Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBC)   I have a better idea. Leave the toxic death sludge nobody really wants IN THE F*CKING GROUND   (cbc.ca) divider line
    More: Fail, Water, Athabasca Oil Sands, Alberta, oilsands operators, industry leaders, Water purification, Waterborne diseases, tailings ponds  
•       •       •

2942 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Dec 2021 at 12:30 AM (23 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



52 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2021-12-07 12:40:20 AM  
They really need to stop this type of resource extraction.  These toxic ponds won't hold forever.
 
2021-12-07 12:46:00 AM  
What ever they do, they should make absolutely sure that the companies that made millions extracting oil from the tar sands never actually pay for the safe and proper disposal of any waste byproduct of their operations.

I mean, that might bight hard into quarterly profits.
 
2021-12-07 12:46:28 AM  
Well even if we stop all oil sands, there is still a crapload of tailings already there.

If a significant portion of that can be cleaned up and released in a controlled manner rather than sitting there for decades at risk of a major disaster that is a freaking great thing.
 
2021-12-07 12:47:24 AM  
Honestly, there has to be some sort of remediation mechanism. However, i don't see any reason that water should be reintroduced into the already stressed local environment.

I'm not sure what i think of the comparison to sewage treatment plants. Honestly, that water is probably fine, but the big concern is creating a short loop involving human adapted diseases rapididly moving from the waste stream to the input stream.

I would probably favor forcing them to treat the water but move it to other storage for years while more reasearch is done for safety purposes.
 
2021-12-07 12:52:30 AM  
The Tar Sands Proposition:

Fire up countless CO2-belching petroleum-powered machines to scrape off endless square miles of pristine lands to dig up meager minings of crud that at exorbitant expenditure of money and fuel and pollution we can coerce into a crude petroleum commodity.

Why?  Revenue exceeds expenditure by a comparatively tiny amount.

Payoff? The comparatively tiny amount of net profit is billions, and the profit belongs solely to individual billionaires forever.
 
2021-12-07 12:53:47 AM  
Oh and what are we gonna make plastic out of? Huh? Corn husks?
 
2021-12-07 12:53:59 AM  
Oil sands tailings are a proven cure for Covid -19.

A glass in the morning, one with lunch, and one before you go to bed.
 
2021-12-07 12:54:05 AM  
solution: bottle the stuff, or even better put it in those fancy new cans the kids like. slap on a slick PR campaign and catchy name, bam! supermarket gold.
 
2021-12-07 12:55:02 AM  

WhippingBoi: Oil sands tailings are a proven cure for Covid -19.

A glass in the morning, one with lunch, and one before you go to bed.


*shakes tiny fist*

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2021-12-07 12:58:20 AM  
 
2021-12-07 12:59:33 AM  
It would be nice if the world had enough solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal power generation to render fossil fuels obsolete.

It would be nice if the world's population was a small fraction of today's value, so that the demands for natural resources were proportionately less.

We are not there today. Don't complain too loudly about the current situation unless you are willing to be part of the solution (even if it involves unpopular technologies like the aforementioned nuclear power generation, or building new hydroelectric dams).
 
2021-12-07 1:08:29 AM  

Ivo Shandor: We are not there today. Don't complain too loudly about the current situation unless you are willing to be part of the solution (even if it involves unpopular technologies like the aforementioned nuclear power generation, or building new hydroelectric dams).


This is not pure crude pumped straight out of the ground via a couple pipes.

This is oilsands where they essentially strip mine the land and have to use a sh*tload of water to separate the LOW GRADE BITUMEN which then... of course is toxic.


It is a terrible form of exraction for an inferior product with WAY more environmental impacts than extracting crude... specifically for all the reasons mentioned in the article.

Pricks tried to start mining the mountains for coal again after like a 40 year ban.

I think that got halted.

But ya... I agree it's gonna be a bit of a weaning process but yanno... wean a little faster before your liver blows out like the doc has been telling you for YEARS!!!!

Cheers.
 
2021-12-07 1:24:54 AM  
A few years ago, wandering through Spain during a month away from the wars and no longer able to tolerate life in Hong Kong (this happened with some frequency during my time there but whaddyagonnado relationships are goddamn tricky) I ran across a place I had never heard about. Most of you probably already know it: Rio Tinto.

