Dilemma: Supporting the Calgary Flames after Mount Polley mine disaster

[IamNotKenKing]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

You don't always need a majority share in order to have a controlling share.

True, but you need a majority share to have a majority share, and some were (at least one was) saying he had a majority share.
[See post #186]

[blender]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I think you all are blowing this out of proportion. The BC government isn't even calling it an environmental disaster.

"B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett says the Mount Polley tailings dam collapse is not an environmental disaster, equating it to the “thousands” of avalanches that happen annually in B.C."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mou...949/story.html

As always its media fear mongering when it comes to environmental debate.

BEST THREAD EVER ON CP!
So interesting to see how clueless people are about real life as opposed to just being clueless about hockey

[darthma]

This will have impacts of sockeye salmon.

This is the year that brood stock from the largest sockeye salmon run in recent history returns. For those of you that don't know, before 2010, sockeye salmon were facing a large decline. So much so that the federal government called a judicial inquiry on the matter - why are sockeye salmon doing so poorly? (Cohen Commission for those of you interested). Then in 2010 - BAM, huge sockeye salmon return.

This year the babies from that large sockeye salmon return are back. And that tailing pond goes into Quesnel Lake, which feeds Quesnel River, which goes into the Fraser River. The Fraser River is used by many (I think 70%?) of the salmon that return within BC. So... yes, it could have lasting impacts and really damage what might have been the sockeye salmon's last chance at really recovering.

Or maybe this is all just fear mongering?... lulz

[Roughneck]

Originally Posted by SebC

Is it known that he has a controlling share? Or are you just saying that it's possible?

It is definitely possible, so it is possible he has a controlling share. A lot of companies require 2/3 majorities so if there is anybody with 33.4% or more you need their support otherwise they can block any vote and therefore are considered to have control of the company.

Edwards has 36% of Imperial Metals so if they are one of these companies he would have that control. I mean the controlling shareholder could also get voted down every time but company voter turn out is generally similar to election voter turnout so it is unlikely. Now if two people each had a 1/3 share then things would get really crazy.


Anyway, that's really all I felt I could contribute to the discussion, bit I also didn't notice the aforementioned post saying he had a majority so really I'm just needlessly keeping this thread bumped.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Bandwagon In Flames

Rather then spend a bunch of time picking apart this post, I'm going to assume you simply misinterpreted the point Redlan was trying to make.

It was a factual post from someone in the industry trying to shed some light on the industry. I'd take that post 10 times out of 10 over the countless posts from uninformed posters trying to stir the pot.

Are you sure? The guys a biologist who worked for mining and oil and gas firms but criticized the OP for riding his bike because of the minnows on micro scale and suggesting the OP is somehow responsible for deforestation??

Now maybe I'm ill-informed, but I know bull#### when I smell it. This guy lies about being a biologist, or he's sold out. Habitat is impacted by human encroachment, but one of the founding movements of conservation (as indicated by the first American natural parks) was a result of promoting natural beauty, fostered by tourism and American literature at the time.

Moreover, the noise and fragmentation caused by oil and gas well pumps and pipelines have had a bigger negative impact per squared kilometre than tourism promoting healthy living and natural beauty. But I'm not paid by mining and oil & gas companies to smear my BSc all over their profit margins.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

Whoa, part of the problem? The biologist that has worked in both BC and Alberta, for governments and industry and who showed more insight into the issues in 6 sentences, than this site captured in 12 pages? I don't think so.
While you and the OP have every right to "fight", I would submit that Redlan is simply suggesting that you have a good idea as to whom you are fighting and what you are fighting for. The Flames? Industry? The government? The Flames seem completely misguided, but if it is industry and government, then it is best to understand what the regulations now say and whether Imperial followed said regulations before getting too carried away. Even the quote "one of the biggest environmental disasters in BC" has hardly been determined, based on initial water testing.

The environment is a motherhood issue: no one is against it, and everyone, including Edwards, government and industry, want a healthy sustainable environment. I know that is hard for some to believe, but a healthy community is important for a healthy business (and vice-versa).

Why don't you read all my posts in this thread rather than barely reading one. Industry is not concerned with the environment because it's driven by profit maximization. The Embridge pipeline, for example, had to choose a different route over its initial design because of the environmental risk. The initial route, however, was significantly cheaper. Externalities is exactly what it describes: outside the balance sheet. If the public have to worry about global warming while the CEO gets a significant bonus because the books are in the black, guess who decides to make the pollution some else's issue? Government realizes this an creates environmental regulations.

