Mount Polley mine tailings pond breach: full water ban in pl
Goober911 @ Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:07 pm
jj2424 jj2424:
Goober911 Goober911:
jj2424 jj2424:
Drink up BC! Land of the hypocrites! Always pointing the finger at Alberta.
Well we ain't innocent either now are we.
https://www.google.ca/search?q=tailings ... 33&bih=616
http://osqar.suncor.com/2014/03/tailing ... de-of.html
Tailings ponds attract a lot of attention because there is currently about 77 square kilometres of oil sands tailings pond water in Alberta, according to the Government of Alberta.
So while most people have heard of tailings ponds and seen photos, few know what purpose they serve and what the ponds actually contain.
https://www.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8& ... dg=feature
oooooh aren't we just Mr Information
![[BF]](./images/smilies/00001656.gif "Banana Fuck")
Well I do prefer a good discussion. That is my failing. I will try to work on that.
OK- Tried, ain't gonna change.
Hyack @ Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:24 pm
Goober911 Goober911:
Well I do prefer a good discussion. That is my failing. I will try to work on that.
OK- Tried, ain't gonna change.
OK- Tried, ain't gonna change.
Not really a good place to start looking for a good discussion unless you're into personal attacks and other.........."subjects"(?).....
Goober911 @ Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:34 pm
Hyack Hyack:
Goober911 Goober911:
Well I do prefer a good discussion. That is my failing. I will try to work on that.
OK- Tried, ain't gonna change.
OK- Tried, ain't gonna change.
Not really a good place to start looking for a good discussion unless you're into personal attacks and other.........."subjects"(?).....
Oh I have screwed up, and apologized.
I do enjoy this board but still screw up on the quotes.
I need to work on that.
here is a photo of the possible contamination.
Now the questions rises sharply how many others can/could be a threat to safe water?
Gunnair @ Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:36 pm
Hyack Hyack:
Goober911 Goober911:
Well I do prefer a good discussion. That is my failing. I will try to work on that.
OK- Tried, ain't gonna change.
OK- Tried, ain't gonna change.
Not really a good place to start looking for a good discussion unless you're into personal attacks and other.........."subjects"(?).....
It sure could be...
raydan @ Tue Aug 05, 2014 5:45 pm
$1:
Modern day mines, particularly in jurisdictions with well-developed mining regulations or operated by responsible mining companies, often incorporate the rehabilitation and proper closure of tailings areas in the mining costs and activities. For example, the province of Quebec, Canada, requires not only submission of closure plan before the start of mining activity, but also the deposit of a financial guarantee equal to 100% of the estimated rehabilitation costs. Tailings dams are often the most significant environmental liability for a mining project.
Did not know that they had this requirement in Québec.
Strutz @ Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:49 am
andyt andyt:
So the mine had asked for permission to gradually drain the pond into the watershed because they recognized that raising the dam and keep filling the pond wasn't going to work forever. How about instead of relying on slowly draining poison into a pristine water system, you build the mine in such a way that the tailings are stored somewhere safely, and if that's not economically feasible you don't build the mine. The usual privatize the profits, socialize the losses bullshit.
Agreed.
I just don't understand why it was thought that slowly releasing this shit would be "better" than the risk of a major release, which is what happened. It still comes down to intentional harm on the environment with no regard whatsoever on the impact it would have.
Goober911 @ Wed Aug 06, 2014 4:31 pm
Strutz Strutz:
andyt andyt:
So the mine had asked for permission to gradually drain the pond into the watershed because they recognized that raising the dam and keep filling the pond wasn't going to work forever. How about instead of relying on slowly draining poison into a pristine water system, you build the mine in such a way that the tailings are stored somewhere safely, and if that's not economically feasible you don't build the mine. The usual privatize the profits, socialize the losses bullshit.
Agreed.
I just don't understand why it was thought that slowly releasing this shit would be "better" than the risk of a major release, which is what happened. It still comes down to intentional harm on the environment with no regard whatsoever on the impact it would have.
And this raises the question of why the Harper Govt has capped liability for oil spills at 1 Billion.
