Canadian discussion about the Tar Sands

[frinkprof]

Originally Posted by Vaillant

oil sands is not a big deal before it Calgary was nothing after it Calgary will be nothing again is not a big deal and everyones going crazy about something that cannot stand for long what a waste of money and time

While oil makes up a sizeable portion of the Alberta energy industry, natural gas by far the bigger contributer.

[Doug]

The amount of capital investment going into the oil sands is a big deal.

[francely57]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Story from Montreal Gazette


Gotta love the classic "do as I say, not as I do!" attitude.

We'll keep blaming Alberta, but when they're luring us with all that money, it's hard to resist...

Originally Posted by shreddog

Perhaps if Alberta merely covered up the mess of the Sands under a reservoir, the optics would be better? Out of site, out of mind??

Yeah, maybe you guys should cover your sands under huge picturesque lakes that become popular sites for camping and fishing?



..I wonder how many km² Quebec has covered under all its reservoirs?

Here's a map of Quebec with a big part of Canada/US to give the scale:


Circled in BLACK are some of our largest reservoirs; there are many smaller ones, and of course I didn't include that big one in Labrador
Circled in RED is Quebec's largest natural lake: lac Mistassini

[shreddog]

Whereas NG prices suck, at least those involved in dirty oil are doing well - meaning more money for Canadian governments and us the consumers of gov't services!

Oil sands giants post big profits

Canada’s two biggest energy companies – Suncor Energy (SU-T35.36-0.39-1.09%) and Canadian Natural Resources (CNQ-T39.660.250.63%) – delivered some of their best results ever, propelled by strong oil sands production and high prices.
...

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by shreddog

Hmmm, so one of the main arguements of the anti-Sands crew was that "medical evidence" showed that there was abnormal cancer rates in Fort Chip. ...

Well ... what if the only evidence for the hightened cancer rates (only source was a local doctor - Dr O'connor) was found to be not only inaccurate, but completely made up???

CBC Link

Originally Posted by geotag277

The connection between lung cancer rates and smoking are much stronger, well documented, and obvious than any report on the oil sands tying carcinogens to cancer rates have been. If you honestly care about cancer rates, there is one big easy obvious target. And the great part is you can start with your own backyard.

So Dr. Talbot released his report on cancer occurrences in Fort Chip. And while a marginally higher number of cancer incidences were identified (81 versus 79), the forms of unexpected forms of cancer identified were related to smoking, cervical vaccination and poor diet.

Interesting that his report aligns with the results previously released by the Alberta Canada Board, the Royal Society of Canada and Health Canada but of course contradicts the one report form Greenpeace activitist Dr. O'Connor.

[sync]

Originally Posted by shreddog

So Dr. Talbot released his report on cancer occurrences in Fort Chip. And while a marginally higher number of cancer incidences were identified (81 versus 79), the forms of unexpected forms of cancer identified were related to smoking, cervical vaccination and poor diet.

Interesting that his report aligns with the results previously released by the Alberta Canada Board, the Royal Society of Canada and Health Canada but of course contradicts the one report form Greenpeace activitist Dr. O'Connor.

it doesn't matter its already being disregarded by those who did not get the results they were expecting.

access to health care is a much bigger issue than trying to connect cancer rates to the oil sands - but obviously much less sensational.

[lio45]

On the topic of sickness, I wonder what you think of this:
(I did find it very troubling, from an outsider's POV.)

Originally Posted by SignalHillHiker

Albertans are apparently abandoning their homes due to toxic air.

http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/alber...s-to-toxic-air

[Chadillaccc]

Originally Posted by Vaillant

oil sands is not a big deal before it Calgary was nothing after it Calgary will be nothing again is not a big deal and everyones going crazy about something that cannot stand for long what a waste of money and time

Lol what a stupid and misinformed thing to say

[theman23]

Originally Posted by vid

Methane from the meat industry contributes more greenhouse gas to the atmosphere than the carbon dioxide from our cars and no one says jack shit about it! You ask people and they act like they've never heard of methane, just carbon is "evil".

Thanks, Al Gore.

Methane is carbon.

