 No charges to be laid in duck deaths on oilsands tailings pond The government says there won't be any charges against two oilsands companies that own tailings ponds in northern Alberta where hundreds of ducks died two years ago.Commentsview comments in forum Page 1 2 You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Weather killed those ducks? Maybe. But I wouldn't put money on it.
Emphasis on the unbelievably part.
What bullshit......
Sounds like unbelievably bad luck, a wheather phenomenon killing a bunch of ducks over top of your tailings pond.
Emphasis on the unbelievably part.
Known fact: Birds can't fly in freezing rain.
Known fact: Birds will ignore loud warning noises and land on tailings ponds, especially when there is a light on the pond.
Known fact: Tailings ponds kill birds.
What's so unbelievable?
And your friends are full of shit, in regards to your first post.
This won't do much for their credibility.
If they were killed by the bitumen as opposed to the storm, as the article seems to imply (as the ducks had to be detsoryed after teh storm), then I think the company should have been charged.
This won't do much for their credibility.
What about all those birds who crashed into parking lots? Who's credibility is lost there? Who is to blame?
Why would a company be to blame for that? As the U of A Researcher said, it's a natural migratory response.
http://www.cbc.ca/edmontonam/episodes/2 ... ngs-ponds/
If they were killed by the bitumen as opposed to the storm, as the article seems to imply (as the ducks had to be detsoryed after teh storm), then I think the company should have been charged.
What for? They did everything reasonably possible (and I would say a lot more than what I'd call reasonable for some birds) to protect them.
Why are they to be charged? More birds die from hitting buildings and glass than could ever die in tailing ponds. Should be be charging building owners for the bird deaths?
Deaths due to weather? Never been, but buddies that have worked there say there is no cleaning up that mess. A tailings pond was drescribed to me as a high fence, a really high berm, then another high fence on top of the berm. All this is monitored and guarded. If you see a bird fly over the pond, it doesn't make it far. Collapses and falls. This is all according to a couple of guys I know that have worked there.
What? The ponds are some sort of death zones now?
I think you need to think a bit more criticaly about what people tell you.
Also you should tell your buddies that not only is it possible to clean it up, it's already happened in some of the locations.
If they were killed by the bitumen as opposed to the storm, as the article seems to imply (as the ducks had to be destroyed after the storm), then I think the company should have been charged.
This won't do much for their credibility.
What about all those birds who crashed into parking lots? Who's credibility is lost there? Who is to blame?
Why would a company be to blame for that? As the U of A Researcher said, it's a natural migratory response.
http://www.cbc.ca/edmontonam/episodes/2 ... ngs-ponds/
Presumably the birds that landed in the water survived, since they apparently had to be destroyed post facto due to oiling. So I think it's pretty clear that this was not a natural migratory response. This is the statement that I think will hurt the oil patch's credibility since it is such uadulteratesd BS.
The subsidiary--much more reasonable argument--put forth was that there is nothing the companies could have reasonably done to prevent this. The corroloraly here is that it is not reasonable to expect the companies to maintain their tailings in a non-acutely lethal state. I disagree, personally, but not sure about the engineering challenges invovled in making sure tailings areas are not instantly lethal to birds.
Interestingly, the biologist cited by the article from U of A disagrees with you on the effectiveness of acoustic deterrance (bird scare). I don't like her though. She spends a lot of time speculating.
What for? They did everything reasonably possible (and I would say a lot more than what I'd call reasonable for some birds) to protect them.
Why are they to be charged? More birds die from hitting buildings and glass than could ever die in tailing ponds. Should be be charging building owners for the bird deaths?
They should be charged because, in my opinion, the surface of tailings ponds should not be acutely toxic to birds. Clearly the Alberta authorities disagreed.
I think their credibility issue isn't so much in that statement as in the ridiculous notion that the primary cuase of death for the birds that had to put down was due to weather. The birds had to be destroyed becasue they were oiled. Greenwashing isn't going to help their PR intiative for the oil ands, in my opinion.
If they were killed by the bitumen as opposed to the storm, as the article seems to imply (as the ducks had to be destroyed after the storm), then I think the company should have been charged.
This won't do much for their credibility.
What about all those birds who crashed into parking lots? Who's credibility is lost there? Who is to blame?
Why would a company be to blame for that? As the U of A Researcher said, it's a natural migratory response.
http://www.cbc.ca/edmontonam/episodes/2 ... ngs-ponds/
Presumably the birds that landed in the water survived, since they apparently had to be destroyed post facto due to oiling. So I think it's pretty clear that this was not a natural migratory response. This is the statement that I think will hurt the oil patch's credibility since it is such uadulteratesd BS.
You would be wrong, that it's not a natural response. Listen to the link - it's a radio interview with that same researcher. Very enlightening.
And why would an independent opinion from a U of A Biologist hurt the Oilpatches credibility?
What for? They did everything reasonably possible (and I would say a lot more than what I'd call reasonable for some birds) to protect them.
Why are they to be charged? More birds die from hitting buildings and glass than could ever die in tailing ponds. Should be be charging building owners for the bird deaths?
They should be charged because, in my opinion, the surface of tailings ponds should not be acutely toxic to birds. Clearly the Alberta authorities disagreed.
I think their credibility issue isn't so much in that statement as in the ridiculous notion that the primary cuase of death for the birds that had to put down was due to weather. The birds had to be destroyed becasue they were oiled. Greenwashing isn't going to help their PR intiative for the oil ands, in my opinion.
They were olied because they landed on the taiings pond; something they would not normally have done if it were not for the weather. The ones who crash landed in parkng lots and died, was that because of the tailings ponds?
You would be wrong, that it's not a natural response. Listen to the link - it's a radio interview with that same researcher. Very enlightening.
And why would an independent opinion from a U of A Biologist hurt the Oilpatches credibility?
I listened to it. I didn't find her argument all that convincing. I don't know the full story, but it sounds as if the birds were still alive after the storm, and had to put down due to oiling. If that's not the case, I stand corrected. If it is the case, then I maintain that death by oiling in a man-made toxic lake is not natural.
To answer your second question--that expert opinion informed the prosecutor's office, as I understand it. It sounds to me as if the deaths of a few hundred birds on the tailings is "a cost of doing business." That will be a hard sell, I think. It is to me, anyway.