Go Back   Alberta Outdoorsmen Forum > Main Category > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #31  
Old 02-02-2021, 12:44 PM
Iron Brew Iron Brew is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: To Be Determined.
Posts: 2,190
Default

I have made almost my entire career since the 80's in resources. I am NOT anti resource. I am, however, anti not looking after the environment. When the government cannot adequately deal with the issues they already have, I don't trust them to prevent the issues for the future. This is an easy fix. Make us trust the government will force industry to do things properly AT INDUSTRY EXPENSE. Done.

That being said, I've bought my retirement property, I have a beautiful spot, but it has been damaged by (past) mining, and I would absolutely fight to prevent another mine opening there because industry and industry groups are NOT held accountable to fix the issues they create.

At this point I feel government and industry are getting their just rewards from the lack of their willingness to deal with issues THEY create.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 02-02-2021, 12:44 PM
Fisherdan Fisherdan is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MountainTi View Post
Most everyone wants and enjoys the modern conveniences that are offered to us today, as well as the non essentials. At the same time the "not in my backyard" mentality shines bright. I want it all, but want it all made somewhere else.
I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. The nimby-ism, I mean.

A lot of people are in support of resource development, but in a responsible way.

- 1976 policy was put together after 4 years of consultation. 2020 policy changes were done quietly, before a long weekend, with zero public or stakeholder consultation

- water in a very scarce resource in Alberta as it is

- this could harm drinking water for over a million Albertans, affect agriculture, etc. Just look at what is happening with the drinking water in Sparwood. The USA is going after Canada due to pollution from BC mines as well now

- this obviously will harm the limited fishing opportunities we have in southern Alberta. This should concern a lot of people on this forum

- to date, there is no proven method to reduce the selenium and arsenic that leaches out from these mines. It hasn’t been proven on a small scale, let alone the massive scale that is being proposed

- unfortunately, the resource industry (and government) in Alberta has a long record of not cleaning up after itself. You cannot fault people for being sceptical
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 02-02-2021, 01:46 PM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherdan View Post
I don’t think that’s what’s going on here. The nimby-ism, I mean.

A lot of people are in support of resource development, but in a responsible way.

- 1976 policy was put together after 4 years of consultation. 2020 policy changes were done quietly, before a long weekend, with zero public or stakeholder consultation

Didn't know the coal bans in 76 took 4 years of consultation. But these proposed mines in the have been in the public realm for quite some time, I heard of them about 3 or 4 years ago.

- water in a very scarce resource in Alberta as it is


Debatable, its dependent on snowpack the amount of water the mine would is pretty insignificant in the grand scheme of things. Water licenses exist for this reason.


- this could harm drinking water for over a million Albertans, affect agriculture, etc. Just look at what is happening with the drinking water in Sparwood. The USA is going after Canada due to pollution from BC mines as well now

Yup there are a few contaminated wells in Sparhole. But dont try scare tactics, there are not 1 million people living off the Oldman watershed.. Id guess 150-200 thousand, maybe 1 millions cows, chickens, and hogs.

- this obviously will harm the limited fishing opportunities we have in southern Alberta. This should concern a lot of people on this forum


Yes Selenium bioaccumulates similar to mercury, this is a legitimate concern.

- to date, there is no proven method to reduce the selenium and arsenic that leaches out from these mines. It hasn’t been proven on a small scale, let alone the massive scale that is being proposed


This is straight up false, read up on active water treatment facilities or Saturated Rock Fills. Both treat selenium. Arsenic has never been an issue for the BC/Elk Valley coal mines from my knowledge, but nitrates from blasting is.


