Athabasca River plan seems to ignore ecological realities

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Chuck_Wagon

http://www.oilsands.alberta.ca/FactS...013_Online.pdf

-The current cumulative withdrawal rate of oil sands projects is less than one per cent of the long-term average annual flow of the Athabasca River, and less than three per cent of the long-term average winter flow during January to March.

-Oil sands projects recycle 80 to 95 per cent of water used.

-The Athabasca River Water Management Framework sets mandatory limits on withdrawals that maintain flows near natural conditions.

-To protect local habitats, the framework puts a weekly cap on the amount of water companies can withdraw according to the fluctuating flow of the river.

-With this plan, the governments are taking unprecedented steps to enhance the oil sands monitoring program for air, land, water and biodiversity. The plan, which will be fully operational by 2015, improves our ability to detect changes in the environment and manage the cumulative impacts of development.

Horse pucky.

I refer you to my post here.

In particular, this critical part:

One has to remember that a water quantity framework is a different beast as compared to an approved water management plan. An approved WMP is enabled by the water act and framework for water management planning. There is a very rigorous standard for how an approved plan is developed. A water quantity framework is new in Alberta, with the Athabasca one being the first in Alberta; its enabled by ALSA, without very much direction or requirement for how such a framework is developed.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

...

How much are you willing to pay for fuel for your vehicle. Are you ready to get rid of all the 70,000 dollar trucks. How about a steak. How much do want to pay for a steak? Are you ready to go back to one vehicle like 50 years ago. How about a 900 square foot house?

We get no break on our fuel and have paid more than the States for decades. That one is a red herring.

A 70K truck is a want not a need.

And what is wrong with a 900 square foot house. Plenty of bilevels at built that way and many good citizens grew up in them. Developments in and around Red Deer have many of those types being built right now.

Who cares about steak? We hunt on this forum. Besides, with so much going to the States, their demands impact that cost much more than our local situation. Another canard that is old and invalid.

I agree there needs to be regulated growth, but if I had all the answers like you fellas, I wouldn't be just sitting on this forum complaining without offering one positive solution.

Solution.... How about a REAL water management plan as outlined in Land use framework?

Why this new procedure which is not as in depth or rigorous?

THAT would lend some credibility, but this government is doing its darnedest to avoid rigor when it comes to water and the Athabaska.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by avb3

We get no break on our fuel and have paid more than the States for decades. That one is a red herring.

A 70K truck is a want not a need.

And what is wrong with a 900 square foot house. Plenty of bilevels at built that way and many good citizens grew up in them. Developments in and around Red Deer have many of those types being built right now.

Who cares about steak? We hunt on this forum. Besides, with so much going to the States, their demands impact that cost much more than our local situation. Another canard that is old and invalid.



Solution.... How about a REAL water management plan as outlined in Land use framework?

Why this new procedure which is not as in depth or rigorous?

THAT would lend some credibility, but this government is doing its darnedest to avoid rigor when it comes to water and the Athabaska.

Red Herring?? Did I say anyone needed a 70K truck or there was something wrong with a 900 square foot house????

You are one of the people who is here day after day ragging about these things with no alternative positive workable reasonable solution.

How about you post pics of your 900 Sq. foot house and one economy car?

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Red Herring?? Did I say anyone needed a 70K truck or there was something wrong with a 900 square foot house????

You are one of the people who is here day after day ragging about these things with no alternative positive workable reasonable solution.

How about you post pics of your 900 Sq. foot house and one economy car?

Read the thread.

The are APWRS's therein.

It all depends on whether you want responsible development.

If you don't, then there is no solution and.....Full Steam Ahead!!!...literally.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

Read the thread.

The are APWRS's therein.

It all depends on whether you want responsible development.

If you don't, then there is no solution and.....Full Steam Ahead!!!...literally.

Well then I guess problem solved.

Just Email those APWRS to Steve and CC the big oil companies and we can go back to posting about hunting and fishing.

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Well then I guess problem solved.

Just Email those APWRS to Steve and CC the big oil companies and we can go back to posting about hunting and fishing.

I'm relieved you were willing to identify the greatest hurdle to adequately protecting our natural resources in a sustainable fashion.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by BeeGuy

I'm relieved you were willing to identify the greatest hurdle to adequately protecting our natural resources in a sustainable fashion.

Why are you still whining. You have the solutions. Send them off.

[nelsonob1]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Why are you still whining. You have the solutions. Send them off.

I don't get your logic. Are you taking the position that we shouldn't voice our concerns unless we know the answers to the problems created by others? Like I shouldn't voice any concern about nuclear power radioactive waste until I can come up with a viable solution? That raising such an issue is just whining.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Red Herring?? Did I say anyone needed a 70K truck or there was something wrong with a 900 square foot house????

You are one of the people who is here day after day ragging about these things with no alternative positive workable reasonable solution.

How about you post pics of your 900 Sq. foot house and one economy car?

You clearly implied that those things would be the result of curtailment of current resource extraction due to environmental concerns.

Now, you keep asking for solutions.

I gave you one on water management plans. You choose not to comment on it.

Why?

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

I don't get your logic. Are you taking the position that we shouldn't voice our concerns unless we know the answers to the problems created by others? Like I shouldn't voice any concern about nuclear power radioactive waste until I can come up with a viable solution? That raising such an issue is just whining.

Red is upset that his..comments..about providing solutions were easily rebuked because he wasn't actually reading the thread, and solutions had been provided.

He wants to ensure that no criticism of the poor environmental management of this province can be voiced and he will continually attack posters personally to this end.



We can do a lot better.