Thanks, websitesthatvidusesasasubstituteforschool

[kw5150]

PLEASE someone start a thread for:

1. Logging in all provinces.

2. Mining in all provinces including all hazardous materials

3. Oil and natural gas in all provinces

4. Hydroelectric in all provinces

5. Potash in Saskatchewan

6. Nuclear waste sites in Canada

7. Outdated sewer systems in Canada

8. Polluted lakes and rivers in Canada

This "blame alberta for the world's problems" is getting REALLY old. Just consume less and drive less and the oil sands (and other industries) wont have to go into over-production.

Blame the American Dream, not the suppliers. FAcK!!

[Doug]

Originally Posted by sync

it doesn't matter its already being disregarded by those who did not get the results they were expecting.

access to health care is a much bigger issue than trying to connect cancer rates to the oil sands - but obviously much less sensational.

It also highlights how tobacco consumption is such a health risk that other risk factors can become insignificant.

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by Vaillant

oil sands is not a big deal before it Calgary was nothing after it Calgary will be nothing again is not a big deal and everyones going crazy about something that cannot stand for long what a waste of money and time

Troll much?

Keep telling yourself what you have to I suppose. Calgary is becoming more relevant in Canada and the world every day, hardly a nothing city.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Calgarian

Troll much?

Keep telling yourself what you have to I suppose. Calgary is becoming more relevant in Canada and the world every day, hardly a nothing city.

FYI, you're talking to someone from over four years ago. Just sayin'

[Calgarian]

Originally Posted by lio45

FYI, you're talking to someone from over four years ago. Just sayin'

lol, did not realize that, my bad!

[Airboy]

I still say the mentioned higher cancer risks have to be partly due to the uranium up lake from Fort Chip. Which is Never Mentioned.

[Chadillaccc]

There is uranium close to the surface up there? Is it a by-product from the historic uranium mining operations up in northern Alberta and northern Sask?

[VIce]

Originally Posted by Airboy

I still say the mentioned higher cancer risks have to be partly due to the uranium up lake from Fort Chip. Which is Never Mentioned.

The chemical toxicity risk of raw, unprocessed uranium ore is many orders of magnitude more than its radioactivity risk (citation for depleted uranium, which is about 60% as radioactive as natural uranium). If uranium were a health risk in Northern Alberta, you would be seeing increased renal failure rates long before you'd be seeing increased cancer rates. Natural uranium is about 10 times more radioactive than bananas by volume.

Edit: with respect to shreddog's post below, that isn't to say that uranium mining tailings aren't very carcinogenic. I was just talking about 'radioactivity scares', which seem to be fairly common today.

[shreddog]

Originally Posted by Airboy

I still say the mentioned higher cancer risks have to be partly due to the uranium up lake from Fort Chip. Which is Never Mentioned.

Oh it gets mentioned ... a lot by at least one poster!

While it is important to recognize the impact on the Sands on the environment, if you're talking about Fort Chip, it is not clear cut about any impact.

Remember are about 200km upstream from Fort Chip and really have only had a significant human impact on the environment for about 20 years. That said, about 60kms from Fort Chip is Beaverlodge Lake - part of the Uramium City complex - that has been leaking tailings hosting all kinds of carnicagins into Lake Athabasca for over 60 years.

If anything has screwed up the situation in Fort Chip, that is it and not the Sands.

[Waterlooson]

Originally Posted by kw5150

PLEASE someone start a thread for:

1. Logging in all provinces.

2. Mining in all provinces including all hazardous materials

3. Oil and natural gas in all provinces

4. Hydroelectric in all provinces

5. Potash in Saskatchewan

6. Nuclear waste sites in Canada

7. Outdated sewer systems in Canada

8. Polluted lakes and rivers in Canada

This "blame alberta for the world's problems" is getting REALLY old. Just consume less and drive less and the oil sands (and other industries) wont have to go into over-production.

Blame the American Dream, not the suppliers. FAcK!!

Agreed... I also like how a certain group needs to call the oil sands, tar sands, even though there is no tar in the sands, just because it sounds more yucky.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Waterlooson

Agreed... I also like how a certain group needs to call the oil sands, tar sands, even though there is no tar in the sands, just because it sounds more yucky.

"oil sands" also sounds yucky.

Anyway, we don't have that naming confusion problem here -- there's only one name in French for the sands (which would translate to something like "bituminous sands", I assume).

It's not like the name changes anything to reality...