- unfortunately, the resource industry (and government) in Alberta has a long record of not cleaning up after itself. You cannot fault people for being sceptical
My comments in red.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 02-02-2021, 02:01 PM
silver lab's Avatar
silver lab silver lab is offline
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Stuck between wmu 110, 302 & 305
Posts: 1,023
Default

- this could harm drinking water for over a million Albertans, affect agriculture, etc. Just look at what is happening with the drinking water in Sparwood. The USA is going after Canada due to pollution from BC mines as well now


I would like to learn more about this! Do you have a link to this? How is the US going after Canada?
Cant drink the water in Sparwood or is there something else wrong?
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 02-02-2021, 02:13 PM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silver lab View Post
- this could harm drinking water for over a million Albertans, affect agriculture, etc. Just look at what is happening with the drinking water in Sparwood. The USA is going after Canada due to pollution from BC mines as well now


I would like to learn more about this! Do you have a link to this? How is the US going after Canada?
Cant drink the water in Sparwood or is there something else wrong?
The Elk Valley watershed runs into Lake Kookcanusa, which goes into Montana https://wildsight.ca/2020/10/15/b-c-...llution-limit/. Id like to stress again Teck is trying and developing new technologies to treat selenium, read up on Saturated Rock Fill... Literally just google it.

YOU CAN DRINK SPARWOOD WATER but a few wells are contaminated. Teck provides people with contaminated wells clean drinking water, you can still use well water to shower. https://www.teck.com/media/2020-EMC.pdf tons of info and reports on Tecks site https://www.teck.com/responsibility/...oring-reports/
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 02-02-2021, 03:00 PM
Fisherdan Fisherdan is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by silver lab View Post
- this could harm drinking water for over a million Albertans, affect agriculture, etc. Just look at what is happening with the drinking water in Sparwood. The USA is going after Canada due to pollution from BC mines as well now


I would like to learn more about this! Do you have a link to this? How is the US going after Canada?
Cant drink the water in Sparwood or is there something else wrong?
https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.kpax...sa%3f_amp=true

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5564269

It’s early still, but on a state level, Montana is noticing and enacting changes. Federally, the EPA has begun to review contamination of water state-side. It is my understanding that through the free trade deal, there can be repercussions. I need to find out more about it as well. Our federal government has stepped in recently... I’m assuming partially to mitigate risks with the US. Guess we will see what happens.

On our side of the Rockies, the water ultimately ends up in the Hudson Bay. So any action on the Alberta side will not affect the US. Obviously, it could affect Saskatchewan and Manitoba.

Just my opinion... it seems like a very risky investment for Alberta (we don’t have a lot of water to begin with), with not a lot of pay off the other way.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 02-02-2021, 03:21 PM
Dynamic Dynamic is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 483
Default

The only way of even considering something like open pit mining is if whomever is is running these pays UP FRONT the entre expected reclamation costs including inflation when these mines reach the end of their life cycle. We have been burned in Alberta too many times at are now stuck with billions of cleanup related to abandoned oil infrastructure that we as the taxpayers are now responsible for. This cycle of investment, pillage, and leave without cleaning up needs to stop.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 02-02-2021, 04:05 PM
Fisherdan Fisherdan is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Husty View Post
My comments in red.
Hi Husty. Admittedly, I need to look into it more. But so far I am not liking what I’m seeing.

Public realm does not equal public consultation… Or even public consciousness for that matter. This policy change and all these leases were sprung on the public quite suddenly. Both major political parties in Alberta like to point to Peter Lougheed and his governments legacy. I wasn’t around back then, but I get the overall impression that one reason his name endures is because his government engaged and respected Albertans.

I guess we’ll have to disagree about the amount of water. Compared to just about everywhere else in Canada, Alberta (Southern Alberta in particular) doesn’t have that much water.

You’re the first person I hear that says arsenic is not an issue. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Will have to research it more.

I have read that Teck, in particular, has been developing ways to reduce selenium. Some of it through biological means, etc. That sounds great. But before I would be comfortable with a huge project (like Grassy mountain), I would like to see it proven in the real world on smaller and medium scales first. Not just little, controlled university studies. And perhaps done first in locations that don’t have such wide ranging area of impact. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 02-02-2021, 04:24 PM
Iron Brew Iron Brew is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: To Be Determined.
Posts: 2,190
Default

So who is going to clean up from the mines that have already shut, which includes one very recent mine? How long do they have to treat or is there a permanent solution that doesn't need money from the public?

