On 8/10/2014 4:25 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/9/2014 10:32 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "graham" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 09/08/2014 9:05 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eleven of the world's top 25 ecological disasters!
>>>>>>>> Talk about crappy.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nobody is bragging. The 2010 rupture in the Kalamazoo river of a
>>>>>>> pipeline (operated by Enbridge, Inc.) that transports Canadian crude
>>>>>>> oil is still being cleaned up. http://www.epa.gov/enbridgespill/
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Let us know when you curb your thirst for Canadian oil and gas and we
>>>>>> will
>>>>>> stop shipping it to you though those pipes.... built by American
>>>>>> contractors.
>>>>>
>>>>> We don't use your crude. And it isn't crude, it is bitumen which is
>>>>> coal
>>>>> tar.
>>>> What? Christ you're pig ignorant!
>>>
>>> Not at all. I am highly informed.
>>>
>>>> It is sent to Texas where it is shipped to China which buys all of it.
>>>>> We Americans get nothing for it.
>>>>
>>>> NO! It's to replace Venezuelan heavy oil!
>>>>
>>>
>>> No it is not. China owns the contract for that stuff for 5 years. It is
>>> extremely difficult to refine and expensive and we do not use it. We
>>> have
>>> only 2 refineries that can even possibly refine the stuff. The Chinese
>>> burn
>>> it raw which is why you cannot see three feet in front of you in Beijing.
>>> The KXL is just a conduit to get the crude to a convenient port. We get
>>> all
>>> the risk and none of the gain.
>>
>> No American construction jobs?
>>
>> No tax revenues in local communities?
>>
>> No profits made by American refiners?
>>
>> Seriously?
>>
>>
>>>> Those pipelines are not built by
>>>>> Americans, either.
>>>> Really? Have you looked at the shares held by your pension fund?
>>>
>>> Transcanada emplys its own people and they aren't Americans.
>>
>> If you believe no Americans will be employed you are daft or lying.
>>
>>
>>> Any pension fund can buy any stock anywhere. So?
>>
>> With any luck they lie less than you do.
> You seem to think that KXL is something brand new and never done before.

Why would I think that?

It's an extension of the existing Keystone after all.

> Fact is when have a great may pipelines just like it.

So?

> So it is not like we
> cannot know exactly how many jobs, exactly how much revenue and exactly how
> much risk is involved.

Since when did we ever know such things "exactly" anyway?

Those who demand only perfection will end up with nothing.

And that includes the construction jobs and tax revenues here.


> KXL benefits nobody except TransCanada.

That is a lie.

It will benefit US refiners in a big way, and shippers too.

> The history
> of these pipelines have been disastrous for the communities stuck with the
> pollution.

Spills are not monolithic nor even that regular an occurrence.

> Spare me your bullshit because it is apparent you haven't got the first clue
> about which you speak.

Says the liar who refuses to admit US refiners will gain profits from
Keystone XL.

To say nothing of the overall US market which will see relief from
backlogs in Cushing, Ok.

> I never cease to be surprised at the vehement defense moronic right winger
> such as yourself mount in defense of the most corrupt, polluting and
> incpomprehenibly greedy corporations ever to exist.

Did you use up your daily insult quotient in one half aparagraph?

> It's preciesely the
> idiots like you who get tricked every single election into voting in shills
> of those corporations who then allow even more destruction and pollution to
> continue.

It's satisfying for you to blame others for the fact oil is a major part
of our economy and Canada's as well.

> Your place on TransCanada's Christmas card list is secured.

And your likeness may be on A Chicom coin one day...

On 8/10/2014 4:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2014-08-10 9:32 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said, it might help to know what a public inquiry is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A public inquiry as opposed to a private coverup, you mean? If I
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> bought and paid for politican whose reason for being was protecting
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> profits of polluters I would probably opt for the latter. As they
>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you did not bother to find out what exactly a public inquiry
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>> It is not the same as a regular investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? A public inquiry, at last as we do it here, is a government
>>>>> investigation.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, you have refused to find out what a public inquiry is, so
>>>> feel
>>>> free to rant in ignorance.
>>>
>>> I'll find an online Canadian to English dictionary. See when people play
>>> games like this it's because they've lost the argument. I should have
>>> known the soft spot you have for reckless, lawless corporations raping
>>> the
>>> land and destroying people's livelihoods. Who knew it was a hot button?
>>>
>>
>> What argument is that? You were ranting about the provincial governor not
>> calling a public inquiry. As I pointed out, we do not have provincial
>> governors, so that was the beginning of your misunderstanding. The other
>> is that a public inquiry is a specific process. You don't have a clue what
>> that is. I suggested that you didn't know what a public inquiry is because
>> you were carrying on as if it meant there would be no investigation. I
>> suggested you find out what a public inquiry is but you kept on and it is
>> only now that you are even thinking about learning about it.
>
> Kiss my ass you ****ing asshole. I am sick of your pathetic little game.
>
Your "eloquence" matches your mental capacities.

