Dilemma: Supporting the Calgary Flames after Mount Polley mine disaster

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by 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

Thanks. That is interesting, but I'm not sure it does much to address the matter of culpability in this specific case. Correlation does not equal causation, but it would depending upon the answers to the following questions:

· What caused the breach in the Mount Polley mine tailings pond, and was this a direct result of changes made to design standards and codes?
· As near as I can tell, Edwards' contributions could potentially be tied to a change in the development standards that occurred in 2012 for the approval of new mining operations that once took 10 years to as little as three years. Did these changes have a direct impact on the Mount Polley mine, and on the construction and containment procedures for the tailings pond?

It is still a massive reach to connect one event to the other. I agree that Imperial Metals bears an enormous responsibility for the pond breach and the cleanup to follow; I agree that they should also be fined, and that the hopeful result in all of this will be improved industry standards.

What I take issue with is the unsubstantiated notion that the breach was the result of malicious and wilfully ignorant attempts on the part of the mine owners to sidestep regulatory standards in an effort to reduce their operating costs. I take issue with the excessively emotional reactions by some in this thread that have produced irrational attempts to level blame. I take issue with the attempt by some (I'm looking at MarkGio here) to stereotype other posters on the basis of their hesitancy to join the lynch mob, and by extension to shut down what I perceive to be an eminently applicable line of questioning.

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

I doubt the dirt and rocks checked the contribution list before moving a few 100 meters.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

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.

You are 100% absolutely right, and until we know, we simply don't know. We still have to assume that people are innocent until proven guilty.

My posts (except with a bit of a cheap-shot at the end of the last one) was more directed to what goes on in general. Reading a lot of posts, people seem to defend these big companies and say they have our best interests at heart. They quite often have the opposite in mind, unfortunately.

Is Edwards guilty in some way? At the start of this thread, I was 100% thinking that Thymebalm was just assigning blame haphazardly. Really felt that Edwards just happened to be the wrong shareholder at the wrong time, so to speak. However, with more things coming out in the media about his political contributions, it does make me wonder. Certainly casts a shade of grey over him, in my opinion. However, this does NOT prove he is guilty, and there should be no lynch mob yet. Could be unrelated.

However, just as we should not go around and being so quick to condemn and assign blame, we should also not be so quick to bury our heads in the sand and assume that these large companies have our best interests at heart, and that these large companies donate huge sums of money just because they like to. History does show that they are essentially influencing (or trying to influence) government.

Many posters here do seem to think that these companies do have our best interests at heart, the best interests of other people in other areas of the world, and the best interests of the environment. That is (unfortunately) often very far from the truth, and that was where my posts were really more directed at - generally at what often happens. I (nor anyone else) know enough about this particular incident to know one way or another. Those contributions definitely don't look good at the moment, but it does not prove anything one way or another.

[Enoch Root]

^ Exactly. (Edit: referencing fotse's post)

Far more likely to think that any 'lobbying' would be on financial issues (like getting exemption from HST or things of that nature).

[Enoch Root]

On a side note, I always find it fascinating that people are outraged at the lobbyers who try to influence politicians.

Not that I condone the behaviour (because I don't) but I simply see them as pursuing their own interests.

To me, the crime is in the behaviour of the politician. It is they who are betraying the taxpayer and their appointed position.

All of this outcry towards Edwards should be directed at the BC government not at him, IMO.

[longsuffering]

Originally Posted by thymebalm

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

Originally Posted by thymebalm

)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.

Originally Posted by thymebalm

)For those of you who think my want for justice is misdirected, I won't say you are wrong.

Yet that's exactly what you're implying.

What a relief you're sticking around. There's a shortage of self-righteous environmentalists on this board.

The truth is that the facts are far from in but that hasn't stopped you from assigning guilt to Edwards. You're one step from accusing him, personally, of being criminally negligent and the direct cause of the disaster.

[Shawnski]

This isn't the first time Knight Piesold has had an incident after handing over control to another firm and after warnings about capacity issues.

Knight Piésold says that it wrote the B.C. government in 2010, just before leaving the operation, to warn that “the embankments and the overall tailings impoundment are getting large and it is extremely important that they be monitored, constructed and operate properly to prevent problems in the future.”

The B.C. government says it inspected the dam 33 times after Knight Piésold raised its concerns, including a geotechnical survey in 2013 and eight inspections in 2014.

This would mean that any modifications to structure, volume or operation in the three years before the dam’s collapse occurred under the regulatory oversight of the provincial Mines Ministry.

Vancouver Sun story...



So,

[Goriders]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

You are 100% absolutely right, and until we know, we simply don't know. We still have to assume that people are innocent until proven guilty.