For those of you who do not, the Rio Tinto apparently has a very low pH - is acidic, in other words although the specific reasons for this remain unclear - and the surrounding area itself has been home to thousands of years of human mining activity. (Maybe not that unclear; acid mine drainage is a goddamn problem everywhere it exists.) The acidic water leaches heavy metals out of both the ground and out of the leftover mining shiat and is goddamned liquid rust as far as I could tell. Nothing lives in it beyond some extremophile organisms because nothing can live in it - it is very pretty in an eerie, austere sort of way but it is utterly inhospitable to life and that was the thing that struck me most at that moment (although in retrospect it is maybe a little obvious why). 

It's awesome if this water in Canada can be returned to a useable state. I doubt it immensely - there's a scalable filtration tech for the literal thousands of farked up compounds in the water? - but it would be amazing if it were a thing. A.maz.ing.

But the oil-company execs so hot to release the tailings into the river so they can what, again? Reclaim the site for its natural purposes? Right. So the oil-company execs so hot to reclaim the site - after dumping all the gajillion gallons of poison they're currently on the hook for - have only communitarian and altruistic motives. Got it. 

So I'm certain they won't mind chugging down gallon after gallon. Cooking with it. Showering with it. Brushing their teeth with it. Using it in their morning coffee and to wash their children's cereal bowls. Verifiably, over the course of weeks and months; Cap'n Platitude and the glass of Flint will not be a sufficient demonstration, here. You wanna release this gunk?

Then you prove its safety, on your very own person. Not willing to do that? Prima facie evidence that it is not, in fact, safe.
 
2021-12-07 1:26:23 AM  
Is this the cum thread?
 
2021-12-07 1:31:21 AM  

Ivo Shandor: It would be nice if the world had enough solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal power generation to render fossil fuels obsolete.



Yeah, because petroleum products are only used for powering vehicles... Moving to renewables isn't going to change the loooooooong list of things that petroleum has a hand in.
 
2021-12-07 1:36:40 AM  

Ivo Shandor: Don't complain too loudly about the current situation unless you are willing to be part of the solution


Oh no no no. Don't pull this "it's too hard" bullshiat. We don't have to be farking monks to want things larger than us to change. And if we do, fine, put me in charge, I am the picture of restraint. I have never washed a dish and I have been jacking off to the same VHS tape for 25 years.
 
2021-12-07 1:46:16 AM  

Mikey1969: Ivo Shandor: It would be nice if the world had enough solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal power generation to render fossil fuels obsolete.


Yeah, because petroleum products are only used for powering vehicles... Moving to renewables isn't going to change the loooooooong list of things that petroleum has a hand in.


I said "fuels". That covers transportation, home heating, power generation, cement production, etc. The processes which use it as a chemical feedstock rather than simply burning it are the next step after that. We could do it, but it will need a shiatload of energy from somewhere else.
 
2021-12-07 1:46:57 AM  
Least someone got rich.
 
kab
2021-12-07 1:47:30 AM  
If you ever doubt how incredibly farking stupid humanity is, realize that we will use vast amounts of skill and know-how to extract physical, real resources from the planet to turn into amazing pieces of technology.

Cleaning that up, however, is an insurmountable hurdle thanks to a fabricated economic system based on nothing other than faith.

We really do deserve everything that happens to us.
 
2021-12-07 1:50:32 AM  
Even if the purification process works, we all know the oil companies won't be paying for it
 
2021-12-07 1:51:02 AM  
FTA:
In both situations, Gamal El-Din said the fluids can be purified to a point where it can be drinkable water, but municipalities and industry have deemed that too costly.
"There are technologies that can do that," he said, but "it's not economically feasible."


sorry guys; we could totally make that water safe for you, but the oil companies might make a few million less on their billions of profit.
So you're farked.
 
2021-12-07 1:53:31 AM  
For the past few years, more than most passed, I can't help but feel that people are doing the opposite of what's right and it's disturbing.
WTF is wrong with everybody?