On 8/10/2014 4:28 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 9:48 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>
>> In addition, wind farms do not have the capacity to solve the
>> problem. In my
>> opinion the best alternative in nuclear.
>
> That might work for the short term. They are extremely expensive to
> build and maintain. There is a limited amount of uranium in the world so
> we will eventually run out of fuel.

That's at least a century away even with more nuke use:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...anium_reserves

The amount of ultimately recoverable uranium depends strongly on what
one would be willing to pay for it. Uranium is a widely distributed
metal with large low-grade deposits that are not currently considered
profitable. If reserves recoverable at up to 260 USD per kilogram of
uranium are included, the amount of worldwide reserves increases from
5,404,000 tonnes to 6,306,300 tonnes, according to the Uranium 2009 report.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...deposits-last/

If the Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) has accurately estimated the planet's
economically accessible uranium resources, reactors could run more than
200 years at current rates of consumption.

> Meanwhile, we are storing ever
> increasing piles of spent fuel. It is radioactive and dangerous, and
> will remain so for thousands of years. Maybe we can store it in your
> backyard.

Do what France does, ship it to Poland...

> Then there is the problem of catastrophic failures and there have been a
> few. A vast area around the Chernobyl reactor remains uninhabitable. A
> couple years ago the Fukushima Daiishi was hit with a tsunami that led
> to melt down in three of its four reactors.

The accident damage from that is far from over by a long shot.

Anything toxic enough to outlast mankind is a risk too great for
hairless primates to play with.

On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>
>>>> Eleven of the world's top 25 ecological disasters!
>>>> Talk about crappy.
>>>>
>>> Nobody is bragging. The 2010 rupture in the Kalamazoo river of a
>>> pipeline (operated by Enbridge, Inc.) that transports Canadian crude
>>> oil is still being cleaned up. http://www.epa.gov/enbridgespill/
>>
>> Let us know when you curb your thirst for Canadian oil and gas and we
>> will stop shipping it to you though those pipes.... built by American
>> contractors.
>>>
> Hey, I'm not blaming Canada. I think this whole fracking and tar
> sands mess is beyond ridiculous.

Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
Graham

On 2014-08-10 6:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2014-08-10 9:32 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Like I said, it might help to know what a public inquiry is.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A public inquiry as opposed to a private coverup, you mean? If I
>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>> bought and paid for politican whose reason for being was protecting
>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>> profits of polluters I would probably opt for the latter. As they
>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obviously you did not bother to find out what exactly a public inquiry
>>>>>> is.
>>>>>> It is not the same as a regular investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Eh? A public inquiry, at last as we do it here, is a government
>>>>> investigation.
>>>>
>>>> Once again, you have refused to find out what a public inquiry is, so
>>>> feel
>>>> free to rant in ignorance.
>>>
>>> I'll find an online Canadian to English dictionary. See when people play
>>> games like this it's because they've lost the argument. I should have
>>> known the soft spot you have for reckless, lawless corporations raping
>>> the
>>> land and destroying people's livelihoods. Who knew it was a hot button?
>>>
>>
>> What argument is that? You were ranting about the provincial governor not
>> calling a public inquiry. As I pointed out, we do not have provincial
>> governors, so that was the beginning of your misunderstanding. The other
>> is that a public inquiry is a specific process. You don't have a clue what
>> that is. I suggested that you didn't know what a public inquiry is because
>> you were carrying on as if it meant there would be no investigation. I
>> suggested you find out what a public inquiry is but you kept on and it is
>> only now that you are even thinking about learning about it.
>
> Kiss my ass you ****ing asshole. I am sick of your pathetic little game.
>

My game? You were the one ranting in ignorance about a provincial
governor refusing to call a public inquiry. There is no such thing as a
provincial governor here and a public inquiry is a very specific
process. You don't know what the hell that process is or how it differs
from the investigation into this incident.

I thought I had made it pretty clear that I was not going to bother to
argue with you about it if you don't even know what a public inquiry is.

