Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Saudi Arabia declares oil price war on fellow OPEC (and non OPEC)members.


Recommended Posts

28 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Thing is, people are swimming and fishing in Quesnel lake and drinking water has returned to water quality standards.  

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/mount-polley-mine-disaster-5-years-later-emotions-accountability-unresolved-1.5236160

It compares to:

And the Pembina Pine River oil spill almost ruined the drinking water of Chetwynd and ruined the shoreline of the Pine river in 2000.  And that wasn't the garbage dil-bit that will/would be pumped through those pipelines you wish for.  Go read up on the Kalamazoo river oil spill.  

Interesting article. Would you like one that contradicts that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Why, oh Why do we even have to ask?  At least I give a source to back up my claim VOLUNTARILY.  You, not so much.

“We just don’t want to drink the water knowing Mount Polley’s still dumping their crap in there.”

 

https://www.wltribune.com/news/five-years-after-mount-polley-mine-breach-resident-still-feels-angry-betrayed/

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

“We just don’t want to drink the water knowing Mount Polley’s still dumping their crap in there.”

 

https://www.wltribune.com/news/five-years-after-mount-polley-mine-breach-resident-still-feels-angry-betrayed/

LOL.  That is a residents PERSONAL OPINION.  Not an actual analysis of the water.  An OPINION.  From the same article.  So opinion is fact.  I thought you didn't use opinions as facts/sources.

 

The government has deemed the lake water safe to drink, but Watt said he and his family no longer drink from it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

LOL.  That is a residents PERSONAL OPINION.  Not an actual analysis of the water.  An OPINION.  From the same article.  So opinion is fact.  I thought you didn't use opinions as facts/sources.

 

The government has deemed the lake water safe to drink, but Watt said he and his family no longer drink from it.

How many people you know that drink hard water?....... 

Also drinking from a lake where people swim(pee) in and don't forget the drunks and their beer cans and the spills that happen when people fill their boats........

some more context as to why they don't drink it would very helpful.......

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, RowdyCanuck said:

How many people you know that drink hard water?....... 

Also drinking from a lake where people swim(pee) in and don't forget the drunks and their beer cans and the spills that happen when people fill their boats........

some more context as to why they don't drink it would very helpful.......

Strome used that residents opinion as a retort to me.  That the water that was deemed safe actually wasn't.  People swim and fish there.  I know if I had a cabin by a lake, I wouldn't drink the water for the reasons you say.  Strome was using the residents decision not to drink the water as evidence that the water wasn't safe.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, bishopshodan said:

I know.

 

Was just wondering if the potential environmental impact of the tailing ponds and logging clean up was comparable in estimation to the 155,000 spent wells in AB?

 

Do you know the answer? or are you just pointing out perceived hypocrisy to the poster you responded to?

It's hilarious too, as though those two things are mutually exclusive.

 

Apparently I can't see the infuriating idiocy of paying additional tax dollars to clean up wells that should be responsibility of the companies that profited from them, while also being displeased with similar (if less extensive) environmental issues in BC as well.

 

It's his typical red herring/deflection nonsense.

 

  • Hydration 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

Strome used that residents opinion as a retort to me.  That the water that was deemed safe actually wasn't.  People swim and fish there.  I know if I had a cabin by a lake, I wouldn't drink the water for the reasons you say.  Strome was using the residents decision not to drink the water as evidence that the water wasn't safe.

Oh , but reading that article, It makes me question why there was no fines or anything given out? Could you picture if hippie found this put about an oil company.......

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

LOL.  That is a residents PERSONAL OPINION.  Not an actual analysis of the water.  An OPINION.  From the same article.  So opinion is fact.  I thought you didn't use opinions as facts/sources.

 

The government has deemed the lake water safe to drink, but Watt said he and his family no longer drink from it.

Oh well the government said so...

You badly, badly contradict yourself. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, aGENT said:

It's hilarious too, as though those two things are mutually exclusive.

 

Apparently I can't see the infuriating idiocy of paying additional tax dollars to clean up wells that should be responsibility of the companies that profited from them, while also being displeased with similar (if less extensive) environmental issues in BC as well.

 

It's his typical red herring/deflection nonsense.