If industry doesn't have to concern themselves, they won't. 150 years of industrial history will demonstrate this.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I think you all are blowing this out of proportion. The BC government isn't even calling it an environmental disaster.

"B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett says the Mount Polley tailings dam collapse is not an environmental disaster, equating it to the “thousands” of avalanches that happen annually in B.C."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mou...949/story.html

As always its media fear mongering when it comes to environmental debate.

The mines minister is definitely an impartial voice.


Jeez hard to argue with someone comparing snow (water) to tailings sludge.


FYI, Fear mongering quote in that very same article:

John Werring, senior science adviser with the David Suzuki Foundation, said he believed the dam collapse was an “environmental disaster” for the Hazeltine creek area, as the entire rich vegetation zone along its banks had been wiped out and along with it, the mammals, birds, amphibians and fish.

[Red_Baron]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

But I'm not paid by mining and oil & gas companies to smear my BSc all over their profit margins.

Wow, new low for ignorance. In your one sided opinion I suppose you see no value in the various environmental programs that the government and industry undertake. Do you think it is just a free for all out there?
Without the scientists that smear their BSc all over their profit margins, things would be much worse out there.



awesome autocorrect malfunctions brought to you by tapatalk

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by darthma

This will have impacts of sockeye salmon.

This is the year that brood stock from the largest sockeye salmon run in recent history returns. For those of you that don't know, before 2010, sockeye salmon were facing a large decline. So much so that the federal government called a judicial inquiry on the matter - why are sockeye salmon doing so poorly? (Cohen Commission for those of you interested). Then in 2010 - BAM, huge sockeye salmon return.

This year the babies from that large sockeye salmon return are back. And that tailing pond goes into Quesnel Lake, which feeds Quesnel River, which goes into the Fraser River. The Fraser River is used by many (I think 70%?) of the salmon that return within BC. So... yes, it could have lasting impacts and really damage what might have been the sockeye salmon's last chance at really recovering.

Or maybe this is all just fear mongering?... lulz

This is a real concern. But I think they are still testing the waters and the full impact hasn't been determined. I don't really know much about metals tailings, but it might depend on the height/level of the breech as to how poor the water quality was? Like the whole theory of tailings is the worst parts settle out to the bottom and the water on top is cleaner-ish. So if the breech was near the top it might not be that bad? Could be wishful thinking on my part I guess. It would make sense that the breech is probably closer to the bottom because of the weight of the water. Anyways.

I'm surprised nobody has mentioned AMEC yet (the engineer of record for the dam). Or the engineering company who handled the dam prior to 2010, when AMEC took over.

I don't think there's much weight to campaign contributions and liberal support dating since 2012 from Edwards and Imperial Metals. The dam was designed and built long before that. And I think it takes a lot more than a few thousand bucks Christy Clark's way to get international and national dam engineering codes and standards "relaxed". If that even happened. Which would be easy enough to investigate with some googling but I don't particularly care to, because I doubt it did.

[cracher]

Originally Posted by Roughneck

It is definitely possible, so it is possible he has a controlling share. A lot of companies require 2/3 majorities so if there is anybody with 33.4% or more you need their support otherwise they can block any vote and therefore are considered to have control of the company.

Edwards has 36% of Imperial Metals so if they are one of these companies he would have that control. I mean the controlling shareholder could also get voted down every time but company voter turn out is generally similar to election voter turnout so it is unlikely. Now if two people each had a 1/3 share then things would get really crazy.


Anyway, that's really all I felt I could contribute to the discussion, bit I also didn't notice the aforementioned post saying he had a majority so really I'm just needlessly keeping this thread bumped.

It is possible for that 36% to be common non-voting shares? In which case, he has no control? (actually curious, I don't have a good grasp on this stuff at all).

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Red_Baron

Wow, new low for ignorance. In your one sided opinion I suppose you see no value in the various environmental programs that the government and industry undertake. Do you think it is just a free for all out there?
Without the scientists that smear their BSc all over their profit margins, things would be much worse out there.



awesome autocorrect malfunctions brought to you by tapatalk

Actually, I see value in it and I'm not one sided. The forestry industry is a prime example of utilizing science to help make their industry less harmful to the environment. FSC certified clear cutting now replicates natural forest fires quite closely and regrows everything chopped down.

