforts are being made and no, a giant net isn't the solution. But we both knew that.

Here is an article I posted before in another thread:



October 1, 2010
Contents | Previous Page | Next Page | Print | Past Issues | Comment On This Article
UofC Tests Bacteria To Reduce Tailings Ponds
By Lynda Harrison
Nitrate-reducing bacteria that promote sedimentation could shrink oilsands tailings ponds and reduce the production and release of the greenhouse gas methane, thereby allowing companies to recycle more water from the ponds, say University of Calgary researchers.

So far, experimenting has been limited to test tubes. The next step is to further test the idea on a scale about 100 times larger than what's been done so far, again in test tubes. It will probably be five to 10 years before it's used in the field, Dr. Sylvain Bordenave, research lead and a post doctoral fellow in the Faculty of Science, told the DOB.

Bordenave and other scientists at the Schulich School of Engineering and the Faculty of Science at the university have been working on this for two years. They published their study, entitled: "Relation between the activity of anaerobic microbial populations in oilsands tailings ponds and the sedimentation of tailings," in the journal Chemosphere, available here.

The experiments have shown that, in principle, there is the potential to improve tailings sedimentation in-situ by the addition of nitrate, using the emerging biomass to aggregate clays while preventing methane formation, which is lowered substantially in the presence of nitrate.

"Microbiology is an important aspect of tailings management. The evidence that a different class of micro-organisms -- nitrate-reducing bacteria -- contributes to tailings aggregation and sedimentation opens new promising perspectives for future tailings pond management," said Bordenave.

Tailings ponds contain waste by-products from the oil extraction process: suspended and dissolved particles such as clay, natural organic matter, hydrocarbons, trace metals and water. Oilsands companies already recycle some of that water but much of it remains trapped in the tailings ponds. Separating the water from the particles means more can be recycled.

The experiments also point to the potential of reducing the toxicity of tailings ponds.

All micro-organisms need a food and energy source, and some of them have been shown to degrade -- or eat -- toxic hydrocarbons and remediate, or transfer to non-toxic form, heavy metals, said Dr. Victoria Kostenko, co-author and a research associate with the biofilm engineering research group at the Schulich School of Engineering. "We're trying to reinforce this natural microbial activity and our next step is to study microbes that can promote sedimentation and clean tailings at the same time."

The findings could help oilsands companies reclaim land faster and more effectively, the scientists said, adding research may also have applications in other areas such as cleaning up oil spills and drilling wastes.



http://www.dailyoilbulletin.com/issues/article.asp?article=dob%5C101001%5Cdob2010%5Fo10015%2Ehtml


Originally posted by stefan15

I do care, and I do pick up. [...] I can't do anything about what happens to ducks in freezing rain over a tailings pond; other than voice my opinion.

...

Just because I acknowledge wildlife deaths will happen to supply us with PNG products, doesn't mean I "don't give a shit". I do, but I'm not about to go up to Fort Mac and protest.


No one is asking you to protest man. We're just having a discussion; we are, 'arm-chairing', if you will. Nevertheless, I don't understand how you can say, "I do care" when you said before:


Originally posted by stefan15
Is it bad that ducks died? I guess. Lots of animals die in lots of places. Lots of animals die from many different man-made constructs that ensure our survival and also grant us an extravagant way of life that we have become so accustomed to. It would be desirable that they do not die.. but it happens.

It happens and that's the end of it eh? Imagine where we would be if that mantra continued throughout the ages. Imagine if no one thought differently and everyone settled because it was inconvenient to do otherwise. I suppose physically we are the same, in that, I'm not exactly going down to the rainforest to pull fucking frogs out. But I like supporting intelligent, none-wingnut organizations that stand for a good environmental cause (ie: changing environmental rules and regulations to better the Earth). Shit that sounded awfully hippy. Ah well.


Originally posted by stefan15
Ok so the hunters "you know" are representative of all hunters? Regardless of this rant, I don't hunt, and I do care about wildlife. I won't be "blasting bears" anytime soon. However, these are ducks vs our petroleum products. Ducks whose lives are somehow valued above magpies, pigeons, etc. It's environmentalist hype because they are "cute".