On 8/10/2014 4:31 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 11:05 AM, Helpful person wrote:
>>
>>> Damage is negligible? How about vastly increased cancer rates for
>>> basically
>>> forever? Some of those isotopes remain deadly for literally a
>>> million years
>>> or more. Nature does not sequester them fast enough to prevent some
>>> pretty
>>> terrible effects. Then you have the problem of what to do with those
>>> reactors that have reached end of life. You cannot just dismantle them.
>>>
>> That is not a damage problem but a logistics problem regarding safe
>> storage.
>> This problem is solvable. We do not yet have an adequate solution but
>> it is
>> certainly within our present intellect and technology.
>
> The first nuclear reactor was built and used in the 1942, 72 years ago,
> and they still have not come up with a way to dispose of the waste,
> which is piling up at a steadily increasing rate.
>
Containment is not disposal, true.

On 8/10/2014 4:34 PM, sf wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:26:24 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>>
>> I can't see there being enough battery capacity to run a semi truck, let
>> alone every locomotive in America.
>
> First we need to work on a better cell phone battery.

Yes.

Scalablity is key - A Tesla battery is basically a series of immense
laptop cells.

On 8/10/2014 4:58 PM, graham wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Eleven of the world's top 25 ecological disasters!
>>>>> Talk about crappy.
>>>>>
>>>> Nobody is bragging. The 2010 rupture in the Kalamazoo river of a
>>>> pipeline (operated by Enbridge, Inc.) that transports Canadian crude
>>>> oil is still being cleaned up. http://www.epa.gov/enbridgespill/
>>>
>>> Let us know when you curb your thirst for Canadian oil and gas and we
>>> will stop shipping it to you though those pipes.... built by American
>>> contractors.
>>>>
>> Hey, I'm not blaming Canada. I think this whole fracking and tar
>> sands mess is beyond ridiculous.
>
> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
> Graham
>
It's the in-between that is ugly.

On 8/10/2014 5:08 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 6:27 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "Dave Smith" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2014-08-10 9:32 AM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>>> Like I said, it might help to know what a public inquiry is.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A public inquiry as opposed to a private coverup, you mean? If I
>>>>>>>> were
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> bought and paid for politican whose reason for being was protecting
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> profits of polluters I would probably opt for the latter. As they
>>>>>>>> did.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obviously you did not bother to find out what exactly a public
>>>>>>> inquiry
>>>>>>> is.
>>>>>>> It is not the same as a regular investigation.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Eh? A public inquiry, at last as we do it here, is a government
>>>>>> investigation.
>>>>>
>>>>> Once again, you have refused to find out what a public inquiry is, so
>>>>> feel
>>>>> free to rant in ignorance.
>>>>
>>>> I'll find an online Canadian to English dictionary. See when people
>>>> play
>>>> games like this it's because they've lost the argument. I should have
>>>> known the soft spot you have for reckless, lawless corporations raping
>>>> the
>>>> land and destroying people's livelihoods. Who knew it was a hot
>>>> button?
>>>>
>>>
>>> What argument is that? You were ranting about the provincial
>>> governor not
>>> calling a public inquiry. As I pointed out, we do not have provincial
>>> governors, so that was the beginning of your misunderstanding. The other
>>> is that a public inquiry is a specific process. You don't have a clue
>>> what
>>> that is. I suggested that you didn't know what a public inquiry is
>>> because
>>> you were carrying on as if it meant there would be no investigation. I
>>> suggested you find out what a public inquiry is but you kept on and
>>> it is
>>> only now that you are even thinking about learning about it.
>>
>> Kiss my ass you ****ing asshole. I am sick of your pathetic little game.
>>
>
> My game? You were the one ranting in ignorance about a provincial
> governor refusing to call a public inquiry. There is no such thing as a
> provincial governor here and a public inquiry is a very specific
> process. You don't know what the hell that process is or how it differs
> from the investigation into this incident.
>
> I thought I had made it pretty clear that I was not going to bother to
> argue with you about it if you don't even know what a public inquiry is.
>
Besides he has a vital mission to deliver pipeline disinformation here...