We have to do a lot better.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

I don't get your logic. Are you taking the position that we shouldn't voice our concerns unless we know the answers to the problems created by others? Like I shouldn't voice any concern about nuclear power radioactive waste until I can come up with a viable solution? That raising such an issue is just whining.

Absolutely not.

If no one ever raises these issues there are a lot of us, myself included who would not be aware of them.

What I'm saying is it's the same people over and over who bring this stuff up with only negative criticism. It's an opportunity to bash the government and big oil and the ranchers all the while offering no other way to deal with the situation.

These experts always know what is wrong and who to blame, but never a suggestion to fix anything.

Are they as eager to adjust their lifestyle as they are to meter out blame?

Not that I see.

Talk the talk or walk the walk.

Of course there are problems. How many do you think have been solved by these threads.

There are posters who actually care and try to find solutions and others just want a hug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

BeeGuy. I don't need your expertise to tell anyone what I think or say. You have your plate full with your own stuff.

[Redfrog]

AVB3, I didn't imply anything of the sort.

If you want less development and more regulations, then it has to be paid for by someone. Guess who that someone is?

So you can higher prices for goods and services or you can cut back on your consumption.

You cannot have more for less.

That's the reality.

As I said there is no one on this board who wants to see the environment destroyed or degraded, but the reality of a society that consumes resources is not if it will harm, but how much and how do you fix it.

[Redfrog]

"I gave you one on water management plans. You choose not to comment on it."

It's only a solution if it works. If it is cost effective an it works why is it not in place?

[nelsonob1]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

Absolutely not.

If no one ever raises these issues there are a lot of us, myself included who would not be aware of them.

What I'm saying is it's the same people over and over who bring this stuff up with only negative criticism. It's an opportunity to bash the government and big oil and the ranchers all the while offering no other way to deal with the situation.

These experts always know what is wrong and who to blame, but never a suggestion to fix anything.

Are they as eager to adjust their lifestyle as they are to meter out blame?

Not that I see.

Talk the talk or walk the walk.

Of course there are problems. How many do you think have been solved by these threads.

There are posters who actually care and try to find solutions and others just want a hug.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-4EDhdAHrOg

BeeGuy. I don't need your expertise to tell anyone what I think or say. You have your plate full with your own stuff.

Thank you for the explanation.

I wouldn't sell the debate short. Many of the members (my self included) learn from reading and contributing to these debates which can form as well as state opinions. You make some important points, as do others and often the differences expressed are only minor but they lead to different conclusions that polarize rather than move the discussion forward.

I have spent the last decade of my life committed to a sustainable and environmentally progressive real estate project. During that time I have been accused of being that tree hugger communist, the radical whose ideas did not make business sense. However with the help of others and by listening to some of the quieter voices, we now have one of the more successful and acclaimed projects in Interior BC. I have learned that despite our different personal convictions the biggest barrier to change is all too often an absence of listening, and most importantly listening to oneself. We are all a contradiction, we are all hypocrites. Pausing to realize this is often the most difficult first step.

Being a developer, even one that tries hard at sustaining values of community and environmentalism, one learns that it is much harder to replace something that is destroyed than build something that is new. I fear that progress is measured in economic and material gain rather than appreciating more the value of what we have. I know this sounds very corny, my skills sadly do not extend to word smithing , but i hope that as fellow outdoorsmen, as naturalists we understand better than most what we have to potentially lose.

[Redfrog]

Originally Posted by nelsonob1

Thank you for the explanation.

I wouldn't sell the debate short. Many of the members (my self included) learn from reading and contributing to these debates which can form as well as state opinions. You make some important points, as do others and often the differences expressed are only minor but they lead to different conclusions that polarize rather than move the discussion forward.

I have spent the last decade of my life committed to a sustainable and environmentally progressive real estate project. During that time I have been accused of being that tree hugger communist, the radical whose ideas did not make business sense. However with the help of others and by listening to some of the quieter voices, we now have one of the more success and acclaimed projects in Interior BC. What I have learned is that despite our different personal convictions the biggest barrier to change is an absence of listening, and most importantly listening to oneself. We are all a contradiction, we are all hypocrites. Pausing to realize this is often the most difficult first step.

Being a developer, even one that tries hard at sustaining values of community and environmentalism, one learns that it is much harder to replace something that is destroyed than build something that is new. I fear that progress is measured in economic and material gain rather than appreciating more than value of what we have. I know this sounds very corny, my skills sadly do not extend to word smithing , but i hope that as fellow outdoorsmen, as naturalists we understand better than most what we have to potentially lose.

I knew you weren't from around here as soon as you started talking.

It sounds like you walk the walk. I'd like to hear more about your project.

[avb3]

Originally Posted by Redfrog

AVB3, I didn't imply anything of the sort.

If you want less development and more regulations, then it has to be paid for by someone. Guess who that someone is?

So you can higher prices for goods and services or you can cut back on your consumption.

You cannot have more for less.

That's the reality.

As I said there is no one on this board who wants to see the environment destroyed or degraded, but the reality of a society that consumes resources is not if it will harm, but how much and how do you fix it.

Originally Posted by Redfrog

"I gave you one on water management plans. You choose not to comment on it."

It's only a solution if it works. If it is cost effective an it works why is it not in place?

Why is it not in place?

Because it is a multi year process. The South Saskatchewan river basin is done. Only part of the North Saskatchewan river basin is complete, and I'm not even sure if it has got ministerial approval yet.

The government fast tracked this new, previously unused draft water quantity (NOT quality) plan. It is entirely out of scope of what a water management plan works look like, but the government and as can be noted by the link earlier provided are selling this as an equivalent process.

It is not.

I don't like getting snowed by my government, and their snowing us on this one.

Quantity is different than quality and other aspects of a purpose water management plan.

I'm sure you can see that.