Look at BP and the Gulf fiasco.
saturn_656 @ Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:23 pm
Check this out. 
andyt @ Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:46 pm
Goober911 Goober911:
Strutz Strutz:
andyt andyt:
So the mine had asked for permission to gradually drain the pond into the watershed because they recognized that raising the dam and keep filling the pond wasn't going to work forever. How about instead of relying on slowly draining poison into a pristine water system, you build the mine in such a way that the tailings are stored somewhere safely, and if that's not economically feasible you don't build the mine. The usual privatize the profits, socialize the losses bullshit.
Agreed.
I just don't understand why it was thought that slowly releasing this shit would be "better" than the risk of a major release, which is what happened. It still comes down to intentional harm on the environment with no regard whatsoever on the impact it would have.
And this raises the question of why the Harper Govt has capped liability for oil spills at 1 Billion.
Look at BP and the Gulf fiasco.
Agreed. There should be no cap on liablility, and a mechanism in place that the company can't hide it's assets and claim to be broke. I'm sick and tired of companies making a good profit and then being able to transfer the costs when something goes wrong on to the taxpayer.
andyt @ Wed Aug 06, 2014 5:53 pm
http://www.vancouversun.com/Stephen+Hum ... story.html
$1:
Blame the provincial government for the toxic mine spill
The visceral, knee-jerk reaction is to point the finger of blame squarely at industry. And industry should be held accountable.
But the buck really stops with the province, which is responsible for the regulatory culture — or lack thereof — that permits catastrophes like this to happen repeatedly....
The University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre warned in 2012 that environmental assessment certificates for mines issued by government are often “vague and unenforceable.”
It said that by 2008 the number of mine inspections had fallen to half what they were in 2001. Small wonder — Ministry of Environment staff shrank by 25 per cent. The chief mining inspector said he had insufficient staff to complete the annual mine monitoring reports required.
“This ramshackle enforcement regime is not good enough for an industry that can create environmental and financial catastrophes,” the study said....
And who’s on the hook such environmental disasters, all of which appear to come from lax government regulation and enforcement? Why, often it’s the taxpayers, the very folk whom government says it helps by reducing tax burdens through environmental budget cuts....
The visceral, knee-jerk reaction is to point the finger of blame squarely at industry. And industry should be held accountable.
But the buck really stops with the province, which is responsible for the regulatory culture — or lack thereof — that permits catastrophes like this to happen repeatedly....
The University of Victoria’s Environmental Law Centre warned in 2012 that environmental assessment certificates for mines issued by government are often “vague and unenforceable.”
It said that by 2008 the number of mine inspections had fallen to half what they were in 2001. Small wonder — Ministry of Environment staff shrank by 25 per cent. The chief mining inspector said he had insufficient staff to complete the annual mine monitoring reports required.
“This ramshackle enforcement regime is not good enough for an industry that can create environmental and financial catastrophes,” the study said....
And who’s on the hook such environmental disasters, all of which appear to come from lax government regulation and enforcement? Why, often it’s the taxpayers, the very folk whom government says it helps by reducing tax burdens through environmental budget cuts....
For all the Harper lovers out there, who get confused when they hear BC Liberals, this is exactly the same game the Feds play. Maybe enact some tough laws, but then keep cutting back on enforcement staff, and scientific staff so that the regs are meaningless. All in the glorified name of balancing the budget. Gambling with people's lives. Stupid.
herbie @ Wed Aug 06, 2014 6:02 pm
They'd be slowly releasing the water. Not the sludge.
Which would get greatly diluted instead of a gush of poisonous shit all at once at the worst time possible (the salmon run is on).
Now they'll have to swim all the way in water that's more polluted and its overly warm and spawn in the beds where that sludge is deposited.
And this is why the Prosperity mine was not approved TWICE.
Goober911 @ Sat Aug 09, 2014 5:50 pm
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.2732314
Knight Piésold Consulting, whose engineers had designed the Mount Polley tailings pond containment system, says the Vancouver company had warned mine owners in 2011 that the containment pond was "getting large."
"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.
The company says significant engineering and design changes were made subsequent to its involvement, and it has no knowledge of and cannot comment on the current design.
Gerald MacBurney, a former foreman who worked on the tailings pond, says he had warned of a disaster in the making for two years. He said management kept building the dam higher but ignored his requests to shore up the dam with enough rock to make it safe.