Dilemma: Supporting the Calgary Flames after Mount Polley mine disaster

[Lord Carnage]

Originally Posted by Hackey

5 million cubic meters of toxic sludge dumped onto our land and were bitching about each other now.

Agreed... that was kind of what I was thinking when I commented about the article. The entire article is about pointing the finger at "...Bad Business, Bad Murray Edwards..." instead of something constructive.

Really it should be about what happened and how to (realistically) stop it from happening ever again.

[GGG]

I dont think not cheering for the flames is the right choice.

Copper is a pretty essential metal for our day to day existance.
Copper mines in Canada are likely leaders in enviromentally responsible extraction.

If you want to take action I woud enourage you to join organizations which are lobbying the AER in alberta and the similar body in BC for better monitoring and design of tailings ponds.

Gas Stations used to have single walled storaged tanks that correded out and leaked causing extenive damage. Now they are required by code to be double wall with interstitial monitoring.

Better design requirements, better maitenance requirements and harsh penalties for companies which dont meet code. Boycotting the person who is investing the money wont help change anything. All of his comanies policies will ave been designed around meeting code make the code more stringent and you improve enviromental performance.

[cracher]

Do we know if Edwards is on the board of directors or an exec with this company? Is it possible that his money management people just bought him shares without him directly being involved in anything? A guy of his stature could very well be a majority owner of a company as easily as I own 100 shares of RIM (yay!).

[greentree]

Originally Posted by Lord Carnage

Really it should be about what happened and how to (realistically) stop it from happening ever again.

...And about the impact on the lakes and rivers, and the fish, and communities. And about what's really in the tailings and the water. And about the clean-up and the bill that had better be handed to Imperial pronto. And about the repeated warnings that weren't heeded.
What it's not about is hockey and the Calgary Flames.

[Hackey]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Huh? Check out the OP, he come on here and attacked Albertans and is denouncing his love of the Flames because of this breach that happened in BC. How did you or he think this was going to go?

Well I don't have a stick up my ass so it wasn't really a big deal at all to me. I care more about the environment in general and the common good of all people more than trying to stick up for my hockey team or province. These things aren't that serious. The environment, people's health and well being kind of are.

[GGG]

It seems like the impact on the overall watershed is being overstated. From one of the CBC articles

The samples were taken on Aug. 5 at five different locations along the Quesnel River, to determine potential impacts on drinking water quality and aquatic life.

Jennifer McGuire, also with the ministry, said there was still no expectation that aquatic life would be impacted by cadmium levels, but zinc levels were showing in excess of the more stringent guidelines.

"The numbers are under the acute level, but slightly in excess of the chronic guideline level," she said.

The samples were tested for pH, conductivity, turbidity, total suspended solids, total dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, nutrients, general ions, total and dissolved metals, and E.coli.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-b-c-1.2732279

This isnt a BP level event based on the testing, very serious but not on that scale.

[Vulcan]

I'm not interested in this becoming an Alberta-BC debate. It's about the environmental catastrophe and as such it needs to be investigated from both a BC governmental and a big business aspect, not white washed away until we forget about it. Somebody goofed and it needs to be corrected so it doesn't happen again. What else bothers me is that this is another case of commercial interests screwing up and they want to build another pipeline which could have far worse environmental impact. Just trust us they say.

As for the Flames connection, it doesn't please me for sure but Edwards isn't the Calgary Flames.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I'm not interested in this becoming an Alberta-BC debate. It's about the environmental catastrophe and as such it needs to be investigated from both a BC governmental and a big business aspect, not white washed away until we forget about it. Somebody goofed and it needs to be corrected so it doesn't happen again. What else bothers me is that this is another case of commercial interests screwing up and they want to build another pipeline which could have far worse environmental impact. Just trust us they say.

As for the Flames connection, it doesn't please me for sure but Edwards isn't the Calgary Flames.

I suspect you don't mean to trivialize this, but "somebody goofed" is quite the understatement.