But here's a guy with so much Big Oil propaganda driven up his rear that its now coming out of his mouth in the way of hating on a guy for biking as a means of transportation because he used a Mt. Seymour trail. While I have little doubt he was right about the negative impact of trails on a micro scale, I'm sure the OP didn't create the trails, especially when Mt. Seymour flat-out promotes biking the trails:

http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/bcparks/exp...gs/mt_seymour/

IMO, the OP has his priorities twisted and I've stated that earlier in this thread, but the guy is taking the time to write a letter rather than changing the channel and numbing himself of the issue. That's better than most.

Its far worse, IMO, for an actual professional to join the ranks of ######ed Willy Wonka posters and attack the OP for his passion when he should know where the battles are and lie. The Montaine Cordillera and Western Interior Basin are not home to a large percentage of at-risk species or even global percentage of biodiversity or phyla for that matter. Nor are mountain bikers even close to having the same impact as the mining sector on a global scale!

Hence why I question this "Biologists" credentials and motives. He should be divulging a lot more information about the impact of the mining and Oil & Gas sectors rather than focusing on bike riding in a Provincial Park. Every dollar from an enthusiast like the OP that goes towards the real issues is a dollar well spent.

I say let these guys soak it up and then rant about their silly ideas. As long as they stop having kids and donate their money.

[combustiblefuel]

Originally Posted by Weitz

I think you all are blowing this out of proportion. The BC government isn't even calling it an environmental disaster.

"B.C. Mines Minister Bill Bennett says the Mount Polley tailings dam collapse is not an environmental disaster, equating it to the “thousands” of avalanches that happen annually in B.C."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mou...949/story.html

As always its media fear mongering when it comes to environmental debate.

Im going to be this guy.

Your a ducking Idiot. If you think any of this is all fear mongering.

[Redlan]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

So you're a part of the problem but have the gully to call the OP a hypocrite. The guy is pissed off about one of the biggest environmental disasters in BC history. While I believe the stance he's taken will have minimal impact, the fight has to start somewhere. Now if every person were to rally behind him, it would be most likely that the Flames and Edwards would suffer more than Imperial, but shareholders have a responsibility to.

Originally Posted by MarkGio

I don't buy stocks in tobacco companies (as an example) and outfits that have an utter disregard for the planet.

Question my credentials all you want MarkGio, testing and asking questions is part of the scientific process. I am part of the solution. Have I cleaned-up tailing spills? Yes. Do I understand the issues and the consequences? Yes. I am very knowledgeable of the risks, issues and regulations/legislation (including the BC CSR, Mines Act, CCME and the Environment Canada Fisheries Act). I have not seen any water quality data but this could have been a lot worse had the mine been ARD generating, I do know that. From what I have read it is not one of the biggest environmental disasters in BC history. Do I have concerns? Sure I do, but I weigh these concerns against the facts and an understanding of water chemistry, biological systems and the industry. I get just as pissed off when an incident like this occurs as I would when I see ATVer’s cleaning off their quads in a stream, sure they are different magnitudes but it’s the same fundamental issue. The big difference is that one incident typically takes a catastrophic failure of many systems to occur while another is simple the choice of an individual. At the very least the continuous improvement of how tailing dams are managed will result from this incident (which is more than I can say about the recreational user). I have yet to deal with a company in western Canada that has an “utter disregard for the planet”. Some might be more competent than others but they all would like to be good corporate citizens, if not for the communities they live and work in, for their children, future generations and other stakeholders but also for the shareholders to which they are accountable to. In fact as a shareholder to a company you would have a vote and a voice on how these companies operate; a good reason to question the company on their policies and ethics. If that is still not enough you can take the profit you may or may not gain and invest or donate it to any non or not for profit company or organization you wish. I still do not understand how a tobacco company reference is relevant to an environmental discussion, having not worked in that industry.

I encourage you to continue to be passionate regarding the environment, but I also encourage you to make informed decisions and not blindly follow where that passion leads to an extreme.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Why don't you read all my posts in this thread rather than barely reading one. Industry is not concerned with the environment because it's driven by profit maximization. The Embridge pipeline, for example, had to choose a different route over its initial design because of the environmental risk. The initial route, however, was significantly cheaper. Externalities is exactly what it describes: outside the balance sheet. If the public have to worry about global warming while the CEO gets a significant bonus because the books are in the black, guess who decides to make the pollution some else's issue? Government realizes this an creates environmental regulations.

If industry doesn't have to concern themselves, they won't. 150 years of industrial history will demonstrate this.

I've read all of your posts on this topic, disagreed with most of them but only responded to this portion of the discussion because of what I see as an unwarranted personal attack of a poster. "This guy lies about being a biologist, or he's sold out". Nice. Call a guy a liar for expressing his views that differ from yours.

