Dilemma: Supporting the Calgary Flames after Mount Polley mine disaster

[Goriders]

BC Mine
BC Employees
BC Regulator

Let's blame it on Alberta. Par for the course these days.

Bet there are more tailing ponds in BC than Alberta too due to mining. Funny how that never comes up in the media flogging.

[Goriders]

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?

Good job internet super sleuth.

Betting everyone on here would believe him over you.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by IamNotKenKing

WHAT?!?! But I thought it was the worst natural disaster in Canadian history, and was to turn Beautiful British Columbia into a post-apocalyptic wasteland, the likes of which have not been seen since Mad Max? Surely this cannot be!

AND it's Alberta's oil industries fault.

[Poe969]

Originally Posted by Goriders

AND it's Alberta's oil industries fault.

AND the Flames' fault!

[Hot_Flatus]

Originally Posted by LanceUppercut

Citation needed.

Plainly and overly obtuse of you to claim that citation is needed when all you have to do is actually read the news once in a while or maybe even go see for yourself....

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/na...481/story.html

As I said before, this has nothing to do with the Flames organization as the OP infers. This is a result of complete government neglect and mass indifference by the general population for decades. If broad regulations we set and enforced, all harvesting industry would be far more sustainable and in the long run more profitable for all.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Hot_Flatus

Plainly and overly obtuse of you to claim that citation is needed when all you have to do is actually read the news once in a while or maybe even go see for yourself....

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/na...481/story.html

As I said before, this has nothing to do with the Flames organization as the OP infers. This is a result of complete government neglect and mass indifference by the general population for decades. If broad regulations we set and enforced, all harvesting industry would be far more sustainable and in the long run more profitable for all.

Do you think Murray Edwards donates money to politicians and political parties who prioritize environmental policy and strengthening environmental regulations on mining and petroleum production?

[Enoch Root]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Do you think Murray Edwards donates money to politicians and political parties who prioritize environmental policy and strengthening environmental regulations on mining and petroleum production?

Do you believe that Murray Edwards can decide an election?

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by MarkGio

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?

I'm still trying to figure out which returning banned poster this is.

Any help?

[darthma]

Originally Posted by Peanut

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.

Yeah, I don't know what the impacts will be on salmon. The scope is large, but the severity is unknown. Redlan seems to have more experience with tailing ponds than me. But with sockeye and all the other fish that use the Fraser River (e.g. Chinook salmon), this could have impacts. The current belief for salmon fisheries biologists is that the first year in the marine habitat is the real driver for recent declines in salmon numbers, and strongly influence survival and ultimately stock productivity.

Anyway, there is a leap of logic in Thymebalm's argument that he shouldn't cheer for the Flames because one of the owners is involved in this disaster. For this to be logical, it would mean that the owner actually willed the tailing dam to fail (i.e., a direct link). As you pointed out, AMEC might be to blame too. Regulators, Policy makers, scientists... anyone that at any time had anything to do with this project could be to blame. The fact of the matter is, the only way to be 100% bullet proof against an accident like this is to not mine there in the first place. Fat chance.

It's nice that the topic has been brought to the forefront of this forum, but I do agree with many posters, Backcheck! in particular, that the finger pointing is really just finger pointing. There are many better avenues to pursue to help things. What's the most frustrating is that when disasters like this happen, it's always about who is to blame, and less about how we can fix it. I really wish these arguments were more solution-oriented.

I feel like it's the guy on the street corner trying to stop me to sign a petition for Greenpeace. Me - "No thanks"; Him - "What's the matter? Hate the environment?". I just walk away but sometimes wish that I could just say "if you really cared, go get a real job that influences the environment in a positive and meaningful way".

[the2bears]

Originally Posted by Enoch Root

Do you believe that Murray Edwards can decide an election?

I believe he has a lot more influence than you or I do (or would if I was in Canada).

[jayswin]

I'm still trying to figure out how Alberta and Albertan's keep getting called out and lambasted in this thread? It's baffling.

It would be like if two parents brought their kids into a room after an incident and said;

Okay Sara, you hit your brother and pulled his hair, then started kicking him.

Luke, what your sister did to you is what everyone expects you to do to her. How is this acceptable? Why do you think it's okay to hit people and pull their hair? Luke, we've been over this so many times and we're at our wits end. Got to your room, you're grounded for a week!".

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by Peanut

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.

The old engineering company, Knight Piésold Consulting, immediately distanced themselves from the project.