[rhino]

I doubt you need our input for your moral compass so I imagine this is more of a soap box post on your part.

[Tron_fdc]

Originally Posted by GGG

It seems like the impact on the overall watershed is being overstated. From one of the CBC articles



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...-b-c-1.2732279

This isnt a BP level event based on the testing, very serious but not on that scale.

From what I understand the samples were taken in an area that hadn't been hit by the tailings yet. It's still too early to determine the scope, but it's going to be bad.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by the2bears

I suspect you don't mean to trivialize this, but "somebody goofed" is quite the understatement.

I guess it depends on where you are coming from. To me in my line of work, somebody goofed could mean we've just screwed up a days work to somebody got injured or the building caught on fire or the building fell down.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by rhino

I doubt you need our input for your moral compass so I imagine this is more of a soap box post on your part.

Easy, Thymebalm is a good poster on this board. No need for personal attacks

[Alberta_Beef]

Blaming 1 person for an ACCIDENT is ridiculous. It's been well known for decades that the oil and gas industry is bad for the environment, it's been well known since the Flames moved to Calgary that the ownership group was made of oil tycoons. This is not news, if you have such a strong moral compass that it prevents you from cheering for a hockey team, I have to ask where was this moral compass before? The risk has been there since you started cheering for the team.

The Flames have nothing to do with what happened there. So if you are going to turn your back on the team because of this I say good riddance. Don't let the door hit you on your way out.

[indes]

My first thought was "what could a hockey team possibly have done at mount polley to piss someone off?. Obviously nothing, have no clue how you could relate this to a hockey team.

[Mr.Coffee]

Reading this thread, I feel like I am getting stupider. I don't even know where to start, really.

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I guess it depends on where you are coming from. To me in my line of work, somebody goofed could mean we've just screwed up a days work to somebody got injured or the building caught on fire or the building fell down.

I'm just glad when I goof up at work it's relatively harmless

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by SebC

You might think that this event would've knocked BCers off their high horse, but instead it's Alberta's fault because one Calgarian owns 36% of the company's stock.

It is hypocritical for BC to oppose Alberta's industry while taking similar environmental risks for their own economic gain.

I don't think there's hypocrisy in being critical. If it wasn't for regulatory bodies, profit maximizing companies (especially publicly sharing companies) would have no concern for externalities.

So unless I'm a Mennonite, I can't be critical against anything that benefits the economy?

[MarkGio]

I think its way too early to blame Edwards for this. Why did the government issue the permits for this project knowing it was immediately nearby a sensitive habitat and natural resource? Usually catastrophic events like this are a result of complex failures, not simply a matter of a majority stakeholder directly ordering cuts to expensive controls.

I think some of the earlier posts were on the mark, especially ones that give you direction on how you personally can take action to make the planet safer.

[Stupid]

I'm really sorry for your dilemma Thymebalm.

Personally I would strongly be inclined to stop spending money on the team.

Then you can ask yourself does you supporting the team as a fan who doesn't spend money contribute to Edwards' operations?
Does you reading a board such as CP do anything to harm your homeland? Probably not. Does you watching TV? Seems closer; although I'm not exactly sure how. In the end though I think it'd be mostly harmless or the harm would be so diluted that I think I could sleep at night doing that.

The saddest thing in my opinion is that we all know that we can't ask them to fix the situation; they're going to do as little as possible about it. An apology while it's the best thing we can get is still meaningless.

Just my 2c

[simmer2]

Consumers don't think enough about where they choose to spend their dollars.

By watching the Flames, we are lining the pocketbooks of the owners of the business.

I personally am very careful where I choose to spend my dollars because that's the only vote we get in a free market society.

I don't shop at Walmart or Costco.
The only large chain I support on a regular basis is MEC.
I support independent chains wherever possible.

If you feel strongly enough about this, choose not to watch the Flames.

I'm far enough removed that while it sucks, it didn't personally impact me enough to choose not to watch the flames.