[Newsbot]

Title: Oil sands development polluting Alberta lakes: study
Category: Environmental
Posted By: BeaverFever
Date: 2013-01-07 19:22:35
Canadian

[CrazyNewfie]

What great news! More positve evidence showing how much our species is improving our ability to pollute our environment less...Obvious sarcsm intended!

[Zipperfish]

$1:

But Derek Muir, an Environment Canada scientist of environmental chemistry and study co-author, said more work needs to be done. “I’m cautious in my interpretation of what we’re seeing out there,” said the Environment Canada researcher.

I agree with this guy,

[kilroy]

In view of these quotes from the article, at

http://www.canadaka.net/link.php?id=77371

'The PAH pollution level remains low – on par, at worst, with an urban lake – but is rising. Results in one remote lake showed PAH levels 23 times higher than pre-development levels 50 years ago. It’s the rate of growth that’s most alarming, said John Smol, a Queen’s University professor, Canada Research Chair in Environmental Change and study co-author. “You only have to start doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations of, in 15 years, where they might be,” he said.'

and,

'The study also refutes a key argument long made by provincial officials, who have said that, because oil seeps naturally into rivers around the oil sands, contaminants are mostly natural.

“I think it’s pretty convincing evidence,” said David Schindler, a University of Alberta biologist who co-authored a 2010 study that revealed contaminants, such as mercury and lead, in the Athabasca River near the oil sands. “Hopefully, this will kill the all-the-pollutants-are-natural theory once and for all.”

Monday’s study raises further questions. In particular, it finds elevated and rising levels in a lake as far as 90 kilometres away from development sites. “The footprint is significantly different than what’s been suggested,” Prof. Smol said.'

I support these guys,


http://www.fortmcmurraytoday.com/2013/0 ... over-bills

'By national standards, the quality of life and financial situation for the MCFN and Frog Lake First Nation are excellent, especially compared to other indigenous communities in Canada.

The MCFN holds several partnerships with industry and operates a number of development companies in northeastern Alberta. The Frog Lake First Nation also operates its own oil and gas projects.

However, the chief and council for Frog Lake and the MCFN argue they never would have supported natural resources development in the region if there was no federal environmental oversight.

“There’s no future if this legislation is enforced,” said Courtoreille. “It pretty much strips us of our treaty rights, then we’ll have empty treaties that the government will no longer have to worry about.”'

It looks to me like the Federal and Provincial governments were probably aware of what this study would show, and rather than try to silence the science like they have been doing they are trying to change the rules so that they won't be found responsible. After all if there is no need to protect the waterways it doesn't matter what the companies put in to them.

[BartSimpson]

I'd be cautious about jumping to any conclusions right now given that the Obama Administration's Environmental Protection Agency has launched a massive propaganda campaign to malign oil sands oil as 'dirty'.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lizbb ... _sand.html

The total gist of this is to eventually prohibit oil from Alberta from being allowed into the USA via pipelines. It's a politically motivated slander and libel campaign whose end result is to benefit Warren Buffet. See, stopping pipelines from Canada immediately profits Buffet who owns Union Pacific Railroad which currently transports the oil. Naturally, oil transported by rail is not a concern to the EPA.

[kilroy]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'd be cautious about jumping to any conclusions right now given that the Obama Administration's Environmental Protection Agency has launched a massive propaganda campaign to malign oil sands oil as 'dirty'.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lizbb ... _sand.html

The total gist of this is to eventually prohibit oil from Alberta from being allowed into the USA via pipelines. It's a politically motivated slander and libel campaign whose end result is to benefit Warren Buffet. See, stopping pipelines from Canada immediately profits Buffet who owns Union Pacific Railroad which currently transports the oil. Naturally, oil transported by rail is not a concern to the EPA.

This should probably be in a thread of its own. It is interesting though, I mean why would the infidel Obama label Tar Sands oil as 'dirty' when it is dirty.