On 2014-08-10 6:46 PM, Mayo wrote:

>>> What argument is that? You were ranting about the provincial
>>> governor not
>>> calling a public inquiry. As I pointed out, we do not have provincial
>>> governors, so that was the beginning of your misunderstanding. The other
>>> is that a public inquiry is a specific process. You don't have a clue
>>> what
>>> that is. I suggested that you didn't know what a public inquiry is
>>> because
>>> you were carrying on as if it meant there would be no investigation. I
>>> suggested you find out what a public inquiry is but you kept on and
>>> it is
>>> only now that you are even thinking about learning about it.
>>
>> Kiss my ass you ****ing asshole. I am sick of your pathetic little game.
>>
> Your "eloquence" matches your mental capacities.
>
So true. As you can see from the above, he was ranting about our
environmental record and a "governor" refusing to hold a public inquiry.
He has no f*&king idea what a public inquiry is and refuses to find out.
There is obviously no point in discussing it with him if he refuses to
find out what it is he is talking about. Personally, I have to agree
with the premier that there is no need for a public inquiry, but I know
that a public inquiry in Canada is completely different from what he
thinks he is talking about.

On 8/10/2014 6:05 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2014-08-10 6:46 PM, Mayo wrote:
>
>>>> What argument is that? You were ranting about the provincial
>>>> governor not
>>>> calling a public inquiry. As I pointed out, we do not have provincial
>>>> governors, so that was the beginning of your misunderstanding. The
>>>> other
>>>> is that a public inquiry is a specific process. You don't have a clue
>>>> what
>>>> that is. I suggested that you didn't know what a public inquiry is
>>>> because
>>>> you were carrying on as if it meant there would be no investigation. I
>>>> suggested you find out what a public inquiry is but you kept on and
>>>> it is
>>>> only now that you are even thinking about learning about it.
>>>
>>> Kiss my ass you ****ing asshole. I am sick of your pathetic little
>>> game.
>>>
>> Your "eloquence" matches your mental capacities.
>>
> So true. As you can see from the above, he was ranting about our
> environmental record and a "governor" refusing to hold a public inquiry.
> He has no f*&king idea what a public inquiry is and refuses to find out.
> There is obviously no point in discussing it with him if he refuses to
> find out what it is he is talking about. Personally, I have to agree
> with the premier that there is no need for a public inquiry, but I know
> that a public inquiry in Canada is completely different from what he
> thinks he is talking about.

I know that as a Canadian you are in a position to know what you are
talking about.

It's his loss to get sound information and deny it.

On 8/10/2014 12:40 PM, sf wrote:

>>
>> Also nobody wants oil spills, slag heaps. burning coal mines, fracking earthquakes or pollution, mine collapses, smog, global warning atmospheric chemicals etc. Other energy sources (realistic ones) really are worse.
>>
> All have cleaner alternatives.
>
>
Yes, but most are not willing to invest in them Geothermal and solar
are still much the minority

On 8/10/2014 6:33 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 8/10/2014 12:40 PM, sf wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Also nobody wants oil spills, slag heaps. burning coal mines,
>>> fracking earthquakes or pollution, mine collapses, smog, global
>>> warning atmospheric chemicals etc. Other energy sources (realistic
>>> ones) really are worse.
>>>
>> All have cleaner alternatives.
>>
>>
> Yes, but most are not willing to invest in them Geothermal and solar
> are still much the minority

Germany kicked out nukes, went green also, but got caught up as one of
Putin's bigger nat. gas clients.

Clean can mean politically dirty too.

On Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:58:43 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>
> > > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>
>
> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
>
> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
>
> Graham


<Falls down laughing through tears...> Ultimately? <SFX: muffled sobs>

HB

On 10/08/2014 6:59 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:58:43 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>>
>>> > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>
>>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>
>>
>> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
>>
>> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
>>
>> Graham
>
>
> <Falls down laughing through tears...> Ultimately? <SFX: muffled sobs>
>
> HB
>
You halfwit! The ground up there is soaked in oil. It's continually
leaking into the creeks and rivers. It's a NATURAL DISASTER!

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 10 Aug 2014 16:26:24 -0600, Mayo > wrote:
>
>>
>> I can't see there being enough battery capacity to run a semi truck, let
>> alone every locomotive in America.
>
> First we need to work on a better cell phone battery.

You really ought to listen to Graham. He is a scientist and expert in this
field.

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"graham" > wrote in message
...
> On 10/08/2014 6:59 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
>> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:58:43 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
>>>
>>> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
>>>
>>> Graham
>>
>>
>> <Falls down laughing through tears...> Ultimately? <SFX: muffled sobs>
>>
>> HB
>>
> You halfwit! The ground up there is soaked in oil. It's continually
> leaking into the creeks and rivers. It's a NATURAL DISASTER!