 

I can't find one post of you complaining about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Ryan Strome said:

Oh well the government said so...

You badly, badly contradict yourself. 

No I did not.  You posted that you could refute what I posted earlier.  I said that people were swimming and fishing and that the water was back to standard.  You said you could contradict that.  A persons opinion does not contradict the analysis that was done to determine if the water was safe.  So please provide the source that quotes an analysis that says the water isn't safe.  Something from last year or this year.    If you cannot, then acknowledge that it is you who is mistaken.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

You cry over how Ottawa screws over Alberta.  You've cried about how JT is screwing Alberta.  Yet, when he gets it done, you still complain.  You still cry.  If JT and Ottawa were really out to get Alberta, then JT would have let TMX die when the great private, non-governmental investors jumped ship.  He didn't and thus killed that tired talking point of yours.  

 

The issues that we complained about is SPILLS.  They destroy fisheries and threaten tourism.  A significant part of our economies.  We wanted more for that.  Alberta refused.  

 

EDIT:

 

FYI:  about logging in BC.  We do plant trees.  So those scars don't last forever.  If you drive out the Bowron FSR you would be hard pressed to see one of the larges clear cuts from back in the day.  I know, because I live in PG and have driven out that area.

https://news.gov.bc.ca/factsheets/factsheet-reforestation-in-bc

British Columbia prides itself on being a world leader in sustainable forest management. Since specific reforestation programs began in the 1930s, over 7.5 billion trees have been planted.

  • About 80%[1] of harvested areas are reforested by planting; the balance through natural regeneration.
  • On average, about 218 million seedlings are planted each year in British Columbia.
  • In 2016, about 259 million trees were planted and, for 2017, about 266 million trees are planned to be planted.
  • The Forests for Tomorrow program deals with reforestation challenges created by B.C.’s unprecedented mountain pine beetle infestation and increasingly severe wildfire seasons.
  • Since its inception in 2005, Forests for Tomorrow has invested over $445 million in reforestation activities, surveyed approximately 1.7 million hectares in mountain pine beetle affected areas and planted more than 193 million seedlings on over 138,000 hectares.
  • Through the Forests for Tomorrow program about 17 million seedlings were planted in 2016 and approximately 22 million seedlings will be planted in 2017.
  • It is estimated that since 2005, the trees planted by Forests for Tomorrow will result in the sequestration of about 19 million tonnes of carbon. In the past eight years, carbon sequestration has averaged about two million tonnes per year.
  • In 2016, government invested $85 million in the newly formed Forest Enhancement Society of B.C. and provided another $150 million to the society in 2017.
  • The society’s goals are to advance environmental and resource stewardship of British Columbia’s forests by:
    • preventing and mitigating the impact of wildfires
    • improving damaged or low-value forests
    • improving habitat for wildlife
    • supporting the use of fibre from damaged and low-value forests
    • treating forests to improve the management of greenhouse gases
  • British Columbia uses a mix of over 20 different native tree species in its reforestation programs. This mix of tree species helps maintain ecosystem processes, resilience and diverse habitats.
  • Licensees are legally required to reforest the areas that they harvest. This has been the law in B.C. since Oct. 1, 1987.
  • Sites being planted by Forests for Tomorrow are strategically selected so they deliver multiple benefits:
  • Contributing to the future timber supply and ecological integrity.
  • Addressing environmental values like soil and hydrology.
  • Providing employment.
  • By relying on a broad range of scientific knowledge and latest research, Forests for Tomorrow is developing effective reforestation strategies and revitalizing British Columbia’s forest landscapes.

 

[1] Based on the recent 10-year average area reforested  by planting as compared to the area reforested through natural regeneration and classified as non-productive

I do agree about worrying about spills but other provinces have taken what I would call the learning years so now our pipelines are safer then ever but sometimes it's worth the risk but don't get me wrong people in b.c don't see the benefits of oil like at all other then tourist or albertans buying vacation houses and raising their house prices but once the pipeline gets put in then b.c will benefit and see growth the same way Manitoba and s.k did......