If the answer is "the tax payer" or "there isn't a permanent solution", leave the coal in the ground. There's already work on making steel using hydrogen instead of coal. It's only a matter of time before steel is made with cleaner technology.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 02-02-2021, 04:56 PM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherdan View Post
Hi Husty. Admittedly, I need to look into it more. But so far I am not liking what I’m seeing.

Public realm does not equal public consultation… Or even public consciousness for that matter. This policy change and all these leases were sprung on the public quite suddenly. Both major political parties in Alberta like to point to Peter Lougheed and his governments legacy. I wasn’t around back then, but I get the overall impression that one reason his name endures is because his government engaged and respected Albertans.

I guess we’ll have to disagree about the amount of water. Compared to just about everywhere else in Canada, Alberta (Southern Alberta in particular) doesn’t have that much water.

You’re the first person I hear that says arsenic is not an issue. Maybe I’m wrong about that. Will have to research it more.

I have read that Teck, in particular, has been developing ways to reduce selenium. Some of it through biological means, etc. That sounds great. But before I would be comfortable with a huge project (like Grassy mountain), I would like to see it proven in the real world on smaller and medium scales first. Not just little, controlled university studies. And perhaps done first in locations that don’t have such wide ranging area of impact. I don’t think that’s too much to ask.
Thats the thing about public consultations is they are often just due process, nothing of value actually comes from them IMO. The way they opened up the west slopes is a little odd and definitely should be questioned. But than again when the NDP opened up Castle PP most consultations were ultimately ignored.

You can disagree all you want about water security in Southern Alberta but the south has the MOST irrigated land in Canada and that's a fact. We could not irrigate land the amount of land we do without the fantastic water storage, capacity, and distribution systems down south. Southern Ab (by this i mean South of Calgary) does not have glacial fed rivers like the Bow all of it is ground and snowmelt. Do you think that the water used to process coal just up and disappears? Minus water losses from evaporation from dust control and processing everything will eventually end up in the river again.

Selenium treatment is not just a study, its been proven and has moved into application. Arsenic comes down to the actual composition of the rocks being blasted, not really an issue with the local geology. Another thing is a huge scale difference, now im pulling these numbers out my butt but Teck produces between ~20-30 Million tons of Coal a year, Grassy will be at 4.5 Million.. Scale makes a big difference here.

Out of the 3 mines proposed I think 1 of them should be approved and I think it should be Grassy. Its already an old mine, so whatever natural beauty of an actual mountain has already been destroyed.

Last edited by Husty; 02-02-2021 at 05:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 02-02-2021, 04:58 PM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Brew View Post
So who is going to clean up from the mines that have already shut, which includes one very recent mine? How long do they have to treat or is there a permanent solution that doesn't need money from the public?

If the answer is "the tax payer" or "there isn't a permanent solution", leave the coal in the ground. There's already work on making steel using hydrogen instead of coal. It's only a matter of time before steel is made with cleaner technology.
2 Words. Reclamation Bonds. Before work start financial bonds must be met for reclamation and cleanup. How O&G companies got out of reclaiming old wells is beyond me though

Outlined here: https://www.alberta.ca/land-conserva...for-mines.aspx
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-02-2021, 05:13 PM
I’d rather be outdoors I’d rather be outdoors is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2020
Posts: 877
Default

I suppose if we didn’t have so much opposition to pipelines we probably wouldn’t be looking at the need to open mines... but here we are. I’m opposed to shutting our resource industry down and believe we have the most ethical & environmental standards in the world for resource development bar none. Better here than in countries with substandard ethical & environmental policies. Go Alberta, let’s do this!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-02-2021, 06:29 PM
HalfBreed's Avatar
HalfBreed HalfBreed is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Parkland
Posts: 1,659
Default