The CBC has an article on that here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...arge-1.2732314

"The original engineering done by Knight Piésold Ltd. accommodated a significantly lower water volume than the tailings storage facility reportedly held at the time of the breach," the company said in a statement posted Friday to its website.

...

Knight Piésold informed mine owners in a February 2011 letter it would not continue as the engineers of the tailings pond system, but its statement gave no reason why it made that decision.

In the letter, it noted, "The embankments and the overall tailings impoundment are getting large and it is extremely important that they be monitored, constructed and operated properly to prevent problems in the future."

Obviously KPC thought it was a safe bet to distance themselves from whatever the operating policy at that mine was.

As far as AMEC is concerned there is this article in the Financial Post:

Investigations at or near the dam breach at Mount Polley are prohibited because of safety concerns, said Amec Plc, the engineering company that has been working on the dam. Construction work was being undertaken to complete Amec’s design for the dam at the time of the accident, Lauren Gallagher, a spokeswoman for the London-based company, said yesterday in an e-mail.

...

Robertson said the pond and dam were operating within the parameters of the original design at the time of the accident.

“There’s a lot of speculation about what happened,” he said. “At this point we cannot speculate.”

Maybe nobody on the forum has addressed it specifically, but I sure hope you aren't using the posts here as your primary source of information. A quick google would get you what we know so far.

The old firm ditched the company with concerns, and the new firm is under the belief that the pond with within the parameters of the original design. The ministry of environment had warned Imperial Metals several times that their tailings were getting high, it is not known if AMEC, a firm based out of England, was aware of this when their statement was made.

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.v 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.

a few thousand? A million is a thousand thousand. And Edwards raised that for Clark in a single night. You can count a few on your hand, like "I just have to run to the store and grab a few things, you know, coffee, cigarettes, vaseline, and... something else, but I forget what." Unless you have a thousand fingers on your hand, that is the most obnoxious use of the word few I've read in a long time.

And you really should google it, because your gut-check was off on this one.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2014/08/09/Im...onetary-Gifts/

Inspections drop

For now, IntegrityBC's Travis argues that it is "incumbent" on the government to disclose all of its communications with Imperial Metals so the public can ensure there was no conflict of interest or regulatory favours -- particularly as the donations coincide with cuts to inspections over the years.

As The Tyee reported on Thursday, since the BC Liberals took office in 2001, mine inspections plummeted by nearly half in the province. In a 2010 internal memo, a senior environment ministry engineer warned that staff cuts would lead to "negative results, which in the field of dam safety are represented by dam failures," and called for increased funding and a more consistent approach to dam inspections, since the oversight of tailings impoundments is delegated to the mines ministry.

According to the Chief Inspector of Mines' annual reports, as the number of mine inspections dropped from 2,021 visits in 2001 to a decade-low of 309 in 2004, so too did the number of investigations pursued -- from 19 in 2001 to only three in 2004, an 84 per cent drop...

Next time, maybe just google it first. Because your ignorance is damaging an already tenuous debate at best.

...

A few personal updates:

1)I've decided to not contribute to the NHL or Calgary Flames financially for the time being. I have written a letter to them telling them so and explaining why I felt the need to do so. As others have suggested, I have addressed a similar version of the letter to Edwards himself.

2)For those of you who think my want for justice is misdirected, I won't say you are wrong. My assertion that Edwards should behave a certain way as an owner for the National Hockey League may not be justified. But when the league released the Sustainability Report that was a big deal to me. I thought, hey, the one sport I actually care about cares about me. They care about the place I grew up and they care about the planet we all share. I thought it was pretty damn cool that they were the first major sports league to address the climate this side of the pond. I'm just going to quote a chunk of it, because many of you may not have seen this report

For a number of years now, the League and our Clubs have been working together toward the common goal of greater sustainability. In 2010 we recognized that nearly all 30 of our Member Clubs and a significant number of our 700 players were already active in the pursuit of more sustainable business practices and environmentally-conscious lifestyles. NHL Green was our response to those efforts. The League then began to coordinate and focus all environmental efforts under the NHL shield, under one umbrella for the first time.

We believe that this effort is not only the right thing to do for the environment, but is also a core strategy for the long-term success of our League. We have a vested interest in this cause. As a business, we rely on freshwater to make our ice, on energy to fuel our operations and on healthy communities for our athletes, employees and fans to live, work and play. Moreover, to continue to stage world class outdoor hockey events like the NHL Winter Classic, NHL Heritage Classic or NHL Stadium Series, we need winter weather.