You're so full of shit it's unreal. Those areas around Alberta were
pristine forests. They were home to a vast array of wildlife. The rivers
were crystal clear. Now it is hundreds of square miles of the worst
imaginable devastation. Toxic sludge washes intot he waterways after every
rain. The land can never be reclaimed. Just Google "tar sand pictures" if
you want to see a real disaster. And it isn't natural either.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 11/08/2014 3:20 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/08/2014 6:59 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:58:43 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
>>>>
>>>> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>>
>>> <Falls down laughing through tears...> Ultimately? <SFX: muffled sobs>
>>>
>>> HB
>>>
>> You halfwit! The ground up there is soaked in oil. It's continually
>> leaking into the creeks and rivers. It's a NATURAL DISASTER!
>
> You're so full of shit it's unreal.

No! You're the one full of shit!

Those areas around Alberta were
> pristine forests.


It's muskeg and it's soaked in oil!

They were home to a vast array of wildlife. The rivers
> were crystal clear.

NO,NO,NO, THEY WERE MOST CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!!!! That oil has been seeping
into all the creeks and rivers for millennia from the outcrops of the
McMurray Formation. How the **** do you think the deposit was found in
the first place?
If you talk to old-timers, they will tell you of swimming in those
creeks, BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENTS, and going home with oil on their skin
and clothes.

You've bought all the crap from the environuts and become a nutcase
yourself!
Graham!

On 8/11/2014 3:20 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "graham" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 10/08/2014 6:59 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
>>> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:58:43 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>
>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
>>>>
>>>> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
>>>>
>>>> Graham
>>>
>>>
>>> <Falls down laughing through tears...> Ultimately? <SFX: muffled sobs>
>>>
>>> HB
>>>
>> You halfwit! The ground up there is soaked in oil. It's continually
>> leaking into the creeks and rivers. It's a NATURAL DISASTER!
>
> You're so full of shit it's unreal. Those areas around Alberta were
> pristine forests. They were home to a vast array of wildlife. The rivers
> were crystal clear. Now it is hundreds of square miles of the worst
> imaginable devastation. Toxic sludge washes intot he waterways after every
> rain. The land can never be reclaimed. Just Google "tar sand pictures" if
> you want to see a real disaster. And it isn't natural either.

You're trading in disinformation again.

The land can and is being reclaimed.

But it is a new process and there is much to be learned and tested.

http://www.resilience.org/stories/20...or-reclamation

It’s easy to label something impossible that’s never been done before,
and constructing a fen falls into that category," says Suncor
spokesperson Kelli Stevens. "But we’re trying because we thought it was
important to do so. We’ll see through the course of the monitoring phase
how successful we are. But so far, early monitoring tells us that we are
on the right track." Typical fen plants — including sedges, moss,
grasses, and shrubs — have successfully established, she notes. If the
fen continues to support wetland plants and sufficient water, and
eventually accumulates peat, she says, "This pilot fen will be deemed a
success."

On 8/11/2014 3:29 PM, graham wrote:
> On 11/08/2014 3:20 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>> "graham" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 10/08/2014 6:59 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
>>>> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:58:43 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>>> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
>>>>>
>>>>> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
>>>>>
>>>>> Graham
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> <Falls down laughing through tears...> Ultimately? <SFX: muffled
>>>> sobs>
>>>>
>>>> HB
>>>>
>>> You halfwit! The ground up there is soaked in oil. It's continually
>>> leaking into the creeks and rivers. It's a NATURAL DISASTER!
>>
>> You're so full of shit it's unreal.
>
> No! You're the one full of shit!
>
> Those areas around Alberta were
>> pristine forests.
>
>
> It's muskeg and it's soaked in oil!
>
> They were home to a vast array of wildlife. The rivers
>> were crystal clear.
>
> NO,NO,NO, THEY WERE MOST CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!!!! That oil has been seeping
> into all the creeks and rivers for millennia from the outcrops of the
> McMurray Formation. How the **** do you think the deposit was found in
> the first place?
> If you talk to old-timers, they will tell you of swimming in those
> creeks, BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENTS, and going home with oil on their skin
> and clothes.
>
> You've bought all the crap from the environuts and become a nutcase
> yourself!
> Graham!
>
I'm going to have to trust the one who's lived there to tell the truth.

That said, the cooking of the tar and the associated road building and
so on has certainly created pollution and environmental impact.

But land can be reclaimed as coal strip mining here in the US has
demonstrated.

On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:

> But land can be reclaimed as coal strip mining here in the US has
> demonstrated.

What alternate universe do you live in?

nb

On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:

> that actually is home to pump jacks and significant production.....

You need to consult some post-50s history books.

nb

On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:

> eventually accumulates peat, she says, "This pilot fen will be deemed a
> success."