Alberta should get into building space ships. Lets resource our way to that goal. Maybe we can make fuel for our space ships too.
__________________
I take everything with a grain of pepper, I'm just different that way.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-02-2021, 06:58 PM
Fisherdan Fisherdan is offline
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Calgary
Posts: 346
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Husty View Post
Thats the thing about public consultations is they are often just due process, nothing of value actually comes from them IMO. The way they opened up the west slopes is a little odd and definitely should be questioned. But than again when the NDP opened up Castle PP most consultations were ultimately ignored.

You can disagree all you want about water security in Southern Alberta but the south has the MOST irrigated land in Canada and that's a fact. We could not irrigate land the amount of land we do without the fantastic water storage, capacity, and distribution systems down south. Southern Ab (by this i mean South of Calgary) does not have glacial fed rivers like the Bow all of it is ground and snowmelt. Do you think that the water used to process coal just up and disappears? Minus water losses from evaporation from dust control and processing everything will eventually end up in the river again.

Selenium treatment is not just a study, its been proven and has moved into application. Arsenic comes down to the actual composition of the rocks being blasted, not really an issue with the local geology. Another thing is a huge scale difference, now im pulling these numbers out my butt but Teck produces between ~20-30 Million tons of Coal a year, Grassy will be at 4.5 Million.. Scale makes a big difference here.

Out of the 3 mines proposed I think 1 of them should be approved and I think it should be Grassy. Its already an old mine, so whatever natural beauty of an actual mountain has already been destroyed.
Well, I guess we will agree to disagree about the value of public consultation, and about the value and/or amount of Alberta water.

If selenium contamination is not much of an issue, then why are the Americans finding unacceptable levels of it 400kms downstream from B.C. mines?

https://thewesternnews.com/news/2020...inition-of-12/

According to this article, the EPA does not reach the same conclusions that Teck does regarding selenium contamination. They are far from convinced that this issue is resolved.

Last edited by Fisherdan; 02-02-2021 at 07:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-02-2021, 07:59 PM
Colin_r6 Colin_r6 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherdan View Post
Well, I guess we will agree to disagree about the value of public consultation, and about the value and/or amount of Alberta water.

If selenium contamination is not much of an issue, then why are the Americans finding unacceptable levels of it 400kms downstream from B.C. mines?

https://thewesternnews.com/news/2020...inition-of-12/

According to this article, the EPA does not reach the same conclusions that Teck does regarding selenium contamination. They are far from convinced that this issue is resolved.

I have had the distinct opportunity to work on the Saturated Rock Fill in Sparwood. I also have a background in Chemical Technology and I was fortunate enough in my time on the SRF to be able to talk to the lab staff on site that was operating the SRF and have seen the input and output results of the water treatment. It IS removing the selenium and they are working on installing a bunch of SRF sites throughout the valley.


The Americans are finding unacceptable amounts of it 400km downstream from Sparwood because the issue has only arisen in the last number of years and Teck is now working to mitigate it. This stuff doesn't happen over night - but at least the company is shelling out a TON of cash to get the water treatment facilities going and they are moving in the right direction. Teck has also proven themselves very responsible with regards to reclamation (I have also been fortunate enough to be one of the tree-planting students through summer at one of the mines.)

Also, I believe it is fair to note that the BC guidelines for selenium and the Canada guidelines for selenium are higher than what the the US guidelines are.. Another reason for the Americans to be "excited".

And really, at the end of the day.. Americans seem to do their best to point fingers at everyone else and try to sue everyone for everything, so when they tend to get excited over stuff like spilling hot coffee in their laps - I tend to shake my head and ignore their noise.