At the NHL, we recognize that we have great responsibility for the way we conduct our business. As our revenues, TV viewership and attendance continue to rise, we are acutely aware of our influence on culture and society, especially with today's youth. We have the power to promote, develop and support positive change.

3) I'm sticking around. (Unless I find out Bingo has the controlling shares in GoldCorp, that is...) And not just to talk envirolitics. I'm not ready to contribute to any Flames stuff, but I'm not going anywhere either. I guess I may have to start using that Off Topic forum after all. In fact, I would be more than fine if this topic made it was over there as well.

4) There was something else, but I forgot.

[Peanut]

Government inspections are not the same as national and international engineering design standards and codes. My point was that I doubted the campaign contributions had any influence on engineering design standards and codes. Presumably the dam was designed to comply with engineering standards and codes originally by KPC, back in the 2000's or whenever it was.

I don't know what your point is about AMEC and Knight Piesold regarding my comment? I read both those articles before I saw this thread on CP. Obviously CP is not my source of info, since nobody was even talking about AMEC or KPC in this thread. I said I was surprised that nobody else was discussing the role of the engineer of record in this incident. They would seem, to me, to have much more influence over the design of the dam than Murray Edwards.

And it sort of gets my back up that you're calling me ignorant, while posting photos of yourself hoisting your bike at the top of Mount Seymour as a testament to your environment loving ways.

[thymebalm]

Originally Posted by Peanut

And it sort of gets my back up that you're calling me ignorant, while posting photos of yourself hoisting your bike at the top of Mount Seymour as a testament to your environment loving ways.

If you think biking in nature isn't loving the environment, I can't help you. If you were worried about the tadpoles, it's a road bike.

[Peanut]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

If you think biking in nature isn't loving the environment, I can't help you. If you were worried about the tadpoles, it's a road bike.

What is your problem? I'm not even addressing your assertion about forsaking the Flames and Murray Edwards in my posts. I agree this is an environmental disaster. I was talking about the implications to the salmon run - it's a big deal. I was musing why people, here, on CP, weren't talking about the engineer of record. The engineering company that, regardless of campaign donations between Murray Edwards and imperial metals and the Liberals, should have designed a dam properly.

Jesus man. I'm on your side. Back off.

And as the other biologist pointed out earlier, the existence of Mount Seymour as a recreational area is not without it environmental impacts. Are they the same impacts as a metals mine, even without a tailings breech? Likely not. But there are still impacts nonetheless.

[Flame On]

Wow quite the read.
I will preface this by saying I believe in global climate change and dislike the petroleum industry and corporations in general. I hate the Conservative party and the PM in particular. But I love Alberta and the Flames.

What I dislike is the lightning rod that Alberta seems to have become that allows all other issues to be swept under the carpet by those in other provinces. Much of the time BCers who seem to be very hypocritical.

There are countless toxic ocean farm fisheries, clear cutting of forests, even the forests leading up to cathedral old growth protected areas which it was deemed would harm them by cutting off their habitat avenues. Millions of gallons of waste is pumped into the ocean and while the stampede routinely gets BC people chaining themselves to the rodeo, where is the similar outrage from within their own province for a history of kidnapping orcas or beluga whales in family pods in the wild and putting them in entertainment venues?

Then there's the Imperial Metal spill. BC governments have to approve the industry in their province, and the workers that are employed there are probably mostly from BC. But somehow its all the fault of an Albertan business man that has 36 percent of the company.

Maybe instead of shrieking at the Flames for the tailings breach you should point your ire at the BC provincial government. Or better yet, continue being a Flames fan and try to contact Mr. Edwards with a view to get his opinion and assurances they are trying to rectify and insure the situation never happens again.

I bet there is some Canuck money in those industries, eww dirty Canucks. We're all happy if you want to blame them!

[dino7c]

people don't get rich hugging trees, anyone with enough money to own an NHL team would likely be dealing in something you don't agree with considering that is pretty much everything.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Peanut

Government inspections are not the same as national and international engineering design standards and codes. My point was that I doubted the campaign contributions had any influence on engineering design standards and codes. Presumably the dam was designed to comply with engineering standards and codes originally by KPC, back in the 2000's or whenever it was.

I don't know what your point is about AMEC and Knight Piesold regarding my comment? I read both those articles before I saw this thread on CP. Obviously CP is not my source of info, since nobody was even talking about AMEC or KPC in this thread. I said I was surprised that nobody else was discussing the role of the engineer of record in this incident. They would seem, to me, to have much more influence over the design of the dam than Murray Edwards.