....and then, jes as quickly abandoned.

You really are naive, aren't you?

nb

On 2014-08-11 5:29 PM, graham wrote:

> They were home to a vast array of wildlife. The rivers
>> were crystal clear.
>
> NO,NO,NO, THEY WERE MOST CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!!!! That oil has been seeping
> into all the creeks and rivers for millennia from the outcrops of the
> McMurray Formation. How the **** do you think the deposit was found in
> the first place?

The oil in the sands was so obviously seeping into the environment that
they did not need expensive drilling to locate the oil. It was right
there on the surface. Even the natives, who had no need for it other
than to waterproof their canoes, or the technology to search for it
underground oil reserves, were well aware of it. European explorers, who
were not geologists, documented it.


>

On 11/08/2014 3:44 PM, Mayo wrote:
> On 8/11/2014 3:29 PM, graham wrote:
>> On 11/08/2014 3:20 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>> "graham" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 10/08/2014 6:59 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
>>>>> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:58:43 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>>>> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
>>>>>>
>>>>>> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> <Falls down laughing through tears...> Ultimately? <SFX: muffled
>>>>> sobs>
>>>>>
>>>>> HB
>>>>>
>>>> You halfwit! The ground up there is soaked in oil. It's continually
>>>> leaking into the creeks and rivers. It's a NATURAL DISASTER!
>>>
>>> You're so full of shit it's unreal.
>>
>> No! You're the one full of shit!
>>
>> Those areas around Alberta were
>>> pristine forests.
>>
>>
>> It's muskeg and it's soaked in oil!
>>
>> They were home to a vast array of wildlife. The rivers
>>> were crystal clear.
>>
>> NO,NO,NO, THEY WERE MOST CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!!!! That oil has been seeping
>> into all the creeks and rivers for millennia from the outcrops of the
>> McMurray Formation. How the **** do you think the deposit was found in
>> the first place?
>> If you talk to old-timers, they will tell you of swimming in those
>> creeks, BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENTS, and going home with oil on their skin
>> and clothes.
>>
>> You've bought all the crap from the environuts and become a nutcase
>> yourself!
>> Graham!
>>
> I'm going to have to trust the one who's lived there to tell the truth.
>
> That said, the cooking of the tar and the associated road building and
> so on has certainly created pollution and environmental impact.
>
> But land can be reclaimed as coal strip mining here in the US has
> demonstrated.

If you want to talk environmental disasters and the impossibility of
reclamation, the city of Miami is larger than the Oil Sands excavations:-)
Graham

On 11/08/2014 4:54 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> eventually accumulates peat, she says, "This pilot fen will be deemed a
>> success."
>
> ...and then, jes as quickly abandoned.
>
Of course it will be abandoned after reclamation. That's the whole point!
And at least the plant and animal life won't have to contend with the
oil seeps.
Graham

On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:11:12 PM UTC-7, Mayo wrote:


I don't suppose you would be open to watching this.

http://piecefit.com/index.php/en/env...ds#k2Container

On 8/11/2014 4:48 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> But land can be reclaimed as coal strip mining here in the US has
>> demonstrated.
>
> What alternate universe do you live in?
>
> nb
>
I've got a wonderful coffee table book on land reclamation, "Reclaiming
the American West" by Alan Berger.

The aerial photography is unambiguous, yes we have problems, yes they
can be reclaimed.

On 8/11/2014 4:51 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> that actually is home to pump jacks and significant production.....
>
> You need to consult some post-50s history books.
>
> nb
>
Do I really?

http://www.laalmanac.com/energy/en14.htm

http://www.cccarto.com/socaloilfields/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/1..._n_362153.html

Did you know that LA sits on top of the third largest oil field in the
country? Did you know oil rigs are scattered covertly throughout the
city, placed near schools, malls and even a farmer's market? HuffPost
Green did not know about this until we watched this awesome short from
Palladium Boots about the secret, underground network of the LA
oilfields and rigs hidden in plain sight as fake office buildings and
flower-painted sculptures.

You have to see to this to believe it.

On 8/11/2014 4:54 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> eventually accumulates peat, she says, "This pilot fen will be deemed a
>> success."
>
> ...and then, jes as quickly abandoned.

Clairvoyant?