All those species you listed are at the same spot in the food chain and as such, service a particular purpose in that chain. You're right, the folks I know don't represent all hunters in Canada. But if there is anything that I have learned from them that it is this. There are three types of people that kill animals: the type for food, the type for shear killing and the type for trophy. Personally, I only view hunting as for food, but that's just my opinion. Do trophy hunters bag a bighorn, take the head and leave the carcass? I don't know, but I have my doubts that someone doesn't take it.

Regardless, here are the regulations for hunting waterfowl.

http://www.12gaugeoutfitters.com/waterfowl-regulations.html


Originally posted by stefan15
demanding higher fines for duck-collateral-damage, I prefer not to bite the hand that feeds.

Biting the hand that feeds here is the government raising royalities, not a measly 3 million dollar fine.


Originally posted by stefan15
TL;DR: don't get your panties in a bunch.

Solid conclusion. Well done, sir. I'm actually wearing boxers briefs today, dark grey.


Originally posted by codetrap
I'd love to know where all these amazing hunters are that can nail a duck each and every time, then be sure to retrieve every single duck. Especially when I've read reports that for every duck that's brought home, there's one left out in the woods that just got winged, or wounded.

According to the US Fish and Wildlife page, about 1.2 Million hunters harvested 14.5 MILLION ducks in 2007. And yet, here we are getting all upset about 1600 ducks that died in a tailings pond.

Source (http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/NewReportsPublications/HIP/HuntingStatistics/Migratory%20bird%20hunting%20activity%20and%20harvest%20during%20the%202007%20and%202008%20hunting%20seasons.%20Preliminary%20Estimates,%20July%202009.pdf)


Let me tell you the first and last time I went out duck hunting. We're sitting in the marsh, the flock goes crazy and I start blasting. We get in the boat and retrieve. Most of them were half shot, one wing blown off and doing the one arm-backstroke. I twisted over a dozen necks and that was it, I was done. Still my buddy, when we were both 19 at the time, said "we have to make sure we get em all, otherwise it's a waste of my ammo and meat." He's an inner-city boy like me. One case? Absolutely. But I know of a handful more that all have the same mentality and none of them know each other and they're all urban and rural people. Hunting is fun but you're responsible for everything you shoot at. It's the rednecks that love just blasting shit for the hell of it. But that isn't hunting, it's poaching. But then there are cases like gopher and coyote hunting, which is to deter farmer's livestock from being injured or infected.

Waterfowl, deer, bears, elk, moose, etc all carry fines if you do not follow the regulations. Does everyone? Doubt it. But from my small sample size, they do because they're honest people.

I couldn't see that PDF you listed, don't know whats up with my firefox. I was trying to go through this too but got the same error.

Are US and Canadian hunters the same?

http://www.albertaregulations.ca/huntingregs/


Originally posted by codetrap
Parks Canada didn't want to do anything in Banff about the willdlife. That was a political decision made by the GoC to avoid losing the unesco world heritage status.

I'd be interested in reading more about that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wildlife_crossing#Effectiveness

http://www.pc.gc.ca/eng/pn-np/bc/kootenay/natcul/natcul29.aspx

http://www.wildlifeaccidents.ca/reports.htm

I wish I could read those reports. Sorry the title is all I have to go off of right now.


Originally posted by codetrap
1800/duck is FAR TOO MUCH. There should never have been a trial. The whole thing is arguing about mice nuts. Just another distraction blown out of proportion by the media to sell copy.

I believe the reason they went to trial instead of settling was because they were facing criminal charges and not just fines.

And of course the media is blowing everything out of proportion. O&G is the devil, hate them!

The beauty and burden is that I'm right in the middle of the field and appreciate both sides. But realistically, increasing environmental regulatory pressure on the government which is then passed on O&G companies is the only way things are going to change positively for faster reclamation and overall wildlife death reductions. It is this change which I seek. Fining them something of this meager scale isn't deterring or doing a whole lot of fuck all. 3 million bucks is a dry hole. A pain in the ass, but not the end of the company.


Originally posted by texasnick
I bet an $1800 duck doesn't taste $1780 better than a $20 duck

Rather than that, try this. You have a tag for a deer, enjoy. You have a dead deer with no tag and get caught, expect the fines to be higher than the tag. Makes sense doesn't it.

Quoting all that took way too much time. Lesson learned.