 

also ive heard enough horror stories about can for from family and your right logging companies are suppose to replant but I know of a few whole  sides mountains clear cutted but no one cares or forces them to replant cause it's up white swan not along the road.....heck b.c even made a policy about not cutting trees to close to the road...

also logging companies have moved further north , which doesn't  hurt people but they do harm the wild life......logging is just as bad as oil but oil pays better.......It's kinda pick your poison.....

also maybe if b.c would have taken kinders money Van wouldn't be thinking about bankruptcy.....also Alberta wouldn't be entering a recession right now.....but the bubble was going to pop sooner or later though but we would have had other industries stronger and there for it would have taken some of the pain.....heck Alberta was trying to bring in tech companies......also Alberta has other industries that make more then some of provinces bigger earners......also it's going to take more then one province to make up what oil brings in but every expects Alberta to continue to be the big earner. 

 

i don't care if you take a pig from b.c or Alberta and put lip stick on it.....it's still a pig.....if you get what I mean.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, aGENT said:

It's hilarious too, as though those two things are mutually exclusive.

 

Apparently I can't see the infuriating idiocy of paying additional tax dollars to clean up wells that should be responsibility of the companies that profited from them, while also being displeased with similar (if less extensive) environmental issues in BC as well.

 

It's his typical red herring/deflection nonsense.

 

Would you be okay if your taxes paid to replant the trees that loggers take out?.....

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

No I did not.  You posted that you could refute what I posted earlier.  I said that people were swimming and fishing and that the water was back to standard.  You said you could contradict that.  A persons opinion does not contradict the analysis that was done to determine if the water was safe.  So please provide the source that quotes an analysis that says the water isn't safe.  Something from last year or this year.    If you cannot, then acknowledge that it is you who is mistaken.

You should take a little drive there in July and go for a swim and eat a fish from there. Maybe fill a water bottle from there, so that you can drink that safe water on your trip home.

Edited by Standing_Tall#37
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Standing_Tall#37 said:

You should take a little drive there in July and go for a swim and eat a fish from there. Maybe fill a water bottle from there, so that you can drink that safe water on your trip home.

I stated earlier that I probably wouldn't drink lake water, regardless of which lake it came from.  Let alone the lake in question.  I don't fish, and there are plenty of lakes nearby for me to take a dip in.  So, it would be a waste of time for me to drive down there to do those things.  Nice try though.  again, post an analysis if you want to refute the government's analysis that the water is OK.  Otherwise, my point stands.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

No I did not.  You posted that you could refute what I posted earlier.  I said that people were swimming and fishing and that the water was back to standard.  You said you could contradict that.  A persons opinion does not contradict the analysis that was done to determine if the water was safe.  So please provide the source that quotes an analysis that says the water isn't safe.  Something from last year or this year.    If you cannot, then acknowledge that it is you who is mistaken.

The government determined it was safe..do I really need to continue?

You're a hypocrite. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

I stated earlier that I probably wouldn't drink lake water, regardless of which lake it came from.  Let alone the lake in question.  I don't fish, and there are plenty of lakes nearby for me to take a dip in.  So, it would be a waste of time for me to drive down there to do those things.  Nice try though.  again, post an analysis if you want to refute the government's analysis that the water is OK.  Otherwise, my point stands.

Lol ok then. You don’t have a &^@#ing clue what you’re talking about or the area in question so you should really just drop it. I don’t know anyone who goes to Quesnel lake anymore. It used to be where everyone goes until that tailings pond breach happened and sent a bunch of dead fish floating to the top. 

 

 But maybe I’ll listen to you instead of locals and people who visited it multiple times/year. Because you’re the &^@#ing expert on everything and everywhere that you’ve never been.

  • Hydration 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Ryan Strome said:

The government determined it was safe..do I really need to continue?

You're a hypocrite. 

He’s a DerrickHand. He’s tripped miles on a run and been involved in Drilling Doubles. Then he was a Hand faller in the central Cariboo, not to mention a haul truck driver in big mines. He’s the &^@#ing master of all industry. 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Standing_Tall#37 said:

He’s a DerrickHand. He’s tripped miles on a run and been involved in Drilling Doubles. Then he was a Hand faller in the central Cariboo, not to mention a haul truck driver in big mines. He’s the &^@#ing master of all industry. 

Maybe in his mind. The only Derrick he knows is the old drunk at the PG.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...