> You really are naive, aren't you?
>
> nb

Read this:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Ame...+American+West

This book is the first book I have read in the past 5 years that is so
visually captivating I could not put it down. Berger uses his own
gorgeous aerial and ground photographs, and visionary mapping techniques
to show the world a new type of landscape that is being produced via
landscape devastation and reclamation. He coins a new term -Post
Technological Landscape-to describe the artificial landscapes being
formed by humans in the post-mined areas of the western U.S. An
introduction to the book, by the enigmatic poet Frederick Turner, also
helps define this term. There is a very interesting,if not dry, appendix
that reveals how each western state technically defines the term
"reclamation" and what they have accomplished to clean up industrial
leftovers in the landscape. I highly recommend this book for anyone
thirsting for landscape photography, landscape theory, ecology and nature.

On 8/11/2014 4:57 PM, graham wrote:
> On 11/08/2014 3:44 PM, Mayo wrote:
>> On 8/11/2014 3:29 PM, graham wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2014 3:20 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
>>>> "graham" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 10/08/2014 6:59 PM, Hypatia Nachshon wrote:
>>>>>> On Sunday, August 10, 2014 3:58:43 PM UTC-7, graham wrote:
>>>>>>> On 09/08/2014 10:55 PM, sf wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 09 Aug 2014 20:57:49 -0400, Dave Smith
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 2014-08-09 20:46, sf wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Who says it's a mess? As I've already explained, those open pit
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> operations will ultimately clean up the environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Graham
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Falls down laughing through tears...> Ultimately? <SFX: muffled
>>>>>> sobs>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> HB
>>>>>>
>>>>> You halfwit! The ground up there is soaked in oil. It's continually
>>>>> leaking into the creeks and rivers. It's a NATURAL DISASTER!
>>>>
>>>> You're so full of shit it's unreal.
>>>
>>> No! You're the one full of shit!
>>>
>>> Those areas around Alberta were
>>>> pristine forests.
>>>
>>>
>>> It's muskeg and it's soaked in oil!
>>>
>>> They were home to a vast array of wildlife. The rivers
>>>> were crystal clear.
>>>
>>> NO,NO,NO, THEY WERE MOST CERTAINLY NOT!!!!!!!! That oil has been seeping
>>> into all the creeks and rivers for millennia from the outcrops of the
>>> McMurray Formation. How the **** do you think the deposit was found in
>>> the first place?
>>> If you talk to old-timers, they will tell you of swimming in those
>>> creeks, BEFORE ANY DEVELOPMENTS, and going home with oil on their skin
>>> and clothes.
>>>
>>> You've bought all the crap from the environuts and become a nutcase
>>> yourself!
>>> Graham!
>>>
>> I'm going to have to trust the one who's lived there to tell the truth.
>>
>> That said, the cooking of the tar and the associated road building and
>> so on has certainly created pollution and environmental impact.
>>
>> But land can be reclaimed as coal strip mining here in the US has
>> demonstrated.
>
> If you want to talk environmental disasters and the impossibility of
> reclamation, the city of Miami is larger than the Oil Sands excavations:-)
> Graham

Yes Miami, soon to be the Venice of Florida...but an amazing landfill
project it was for the day.

"ImStillMags" > wrote in message
...
> On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:11:12 PM UTC-7, Mayo wrote:
>
>
> I don't suppose you would be open to watching this.
>
> http://piecefit.com/index.php/en/env...ds#k2Container

And the sad thing is they are just getting started. Canada has said they
are developing a 100 year plan.



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 8/11/2014 5:03 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
> On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:11:12 PM UTC-7, Mayo wrote:
>
>
> I don't suppose you would be open to watching this.
>
> http://piecefit.com/index.php/en/env...ds#k2Container
>
Why not?

I already realize the extraction process is a major blemish, just not an
irreparable one.

Are you open to reading this:

http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Ame...+American+West

On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:

> Do I really?

Yes.

> Did you know that LA sits on top of the third largest oil field in the
> country?

Did you know these oil fields are essentially empty and were so as far
back as the 50s when the Long Beach / Signal Hill oil fields lost
production to the point where all the big players bailed. Only some
small operators remained. My grandfather was a pioneering geologist
for Shell Oil and he used to take my brother and I and show us the
sunken (sometime as much as 60 ft) fields of SigHil. Why do you think
they wanna reopen offshore drilling so badly.

nb

On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:

> to show the world a new type of landscape.....

You mean the kinda landscape that looks suspiciously like man has been
there and totally its oringinal pristine beauty?

> landscape devastation and reclamation. He coins a new term -
> Technological Landscape-to describe the artificial landscapes....

He'd hafta coin something. Those reclaimed vistas look nothing like
the original landscape they destroyed.

> for anyone thirsting for landscape photography, landscape theory,
> ecology and nature.