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Redlan

Question my credentials all you want MarkGio, testing and asking questions is part of the scientific process. I am part of the solution. Have I cleaned-up tailing spills? Yes. Do I understand the issues and the consequences? Yes. I am very knowledgeable of the risks, issues and regulations/legislation (including the BC CSR, Mines Act, CCME and the Environment Canada Fisheries Act). I have not seen any water quality data but this could have been a lot worse had the mine been ARD generating, I do know that. From what I have read it is not one of the biggest environmental disasters in BC history. Do I have concerns? Sure I do, but I weigh these concerns against the facts and an understanding of water chemistry, biological systems and the industry. I get just as pissed off when an incident like this occurs as I would when I see ATVer’s cleaning off their quads in a stream, sure they are different magnitudes but it’s the same fundamental issue. The big difference is that one incident typically takes a catastrophic failure of many systems to occur while another is simple the choice of an individual. At the very least the continuous improvement of how tailing dams are managed will result from this incident (which is more than I can say about the recreational user). I have yet to deal with a company in western Canada that has an “utter disregard for the planet”. Some might be more competent than others but they all would like to be good corporate citizens, if not for the communities they live and work in, for their children, future generations and other stakeholders but also for the shareholders to which they are accountable to. In fact as a shareholder to a company you would have a vote and a voice on how these companies operate; a good reason to question the company on their policies and ethics. If that is still not enough you can take the profit you may or may not gain and invest or donate it to any non or not for profit company or organization you wish. I still do not understand how a tobacco company reference is relevant to an environmental discussion, having not worked in that industry.

I encourage you to continue to be passionate regarding the environment, but I also encourage you to make informed decisions and not blindly follow where that passion leads to an extreme.

It's fairly common and well known. Painters and drywallers use garden hoses to clean off their tools and materials because home owners no longer dump it it in the drain. Mixer drivers clean concrete off their chutes in secluded fields because the city doesn't want them to dump in the manholes. Excavation makes for a good garbage because it's being back filled and nobody will ever know. Drilling mud pits now require fencing, leak detection and additional layers because of all the leaking and careless pits. Mechanics shops pressure washing the floor of all the oils and grease into the drain or ditch. Farmers and ranchers dumping their broken cars, tractors and building materials in a pile on their land.

Maybe you've been sheltered in Western Canada?

[MarkGio]

Originally Posted by Fighting Banana Slug

I've read all of your posts on this topic, disagreed with most of them but only responded to this portion of the discussion because of what I see as an unwarranted personal attack of a poster. "This guy lies about being a biologist, or he's sold out". Nice. Call a guy a liar for expressing his views that differ from yours.

What, people lie on the internet. That's well known.

I called him out and gave him an opportunity to prove his credentials. He's failed to do so. Are you that naive?

[driveway]

Originally Posted by SebC

Is it known that he has a controlling share? Or are you just saying that it's possible?

Edwards is identified by the Vancouver Observer as the controlling shareholder in this article.

http://ht.ly/Adx9V

The article also details Edwards' and Imperial Metals contributions to the BC Liberals, and it looks like a significant PR problem for both Edwards and Imperial Metals.

[BigFlameDog]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Jeez hard to argue with someone comparing snow (water) to tailings sludge.

I'm not picking a fight but I just wanted to point out what you probably already know....first there are a massive number of avalanches in the mountains that are mudslides and those snow base avalanches contain a heck of a lot of dirt, rock, minerals, trees, bear crap and whatever else they may pick up on the way down.

And almost all of those avalanches stop in a water basin.

[burn_this_city]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

Actually, I see value in it and I'm not one sided. The forestry industry is a prime example of utilizing science to help make their industry less harmful to the environment. FSC certified clear cutting now replicates natural forest fires quite closely and regrows everything chopped down.

Putting a certification on a clearcut doesn't mean jack #### when the forestry shell companies fake bankruptcy and shirk their replanting obligations. Which happens all the time in BC, with little to no monitoring or recourse. You're just another shill hocking your industry as being squeaky clean when its all differing shades of grey.

[Bandwagon In Flames]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

What, people lie on the internet. That's well known.

I called him out and gave him an opportunity to prove his credentials. He's failed to do so. Are you that naive?

Well then let me go ahead and call you out.

There seems to be nobody here who shares or values your opinion. You have 15+ posts in this thread and 0 thanked posts.

A good sign that it's time to sit a few plays out.