PS: The water in Sparwood is drinkable. One of the wells that supplies the town was found *nearing* the BC guideline for selenium and Teck stepped up and drilled another well for the town. I have yet in my 40 years to find water in a town that comes even close to Elk Valley tap water.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-02-2021, 08:00 PM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherdan View Post
Well, I guess we will agree to disagree about the value of public consultation, and about the value and/or amount of Alberta water.

If selenium contamination is not much of an issue, then why are the Americans finding unacceptable levels of it 400kms downstream from B.C. mines?

https://thewesternnews.com/news/2020...inition-of-12/

According to this article, the EPA does not reach the same conclusions that Teck does regarding selenium contamination. They are far from convinced that this issue is resolved.

I had something longer typed out but I just don't care. Get out spend some time in the Pass once the pandemic is over, spend sometime talking to locals, go up Blairmore Creek (This is the main creek the mine would pull from). The creek has a flow rate 1-10cms so it really is a drop in the bucket.

EPA and Health Canada have different requirements on Selenium, that's where much of the battle lies setting a standard or limit internationally... Ill leave that to the lawyers. Politics also play a huge part of this too don't forget for a minute that the last president was trying to rejuvenate American Coal, you don't think adding hurdles for a Canadian mining giant with ties to China would be targeted?
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-02-2021, 08:11 PM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin_r6 View Post
I have had the distinct opportunity to work on the Saturated Rock Fill in Sparwood. I also have a background in Chemical Technology and I was fortunate enough in my time on the SRF to be able to talk to the lab staff on site that was operating the SRF and have seen the input and output results of the water treatment. It IS removing the selenium and they are working on installing a bunch of SRF sites throughout the valley.


The Americans are finding unacceptable amounts of it 400km downstream from Sparwood because the issue has only arisen in the last number of years and Teck is now working to mitigate it. This stuff doesn't happen over night - but at least the company is shelling out a TON of cash to get the water treatment facilities going and they are moving in the right direction. Teck has also proven themselves very responsible with regards to reclamation (I have also been fortunate enough to be one of the tree-planting students through summer at one of the mines.)

Also, I believe it is fair to note that the BC guidelines for selenium and the Canada guidelines for selenium are higher than what the the US guidelines are.. Another reason for the Americans to be "excited".

And really, at the end of the day.. Americans seem to do their best to point fingers at everyone else and try to sue everyone for everything, so when they tend to get excited over stuff like spilling hot coffee in their laps - I tend to shake my head and ignore their noise.


PS: The water in Sparwood is drinkable. One of the wells that supplies the town was found *nearing* the BC guideline for selenium and Teck stepped up and drilled another well for the town. I have yet in my 40 years to find water in a town that comes even close to Elk Valley tap water.
Yes, yes and yes. I got to work on a few pieces FRO SRF, not many company's would pour money into sustainability like Teck does. I want the AB govt to hold mining company's to the same standard Teck is trying to get to,
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-02-2021, 08:24 PM
Iron Brew Iron Brew is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: To Be Determined.
Posts: 2,190
Default

How permanent is the sparwood solution? We have issues with old mines in Alberta at this time. Lets get those fixed.

Reclamation bonds? Are they willing to charge a high enough bond to ensure proper reclamation? My belief is the government will not do this. They haven't proven to be very forward thinking about this in the past.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-02-2021, 08:31 PM
roper1 roper1 is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Strathmore
Posts: 5,573
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Brew View Post
How permanent is the sparwood solution? We have issues with old mines in Alberta at this time. Lets get those fixed.

Reclamation bonds? Are they willing to charge a high enough bond to ensure proper reclamation? My belief is the government will not do this. They haven't proven to be very forward thinking about this in the past.
Very good points. The Ab gov't doesn't have the willpower or resources to monitor any resource development in the province. How many damn orphan wells we can do nothing about ? And realistically the only PIA they are is no more payments to farmers.

The ability for any type of large scale mine to be environmentally friendly is nil. The long term effects & costs might well outlive jobs. Anyone pumping the jobs promise worry about technology ?? Now you've got an environmental disaster benefitting a few wealthy foreigners & few jobs.