/crazypills.jpg
 
2021-12-07 1:53:36 AM  

Mikey1969: Ivo Shandor: It would be nice if the world had enough solar, wind, nuclear, hydroelectric, and geothermal power generation to render fossil fuels obsolete.


Yeah, because petroleum products are only used for powering vehicles... Moving to renewables isn't going to change the loooooooong list of things that petroleum has a hand in.


First, fuels are used for production of energy. So, they could almost entirely be replaced by other energy sources.

Second, the non-energy uses of petroleum (and other  hydrocarbons) is much smaller than the energy use. And if demand was lowered that much, things like the tar sands would be completely unviable.
 
2021-12-07 2:11:03 AM  
Pass a law stating that the CEO and his or her or xir or hxr family has to drink the tailing water until the problem is solved.  I bet the problem gets solved very quickly.  Or the oil companies go through CEOs quickly.

And in the law, make it so any oil company without a CEO cannot pump or sell oil, until they get a CEO and the CEO starts drinking.  And the CEO must have full CEO powers, and can't be some terminal case acting as the avatar of the real CEO.
 
2021-12-07 2:11:54 AM  
Sorry I'm late. Have we posted that meme of the river that turned a rusty orange color due to an accident during an EPA cleanup of an abandoned mine and blamed the EPA for polluting the river?
 
2021-12-07 2:18:08 AM  

AmbassadorBooze: Pass a law stating that the CEO and his or her or xir or hxr family has to drink the tailing water until the problem is solved.  I bet the problem gets solved very quickly.  Or the oil companies go through CEOs quickly.

And in the law, make it so any oil company without a CEO cannot pump or sell oil, until they get a CEO and the CEO starts drinking.  And the CEO must have full CEO powers, and can't be some terminal case acting as the avatar of the real CEO.


Meh. Extend it to the whole board.
 
2021-12-07 3:22:26 AM  
How DARE you suggest that corporate persons not monetize every possible resource the planet has to offer???

Are you insane?!?!

Where would we get the cheap oil to have Chinese slave labor produce crappy plastic inflatible lawn
ornaments for every season that NO ONE possibly needs, and that use up even MORE resources in
electricity to run the fan and keep inflated..Then the whole disposable mess goes in the bin in a couple
uses..

(YES, it's past time to start shaming  people for having shatty disposable Chinese slave labor made shat)
 
2021-12-07 3:46:34 AM  
Almost as those there are outside factors, that when adequately added into the calculus, make it less than worthwhile to derive profits from such an activity. Seems like someone would have a phrase for this sort of quandary.

/The word is externalities.
 
2021-12-07 3:57:03 AM  
Well, for starters, subby, the toxic sludge in question isn't IN the ground, it's out of the ground in sealed holding tanks which are getting full, and there's a question of where to put it.

And assuming you mean leaving the sludge in the ground going forward, that's fine; but that doesn't solve the instant question of where to put the sludge that's currently out of the ground that we don't want to put into the drinking water.
 
2021-12-07 4:01:25 AM  

Mr. Shabooboo: (YES, it's past time to start shaming  people for having shatty disposable Chinese slave labor made shat)


way ahead of you
 
2021-12-07 4:09:30 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Well, for starters, subby, the toxic sludge in question isn't IN the ground, it's out of the ground in sealed holding tanks which are getting full, and there's a question of where to put it.

And assuming you mean leaving the sludge in the ground going forward, that's fine; but that doesn't solve the instant question of where to put the sludge that's currently out of the ground that we don't want to put into the drinking water.


uhm... it was in reference to the oilsands themselves. Without digging that sh*t up in the first place trailing ponds would not be an issue.

Don't be a dafty.
 
2021-12-07 5:17:28 AM  
The massive above-ground lakes are known as tailings ponds, which are harmful to wildlife and have resulted in the death of birds who land on the water.

OH B.b.but the WINDMILLS!!!

In order to return tailings ponds water to the environment, the water does not need to be clean enough to drink, he said, but safe enough to meet the government's forthcoming standards.

Forthcoming Standards. In other words- Highly relaxed standards soon to be the new standard.
 
