I guess my thought is, unless someone finds an email sent by Murray Edwards saying, "... though you believe that there is a good chance the tailing pond is going breach, I do not believe the odds are high enough to warrant action." or something like that, then Murray Edwards is just a significant shareholder in a company where this happened...
The employees made the decisions around the pond itself, and whether it was done poorly, or there is some unexpected reason that this happened, it really can't be laid at Murray Edwards feet.
My opinion.
Oh - and that article itself - holy "agenda based" reporting. The entire article is meant to point the finger at Albertans for the problem. It is stuff like that article that widens the rift between business and environmental proponents.
Last edited by Lord Carnage; 08-10-2014 at 04:33 PM.
|