My posts (except with a bit of a cheap-shot at the end of the last one) was more directed to what goes on in general. Reading a lot of posts, people seem to defend these big companies and say they have our best interests at heart. They quite often have the opposite in mind, unfortunately.

Is Edwards guilty in some way? At the start of this thread, I was 100% thinking that Thymebalm was just assigning blame haphazardly. Really felt that Edwards just happened to be the wrong shareholder at the wrong time, so to speak. However, with more things coming out in the media about his political contributions, it does make me wonder. Certainly casts a shade of grey over him, in my opinion. However, this does NOT prove he is guilty, and there should be no lynch mob yet. Could be unrelated.

However, just as we should not go around and being so quick to condemn and assign blame, we should also not be so quick to bury our heads in the sand and assume that these large companies have our best interests at heart, and that these large companies donate huge sums of money just because they like to. History does show that they are essentially influencing (or trying to influence) government.

Many posters here do seem to think that these companies do have our best interests at heart, the best interests of other people in other areas of the world, and the best interests of the environment. That is (unfortunately) often very far from the truth, and that was where my posts were really more directed at - generally at what often happens. I (nor anyone else) know enough about this particular incident to know one way or another. Those contributions definitely don't look good at the moment, but it does not prove anything one way or another.

So you're saying environmental NGOs don't try to influence government or the media?

Whoops. I almost puked.

[BACKCHECK!!!]

Originally Posted by Shawnski

This isn't the first time Knight Piesold has had an incident after handing over control to another firm and after warnings about capacity issues.



Vancouver Sun story...



So,

Somebody better tell the NHL head office about that quick, before they do something drastic in response to Thymebalm's letter!

[Erick Estrada]

I'll be honest in that I read a bit of the first page and quit because I knew well where this thread was going and a week later reading the last page just reaffirmed. Has Murray Edwards master plan to destroy British Columbia been unearthed by a parent's basement based environmental committee?

[Cleveland Steam Whistle]

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.

How does biking in nature have anything to do with loving in the environment? You could bike in nature and not give two ####s about the environment, just as you could barely wander outside and have great concern about it.

While I agree, I'd like to think that people who get out and enjoy the outdoors (in whatever fashion) would hopefully have a larger concern in preserving their playground, they really don't have a direct correlation at all.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by fotze

I am trying to wrap my head around a scenario where Edwards lobbied for loosening design criteria for mine construction and in particular the walls. I can't come up with a scenario that isn't completely outlandish.

Its like Edwards lobbying the AER to not require casing on oil wells. You would never not case a well. Or a structural engineer not using rebar in concrete because the rules say you do not need to. Just ludicrous to even consider.

90% of standards/regulations are things that are just good business practice and the regulation will actually refer to the design standard not set the standard itself.

If you accept that mine wall standards were relaxed due to lobbying, Imperial mines sure won there eh?

If he was to lobby he would need to lobby the technical organization that sets the standard.

It's actually quite easy to imagine a scenario where the government, prompted by documented warning by the previous owners, contemplated tightening regulations that might have resulted in extra cost to bring the mine in line. Wealthy contributor uses his influence to get the changes scrapped.

It's also not hard to imagine the company found certain provisions of the current act to be onerous - like maybe how often they needed to do inspections or file reports or whatever and lobbied to get them relaxed.

In both cases they would argue it's unnecessary red tape and adds to their costs. In no way would they be deliberately wanting to cause spills like this but there's no question that less oversight is better for business.

Note I used the word 'imagine' here as I have just made up these scenarios - not suggesting either happened. Just helping Fotze wrap his head around some alternatives.

[Calgary4LIfe]

Originally Posted by Goriders

So you're saying environmental NGOs don't try to influence government or the media?

Whoops. I almost puked.

Did I say they don't? Once?

What they don't do is anything remotely close to the examples I have provided. Feel free to go through any materials you wish and post up articles about environment groups removing the rights and freedoms of others, and being responsible for the murder of millions and millions though. You are really reaching with your comment.

As for your last comment.. go ahead.. all over yourself.

[Fighting Banana Slug]

Originally Posted by Calgary4LIfe

Did I say they don't? Once?

What they don't do is anything remotely close to the examples I have provided. Feel free to go through any materials you wish and post up articles about environment groups removing the rights and freedoms of others, and being responsible for the murder of millions and millions though. You are really reaching with your comment.

As for your last comment.. go ahead.. all over yourself.

This really needs to be moved to off topic. Last I recall, the Flames are not involved in genocide, but it has been a long off season.

[Erick Estrada]

Agreed. This thread has nothing to do with the Calgary Flames hockey club. If the OP wants to make some political stance against one of the owners that's fine but please put the thread where it belongs.