2021-12-07 6:22:15 AM  

Someone Else's Alt: What ever they do, they should make absolutely sure that the companies that made millions extracting oil from the tar sands never actually pay for the safe and proper disposal of any waste byproduct of their operations.

I mean, that might bight hard into quarterly profits.


Just think of how many jobs that would kill! Murderer!

/ Jobs > Human lives in the 21st century, apparently...
 
2021-12-07 6:40:16 AM  

Stoker: The massive above-ground lakes are known as tailings ponds, which are harmful to wildlife and have resulted in the death of birds who land on the water.

OH B.b.but the WINDMILLS!!!

In order to return tailings ponds water to the environment, the water does not need to be clean enough to drink, he said, but safe enough to meet the government's forthcoming standards.

Forthcoming Standards. In other words- Highly relaxed standards soon to be the new standard.


what?! no! this is clean oil, because the water. just like clean coal is clean... because we wash it first. in water.
 
2021-12-07 6:53:11 AM  

OptimisticCynicism: AmbassadorBooze: Pass a law stating that the CEO and his or her or xir or hxr family has to drink the tailing water until the problem is solved.  I bet the problem gets solved very quickly.  Or the oil companies go through CEOs quickly.

And in the law, make it so any oil company without a CEO cannot pump or sell oil, until they get a CEO and the CEO starts drinking.  And the CEO must have full CEO powers, and can't be some terminal case acting as the avatar of the real CEO.

Meh. Extend it to the whole board.


Shareholders.
 
2021-12-07 7:12:24 AM  
"Toxic death sludge"

Whatever kinda music I listen to in my spare time is my business, thankyaverymuch.
 
2021-12-07 7:41:56 AM  

raius: They really need to stop this type of resource extraction.  These toxic ponds won't hold forever.


it'll hold just long enough for some people to make a lot of money and then have taxpayers pay to clean it up.
 
2021-12-07 8:22:38 AM  
"There are technologies that can do that," he said, but "it's not economically feasible."

If it's not economically feasible to extract that oil while treating the massive amounts of fresh water they waste then that oil can stay in the ground, fark that.
 
2021-12-07 8:23:01 AM  
FTFA - In order to return tailings ponds water to the environment, the water does not need to be clean enough to drink, he said, but safe enough to meet the government's forthcoming standards.

BBWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! 'Government standards'?? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!

/no farking wonder we are about to destroy the entre planet in the name of a green piece of paper.
//as stated above, this is fixable but not without sacrifice
///which means it ain't never gonna happen
 
2021-12-07 9:05:16 AM  

raius: They really need to stop this type of resource extraction.  These toxic ponds won't hold forever.


But they'll hold long enough for the capitalists to make an obscene profit and leave, and that's all that matters.
 
2021-12-07 9:09:30 AM  
In both situations [sewage and tailings ponds], Gamal El-Din said the fluids can be purified to a point where it can be drinkable water, but municipalities and industry have deemed that too costly.

IOW: We can't afford to clean up our mess, so we're going to impose our costs on those poors down the river.
 
2021-12-07 9:13:13 AM  
Good God Canada, get some hazardous waste Class I type injection wells.
 
2021-12-07 9:19:50 AM  

C18H27NO3: For the past few years, more than most passed, I can't help but feel that people are doing the opposite of what's right and it's disturbing.
WTF is wrong with everybody?

/crazypills.jpg


It takes less effort to destroy than to create, and less effort = greater profits.
 
2021-12-07 9:21:04 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Well, for starters, subby, the toxic sludge in question isn't IN the ground, it's out of the ground in sealed holding tanks which are getting full, and there's a question of where to put it.

And assuming you mean leaving the sludge in the ground going forward, that's fine; but that doesn't solve the instant question of where to put the sludge that's currently out of the ground that we don't want to put into the drinking water.


I think sunny was referring to the original tar sands extraction from which the tailing come.
 
2021-12-07 9:22:04 AM  

Gyrfalcon: Well, for starters, subby, the toxic sludge in question isn't IN the ground, it's out of the ground in sealed holding tanks which are getting full, and there's a question of where to put it.

And assuming you mean leaving the sludge in the ground going forward, that's fine; but that doesn't solve the instant question of where to put the sludge that's currently out of the ground that we don't want to put into the drinking water.


