Canucks may become "clean"

[Wezil]

Living in Alberta and working for...hmmm...oh yeah, the oil industry.

[notyoueither]

That could mean he is in quite a good position to know what he is talking about, couldn't it?

BTW, you have never gone down the rabbit hole. You have never offered a single argument to the effect that reclaimed land is in some way inferior to untouched land in the scrub of Northern Alberta where the oilsands are. Do you care to try it? It would be a new experience, if you like those.

[The Mad Monk]

You might pause and think why three people who don't agree on a lot, but who are quite familiar with the topic agree about this.

Oh, and the claim is not that there is and can be no lasting environmental damage from developing the oilsands. The claim and the dispute was over the reclamation of surface for the open pit mines. You seemed to be absurdly fixated on the landscapng when done.

There are concerns about water. Those are being addressed by the introduction of practices to eliminate tailings ponds. Oh, and ducks, mustn't forget about the ducks.

They've introduced practices to eliminate ducks!?

[notyoueither]

No. The concern is about ducks (and geese) landing on the tailing ponds. Eliminating the need for the ponds eliminates a source of water contamination as well as traps for migrating water fowl.

[The Mad Monk]

Good. I like ducks.

Especially in a pie.

[Wezil]

That could mean he is in quite a good position to know what he is talking about, couldn't it?

Or it could mean he has a very strong vested interest. Keep in mind, we are talking about what you guys perceived as criticism.

BTW, you have never gone down the rabbit hole. You have never offered a single argument to the effect that reclaimed land is in some way inferior to untouched land in the scrub of Northern Alberta where the oilsands are. Do you care to try it? It would be a new experience, if you like those.

Since there is almost no reclaimed land at present (the reclamation claims go out for some one hundred years) it is impossible to offer proof. The thing that made you guys react like someone was giving you a wedgie was the rather benign statement "I'm dubious about the claims".

[Asher]

Too many doobies make you dubious about many things without warrant.

[Wezil]

Wait until you get older little one.

[notyoueither]

Or it could mean he has a very strong vested interest. Keep in mind, we are talking about what you guys perceived as criticism.



Since there is almost no reclaimed land at present (the reclamation claims go out for some one hundred years) it is impossible to offer proof. The thing that made you guys react like someone was giving you a wedgie was the rather benign statement "I'm dubious about the claims".

OK, so your position boils down to nobody who has a stake in it, and thus may be knowledgeable, can be trusted; and it's never been done on a large scale so it can't be relied on.

That's fine, if not really worth serious consideration.

I will note, however, that I actually experience negative impacts of the oilsands and expensive oil. Booms make services much more expensive than they would be otherwise, it makes some services very difficult to get at all, it makes it a pain in the ass to get people I would trust with more than a broom to work for less than $25 an hour, etc., etc.

I did an interview with a guy who was wanting to get into IT. His skills and training were minimal (no degree, no difficult certifications). The work would have been on a casual or piece basis to start, and would have paid him $25 per hour to start. He announced that he didn't get out of bed for $25 an hour.

[Wezil]

My position boils down to you having religious faith in a dirty industry that is telling you they will be 100% spotless clean in a hundred years time. I don't have the same religion/faith as you would have to be an Albertan to believe that.

[notyoueither]

Your position boils down to you being an obnoxious bigot.

[Wezil]

Well that was uncalled for.

[notyoueither]

Harsh, but not uncalled for. You are making generalisations about people, and being more than a bit offensive in doing so.

Incidentally, it is not the industry's assurances that I am relying on. The gubmint regulates and pressures the industry and the gubmint is pressured by the citizens and some outside forces. These projects are forced to post assurances (cash) to ensure that they clean up their mess when they are done. Before they were greenlighted, research was done and projects were completed to show that reclamation could be done. Much of the work on these projects was carried out by tenured academics at the University of Alberta in disciplines unconnected with the petrochemical industry.

[Wezil]

And all is speculative.

Sorry if it seems offensive to say believing these claims is a leap of faith, but it is.

[notyoueither]

The land that has been restored is not speculative. It's been done. The opinions and findings of professional geologists, biologists, and forest scientists are not speculation. That's knowledge.

What you are doing is speculation, and it is entirely based in ignorance. You further make offensive generalisations and characterise people based on citizenship or place of residence. That's bigoted.