And it sort of gets my back up that you're calling me ignorant, while posting photos of yourself hoisting your bike at the top of Mount Seymour as a testament to your environment loving ways.

When you see companies donating large sums of money to the government, can you really trust the government to work for you? Do you really think they don't change regulations, policies, codes, and whatever else they feel is impeding them in any way?

Many of us here - heck, even Mayor Nenshi - looked down on the whole "Occupy Wallstreet" because most of us just saw these people as radicals, losers and 'hippies'. "Go get a job!", blah blah. That is what many people here in Calgary thought. Who here decided to investigate why this movement was so important? Where it came from? Why were these people protesting all over the world suddenly?

There was a very fantastic example of why they were doing it in the States (forget where exactly). The protestors were exercising their right to protest peacefully (one of the rights in the US constitution). They were pepper sprayed by the police. Why? The police actually had no right to do this apparently. Do you see the rights and freedoms - democracy itself - failing? Why are so many against multinational companies? Globalization? It has lots more to do than just 'our jobs' going somewhere else.

When private enterprise is donating huge sums of money to government, why on Earth do you think they do that? What are the motives for this? What does this do in the long run?

Could it just be that it is an attempt to influence the government? That you, me and Joe Blow no longer have a real vote and a real say in who runs this country, and how they should do it? Our rights and freedoms become eroded more and more, and democracy does indeed start failing. We stop having a 'choice' in government. Why? Because they all accept huge campaign contributions, and in the end, the huge companies get what they are after. Media Lens did a fairly large-scale phone survey where they called households in the UK (they operate in the UK). They asked them what they wanted to see in a campaign platform, what they felt was important, and were asked for 5 or 10 things. None of the politicians campaigning had 2 of the top 3 or 4 items in their campaigns (one included Iraq, I believe). So how is it that a democratic government who is supposed to be representative and responsible for 'our needs' not include exactly what the majority of people want? Their point is that democracy is failing, and there really isn't a 'choice' any longer in who represents us, or what they campaign for.

Also, you have to look at what has been historically the 'government critics' - the media. They used to be this voice for the people. Who owns them now? These same companies that spend all this money influencing the government. Now they get to write the stories (or stop them from being written) that they feel should be part of influencing the masses.

Remember when the UN told the USA NOT to invade Iraq? Why was it done again? I will never forget the CNN correspondent cutting off and 'correcting' the Al Jazeera correspondent when he called it the "Invasion of Iraq", instead of the "Liberation of Iraq". The UN did not call it a liberation. The people of Iraq - even though they had a terrible dictator (who was put into power by whom again? and why again?) - didn't call it a liberation. You can call it a genocide (just look up uranium-tipped weapons and Fallujah - illegal under international law). However, how many media services pick up on this? Zero from the west. What does this tell you?

So, if you don't think these large companies influence government in changing codes and standards - engineering or not - that they state are too 'rigorous, extreme and costly', then I guess absolutely nothing happened at Mount Polley except a total and unavoidable accident that will never happen again, and the real villain here is indeed Thymebalm riding his evil mountain bike in the wilderness.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

...So, if you don't think these large companies influence government in changing codes and standards - engineering or not - that they state are too 'rigorous, extreme and costly', then I guess absolutely nothing happened at Mount Polley except a total and unavoidable accident that will never happen again, and the real villain here is indeed Thymebalm riding his evil mountain bike in the wilderness.

It is entirely possible that codes and standards were not altered, and that the disaster at Mount Polley was unavoidable, no? Based on Peanut's very tempered and rational response, it seems to me that there probably is not a connection to be had between campaign contributions made by Edwards et al. to the BC liberals and what happened at Mount Polley, and that is kind of the point. There are two very important things to keep in mind here in this whole discussion:

1) We don't know yet based on the available information the precise cause of the breach, and by way of extension, we also don't know who is ultimately the most culpable.

2) Businesses make political contributions, but this bit of information on its own in no way confirms the impact on specific regulatory bodies and codes. At this point we have absolutely no idea what Edwards "bought" with his contribution to the BC liberals, but it would seem to have nothing to do with regulations and codes for tailings ponds, which Peanut says were put in place in 2000.

Unless you have some kind of proof to make the connections between one and the other, it's a moot point in this discussion.

[kremb]

Maybe this might help reveal something? I like how you get to the bottom of things TC

http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion...utor-1.1307904