I'd much prefer thirsting for the original beauty of landscape before
it was turned into giant scars by dirtbag profiteers.

nb

"Mayo" > wrote in message ...
> On 8/11/2014 5:03 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:11:12 PM UTC-7, Mayo wrote:
>>
>>
>> I don't suppose you would be open to watching this.
>>
>> http://piecefit.com/index.php/en/env...ds#k2Container
>>
> Why not?
>
> I already realize the extraction process is a major blemish, just not an
> irreparable one.
>
> Are you open to reading this:
>
> http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Ame...+American+West

Pray tell what do you do with 100 square miles of poisonous tailing ponds
that will, not may, breach? Just how do you clean up a trillion tons of
poisonous sludge?



---
This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.
http://www.avast.com

On 8/11/2014 5:52 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> Do I really?
>
> Yes.

With snips and denials?

>> Did you know that LA sits on top of the third largest oil field in the
>> country?
>
> Did you know these oil fields are essentially empty and were so as far
> back as the 50s when the Long Beach / Signal Hill oil fields lost
> production to the point where all the big players bailed. Only some
> small operators remained.

Some are old and on their last legs, true.

Others are going strong as the video I linked to shows.

> My grandfather was a pioneering geologist
> for Shell Oil and he used to take my brother and I and show us the
> sunken (sometime as much as 60 ft) fields of SigHil. Why do you think
> they wanna reopen offshore drilling so badly.
>
> nb

Just sayin' - oil in urban environs is not atypical.

Take a look at Ft. Worth and the wells in the Barnett formation.

On 8/11/2014 6:01 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2014-08-11, Mayo > wrote:
>
>> to show the world a new type of landscape.....
>
> You mean the kinda landscape that looks suspiciously like man has been
> there and totally its oringinal pristine beauty?

Grab a copy of the book, look over the aerial photos.

>> landscape devastation and reclamation. He coins a new term -
>> Technological Landscape-to describe the artificial landscapes....
>
> He'd hafta coin something. Those reclaimed vistas look nothing like
> the original landscape they destroyed.

I disagree.

The coal strip mine reclaimed land in Montana looks pretty similar.

http://ecorestoration.montana.edu/mi...ca/default.htm

Site Status 10 Years After Reclamation

Representatives of the Colorado Division of Mines and Geology visited
the site in 1987 and 1990 to monitor revegetation progress. No
additional maintenance work was required. The engineer for the project
visited the site in July, 1996. The following sites were visited:

Coal Flat 2
The Landslide
Coal Flat No. 3
All three areas had lush stands of vegetation. There was little evidence
of soil loss or erosion, even on the steeper slopes of reclaimed Coal
Flat 2. Wildlife (deer and marmots) were spotted using the reclaimed
area; closer examination by wildlife experts would probably reveal
evidence of use by other local species. The landslide area showed no
signs of movement. A local resident who had been present during the
reclamation projects revealed that a local land developer was
considering part of the reclaimed parcel for up-scale home sites.

>> for anyone thirsting for landscape photography, landscape theory,
>> ecology and nature.
>
> I'd much prefer thirsting for the original beauty of landscape before
> it was turned into giant scars by dirtbag profiteers.
>
> nb
>

So you'll double down on the rhetoric and ignore the actual reclamation
successes?

On 8/11/2014 6:09 PM, Paul M. Cook wrote:
> "Mayo" > wrote in message ...
>> On 8/11/2014 5:03 PM, ImStillMags wrote:
>>> On Monday, August 11, 2014 3:11:12 PM UTC-7, Mayo wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't suppose you would be open to watching this.
>>>
>>> http://piecefit.com/index.php/en/env...ds#k2Container
>>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> I already realize the extraction process is a major blemish, just not an
>> irreparable one.
>>
>> Are you open to reading this:
>>
>> http://www.amazon.com/Reclaiming-Ame...+American+West
>
> Pray tell what do you do with 100 square miles of poisonous tailing ponds
> that will, not may, breach? Just how do you clean up a trillion tons of
> poisonous sludge?

How do you know they'll breach?

Are you a specialist in pond liner technology?

On Monday, August 11, 2014 6:13:23 PM UTC-7, Mayo wrote:

>
> > Pray tell what do you do with 100 square miles of poisonous tailing ponds
>
> > that will, not may, breach? Just how do you clean up a trillion tons of
>
> > poisonous sludge?
>
>
>
> How do you know they'll breach?
>
>

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ill-emergency/
>
> Are you a specialist in pond liner technology?