Way more potential downside than upside here, leave the coal be.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-02-2021, 08:38 PM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Brew View Post
How permanent is the sparwood solution? We have issues with old mines in Alberta at this time. Lets get those fixed.

Reclamation bonds? Are they willing to charge a high enough bond to ensure proper reclamation? My belief is the government will not do this. They haven't proven to be very forward thinking about this in the past.
Agreed about doubts on reclaiming.

I think long term the 'sparwood solution' is pretty good, it works with Microbes in old pits that the mine fills with waste rock, that waste rock eventually gets filled with water, and the microbes filter the water as it passes through them. So unless the Microbes die off they should be self sustaining, might need to be topped up, I dont really know outside my knowledge.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 02-02-2021, 08:44 PM
Colin_r6 Colin_r6 is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 295
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iron Brew View Post
How permanent is the sparwood solution? We have issues with old mines in Alberta at this time. Lets get those fixed.

Reclamation bonds? Are they willing to charge a high enough bond to ensure proper reclamation? My belief is the government will not do this. They haven't proven to be very forward thinking about this in the past.
Honestly? Who knows how permanent it will be. They are after all a company trying to make money in our capitalist society. So far they have laid out a lot of money to work towards a solution. They're on the right path in my opinion. For now.

And for anyone who doesn't want or support steelmaking coal mining.. All you have to do is stop using steel products from China to show your dissatisfaction.

Much like Alberta, if you don't like the oilsands.. just stop heating your house with natural gas and filling your car with gas. Its simple!

Me? I continue gassing up my truck and hoping that Alberta gets whatever pipelines they want. And I complain to my MP regularly about importing oil to Halifax when we have our own supply...
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 02-03-2021, 06:09 AM
shawn shawn is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dynamic View Post
The only way of even considering something like open pit mining is if whomever is is running these pays UP FRONT the entre expected reclamation costs including inflation when these mines reach the end of their life cycle. We have been burned in Alberta too many times at are now stuck with billions of cleanup related to abandoned oil infrastructure that we as the taxpayers are now responsible for. This cycle of investment, pillage, and leave without cleaning up needs to stop.
This x1000. Our oil industry has simply walked away from abandoned wells and there is no recourse, why would anyone think this will be any different? That aside you cant re build a mountain that has been blasted out of existence.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 02-03-2021, 08:33 AM
Iron Brew Iron Brew is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: To Be Determined.
Posts: 2,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Colin_r6 View Post
Honestly? Who knows how permanent it will be. They are after all a company trying to make money in our capitalist society. So far they have laid out a lot of money to work towards a solution. They're on the right path in my opinion. For now.

And for anyone who doesn't want or support steelmaking coal mining.. All you have to do is stop using steel products from China to show your dissatisfaction.

Much like Alberta, if you don't like the oilsands.. just stop heating your house with natural gas and filling your car with gas. Its simple!

Me? I continue gassing up my truck and hoping that Alberta gets whatever pipelines they want. And I complain to my MP regularly about importing oil to Halifax when we have our own supply...
I think you've hit the nail on the head. We support resource industries in Alberta. We DON'T trust those companies or government to do what is needed to fix the issues. That's the problem. The PC (and now UPC) government has let the companies reap billions in profits but leave the taxpayers on the hook. Your attitude seems to imply "so what" where mine is "yes but". Ensure the proper LONG TERM environmental considerations, obligations and costs are addressed. Carry out those obligations. At this point the government has proven they won't. Hence the pushback. One of the selenium issues presently in Alberta is a mine that closed very, very recently (June I think somebody mentioned). Why was this allowed to happen? Why not allow the companies to reopen this mine, with the environmental fixes in place instead of starting at a new location with new issues.