[CrazyNewfie]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

I'd be cautious about jumping to any conclusions right now given that the Obama Administration's Environmental Protection Agency has launched a massive propaganda campaign to malign oil sands oil as 'dirty'.

http://switchboard.nrdc.org/blogs/lizbb ... _sand.html

The total gist of this is to eventually prohibit oil from Alberta from being allowed into the USA via pipelines. It's a politically motivated slander and libel campaign whose end result is to benefit Warren Buffet. See, stopping pipelines from Canada immediately profits Buffet who owns Union Pacific Railroad which currently transports the oil. Naturally, oil transported by rail is not a concern to the EPA.

Does this surprise anyone? God forbid anyone but one of the elites profits significantly from anything. Bastards!!

[BartSimpson]

kilroy kilroy:

This should probably be in a thread of its own. It is interesting though, I mean why would the infidel Obama label Tar Sands oil as 'dirty' when it is dirty.

You're missing my point. The EPA is only concerned about Alberta oil that is transported via a Canadian-owned pipeline. Alberta oil that is transported via a liberal-American-owned railroad is ignored.

[CrazyNewfie]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

kilroy kilroy:

This should probably be in a thread of its own. It is interesting though, I mean why would the infidel Obama label Tar Sands oil as 'dirty' when it is dirty.

You're missing my point. The EPA is only concerned about Alberta oil that is transported via a Canadian-owned pipeline. Alberta oil that is transported via a liberal-American-owned railroad is ignored.

Exactly! The corruption is never ending.
IMO...What they don't understand is that with the world opening up, ie the internet and the average individual getting to share their beliefs, this can't/hopefully won't continue to happen. Governments are supposed to be in place to represent the people, our governments don't truly represent us or our beliefs, they represent themselves. People are just starting to understand this.

[kilroy]

Well, no, I understood that you were saying the democrats are benefitting one of theirs. I don't know if that is true or not, not being too interested in American politics and American corporate benefits. My point was that the oil is dirty, that an oil pipeline carrying the stuff is going to cause much more damage to the environment than not having the oil going through at all. Or going on trains for that matter, though I haven't figured out why Americans, and the environmentally conscious, would want the dirty oil in any transport system.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

kilroy kilroy:

This should probably be in a thread of its own. It is interesting though, I mean why would the infidel Obama label Tar Sands oil as 'dirty' when it is dirty.

You're missing my point. The EPA is only concerned about Alberta oil that is transported via a Canadian-owned pipeline. Alberta oil that is transported via a liberal-American-owned railroad is ignored.

I think there's more involved. The railways already exist and have for some time, and people are used to them in their backyards. The pipeline needs a new right-of-way which means endless NIMBYism (NIMBY = Not-In-My-Back-Yard) by gvarious entities. It's senators and congressmen whose constituents are complainging, or who have land in the area that are probably more powerful than the aligned special interests against "dirty oil."

A message for the oil sands producers is that merely refelcting criticism of dirty oil back to the special interests as hypocritical, while true in many respects, is not a successful strategy. In the end, concerns must be addressed--as the BC foretsry industry discovered.

[N_Fiddledog]

I always read environmental articles from the bottom up, because they always bury the lede.

Here's the last paragraph.

$1:

PAH levels in all six tested lakes were found to have increased, though only in one are contaminants at urban-lake levels. In that lake, seven of 13 PAHs tested are at a level considered to have the potential for “possible” but not “probable” impact. The other five are “generally comparable to other remote lakes and much lower than” urban lakes, the study concludes.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

I always read environmental articles from the bottom up, because they always bury the lede.

Here's the last paragraph.

$1:

PAH levels in all six tested lakes were found to have increased, though only in one are contaminants at urban-lake levels. In that lake, seven of 13 PAHs tested are at a level considered to have the potential for “possible” but not “probable” impact. The other five are “generally comparable to other remote lakes and much lower than” urban lakes, the study concludes.

They always forget half the study. The study also said much of the pollution the lakes absorbed was cause by forest fires.

What these numbers really mean, we don't know yet. But at least now there are some numbers we can start to work with.

[N_Fiddledog]

The article gets its most alarmist quotes from David Schindler. Schindler holds dual citizenship, is an activist, and an interesting guy.

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/0 ... oil-sands/

[Xort]

Did they control with lakes in the same area but not part of that water system?