Like I said. The companies and government have lost our trust. They need to earn it again. What's that old saying? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice...
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 02-03-2021, 08:37 AM
Iron Brew Iron Brew is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: To Be Determined.
Posts: 2,190
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Husty View Post
Agreed about doubts on reclaiming.

I think long term the 'sparwood solution' is pretty good, it works with Microbes in old pits that the mine fills with waste rock, that waste rock eventually gets filled with water, and the microbes filter the water as it passes through them. So unless the Microbes die off they should be self sustaining, might need to be topped up, I dont really know outside my knowledge.
So can this solution work long term without human intervention? Does it need continuous monitoring and repair? What happens when the mine does close? Genuine questions, not trying to argue. I literally know nothing about the tech.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 02-03-2021, 11:46 AM
goldscud goldscud is offline
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 2,960
Default

Excellent questions Iron Brew. We really do need to long term and in the short term get the selenium question answered.
The fish populations in the upper Fording and Line Creek have already been destroyed. Do we really want to destroy Alberta trout populations while we are still figuring things out.

Another thought was brought up about water availability in southern Alberta.
I quote:

"You can disagree all you want about water security in Southern Alberta but the south has the MOST irrigated land in Canada and that's a fact. We could not irrigate land the amount of land we do without the fantastic water storage, capacity, and distribution systems down south. Southern Ab (by this i mean South of Calgary) does not have glacial fed rivers like the Bow all of it is ground and snowmelt."

The majority of water in the far south comes off the mountains in Waterton Park and Glacier Park in Montana. Could be some glaciers in the area. The water from the Waterton River is moved to the Belly River and then to the St. Mary's River. The Waterton river below the reservoir is raped of a huge volume of water that is sent down a ditch to the east. The volume of water left in the Waterton river is a joke. The same thing happens to the St Mary's river below that reservoir. There is a substantial cost to the Waterton, Belly and St. Mary's river ecosystems due to these water removals and the subsequent retraction of available habitat for the species that live there.
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 02-03-2021, 12:17 PM
Husty Husty is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 216
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by goldscud View Post
Excellent questions Iron Brew. We really do need to long term and in the short term get the selenium question answered.
The fish populations in the upper Fording and Line Creek have already been destroyed. Do we really want to destroy Alberta trout populations while we are still figuring things out.

Another thought was brought up about water availability in southern Alberta.
I quote:

"You can disagree all you want about water security in Southern Alberta but the south has the MOST irrigated land in Canada and that's a fact. We could not irrigate land the amount of land we do without the fantastic water storage, capacity, and distribution systems down south. Southern Ab (by this i mean South of Calgary) does not have glacial fed rivers like the Bow all of it is ground and snowmelt."

The majority of water in the far south comes off the mountains in Waterton Park and Glacier Park in Montana. Could be some glaciers in the area. The water from the Waterton River is moved to the Belly River and then to the St. Mary's River. The Waterton river below the reservoir is raped of a huge volume of water that is sent down a ditch to the east. The volume of water left in the Waterton river is a joke. The same thing happens to the St Mary's river below that reservoir. There is a substantial cost to the Waterton, Belly and St. Mary's river ecosystems due to these water removals and the subsequent retraction of available habitat for the species that live there.
Yup your right about glaciers in GNP, we are talking about the Crowsnest/Oldman River which is upstream of the confluence of the St. Marys and the Oldman. Not saying the St. Marys/Belly/Waterton River isnt important for water security in the south.. Just no ones putting a mine in Waterton National Park ever.

I think its its worth adding we would not have enough water mid summer without those reservoirs holding back freshet water. All that water from spring melt would ultimately be lost to the Hudson's Bay very early in the season. An example of this would be the Milk River last year when the Dam in Montana failed, it was a trickle in the summer https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calga...iver-1.5622036 .. What is worse for fish populations a dam or next to no water in a river? But we are getting more into irrigation than mining here.

As for longevity for SRFs Im not too sure either like I previously said.

Last edited by Husty; 02-03-2021 at 12:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 02-03-2021, 12:37 PM
Bigwoodsman Bigwoodsman is online now
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: Edmonton
Posts: 8,267
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by traderal View Post
Why don't you go to the Chinese Gov't, take off your boot and slam it down on the table, tell them in no uncertain terms to shut down their coal burning industries. I'm sure they will put full stop on their operations and then tell the auzzies to stop importing any more Alberta coal. Then we will all be happy.
At the very least they will give you a permanent secure room at a resort for dissidents.
Why be an enabler to their pollution. Someone will figure out the coal comes from Alberta/Canada and we will be held responsible for the pollution.

Not much different then given druggies drugs and expect there to make a difference.

BW
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 02-03-2021, 12:39 PM
CMichaud's Avatar
CMichaud CMichaud is offline
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: New Beijing, Canada
Posts: 1,470
Default

This topic was brought up awhile back.

After gaining little traction, the anti's went back to the drawing board waiting to find a sympathetic media ear. They apparently have now found Global and some others to bring on the Narwhal experts to offer their unbiased opinion.
__________________
#defundtheCBC
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 02-03-2021, 07:31 PM
bessiedog's Avatar
bessiedog bessiedog is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 8,372
Default

Nice to just paint concerned people w/“tree huggy” labels.

Lots of good ole false dichotomy arguments.

Iron brew I appreciate your perspective. Thank you.

The selenium in the wells..... ‘just one or just two” or whatever... “it’s barely reaching concerning levels”
These are the words of someone trying to downplay/whitewash. Let’s be clear....

There’s no solid way to prevent or mitigate it.

So...... if we pair that with the suggestion that ‘they’re working on it’ and let’s just have faith......

No. We need:

1. A solution that is independently scientifically proven to not wreck our water supply or whatever.
2. If we are going to ‘let er buck’ with the ‘promise’ that they’ll develop something..... then the mitigation/reclamation bond best be in the 10-100s of millions if not billions....

We have all these unused wells sittin around..... not gonna get cleaned up.... unless taxpayer does it.

The Pass has a lot of areas that cannot be reclaimed due to mining activity..... lots n lots n lots and we just gotta live with em.

Many many large corporations clearly demonstrate a severe desire to NOT clean up their messes. Why? Cause capitalism man.

Anyone who claims that S.Alta does not have a water problem is just being silly.

CNP aquifer is tapped out. This is according to the Alta governments OWN studies from the ‘90s and 2000’s

Grassy mountain mine co. Has a looong track record of build it.. sell it... take off..

No own... not their problem if problems hop up.

I get a chuckle that there’s a perception that the folks in the Pass are super behind this. Many are not. We have a very very long memory of mine owners basically screwing people desperate for work.

Fun fact... 1925 Blairemore Town council election ejected Communist Party members to Town Council... this was a statement by the people against the abusive work-health policies of the mining companies.
..... abs you though Notley as a protest vote was sumpthin.... heh.


You scientifically prove that you e developed a system to deal with the selenium ..... go ahead, reopen grassy.

But get your needed water elsewhere.

‘If ya dint like it stop usin it’ is one of the stupidest retorts possible.



Not anti Coal or Oil..... VERY MUCH anti corporate negligence, very against lackadaisical due diligence.... Very Very against neglecting fiduciary duty.
__________________
"How vain it is to sit down to write when you have not stood up to live.”
-HDT
"A vote is like a rifle; its usefulness depends on the character of the user." T. Roosevelt
"I don't always troll, only on days that end in Y."
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 02-03-2021, 07:40 PM
ruffy71 ruffy71 is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 387
Default

Let's add to the fun. By most credible reports the glaciers are shrinking. Fast. Doesn't matter what you think the reason is. Don't bother with that. But if they keep shrinking, within our kids lifetime, water will become THE issue in southern alberta.

Are we still sure mining is a good option?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:36 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.