Where to put it? Put it in the homes of the oil company executives.
 
2021-12-07 11:03:56 AM  

here to help: Gyrfalcon: Well, for starters, subby, the toxic sludge in question isn't IN the ground, it's out of the ground in sealed holding tanks which are getting full, and there's a question of where to put it.

And assuming you mean leaving the sludge in the ground going forward, that's fine; but that doesn't solve the instant question of where to put the sludge that's currently out of the ground that we don't want to put into the drinking water.

uhm... it was in reference to the oilsands themselves. Without digging that sh*t up in the first place trailing ponds would not be an issue.

Don't be a dafty.


Yes, but SINCE THEY ARE an issue, we need to resolve that problem, as I noted in the second half of my comment which you ignored in your haste to tell me how wrong I was.

Why is it that so many so-called solutions are to say things like "if only we didn't have the problem, there wouldn't be a problem!" and then look around for congratulatory mutual masturbation.

Yes, it would be nice if we had never been digging out the tar sands, but we did, so now its a problem, just like it would have been nice if we'd never gone into Afghanistan or spent 20 years there, but we did, so the exit was a problem. Christ, it's like little kids who think if they cry hard enough their goldfish will come back to life.
 
2021-12-07 11:30:53 AM  

Gyrfalcon: here to help: Gyrfalcon: Well, for starters, subby, the toxic sludge in question isn't IN the ground, it's out of the ground in sealed holding tanks which are getting full, and there's a question of where to put it.

And assuming you mean leaving the sludge in the ground going forward, that's fine; but that doesn't solve the instant question of where to put the sludge that's currently out of the ground that we don't want to put into the drinking water.

uhm... it was in reference to the oilsands themselves. Without digging that sh*t up in the first place trailing ponds would not be an issue.

Don't be a dafty.

Yes, but SINCE THEY ARE an issue, we need to resolve that problem, as I noted in the second half of my comment which you ignored in your haste to tell me how wrong I was.

Why is it that so many so-called solutions are to say things like "if only we didn't have the problem, there wouldn't be a problem!" and then look around for congratulatory mutual masturbation.

Yes, it would be nice if we had never been digging out the tar sands, but we did, so now its a problem, just like it would have been nice if we'd never gone into Afghanistan or spent 20 years there, but we did, so the exit was a problem. Christ, it's like little kids who think if they cry hard enough their goldfish will come back to life.


In fairness a good start would be we stop adding the the problem.  It also seems like it's very expensive to clean the water, it being expensive should have no bearing on a company being forced to do it.  If you can't make a profit and cleanly dispose of your waste, you shouldn't be in business.
 
2021-12-07 12:12:24 PM  
If only there was some way we could take it off their hands so that we could use our existing facilities to  turn it into useful oil.

A pipeline or something.
 
2021-12-07 12:47:47 PM  

JDAT: If only there was some way we could take it off their hands so that we could use our existing facilities to  turn it into useful oil.

A pipeline or something.


First you need to invent a way to turn toxic, contaminated water into useful oil.

It isn't all the precious crude lying around it is the byproducts of extracting it.
 
2021-12-07 6:32:13 PM  

Gyrfalcon: here to help: Gyrfalcon: Well, for starters, subby, the toxic sludge in question isn't IN the ground, it's out of the ground in sealed holding tanks which are getting full, and there's a question of where to put it.

And assuming you mean leaving the sludge in the ground going forward, that's fine; but that doesn't solve the instant question of where to put the sludge that's currently out of the ground that we don't want to put into the drinking water.

uhm... it was in reference to the oilsands themselves. Without digging that sh*t up in the first place trailing ponds would not be an issue.

Don't be a dafty.

Yes, but SINCE THEY ARE an issue, we need to resolve that problem, as I noted in the second half of my comment which you ignored in your haste to tell me how wrong I was.

Why is it that so many so-called solutions are to say things like "if only we didn't have the problem, there wouldn't be a problem!" and then look around for congratulatory mutual masturbation.

Yes, it would be nice if we had never been digging out the tar sands, but we did, so now its a problem, just like it would have been nice if we'd never gone into Afghanistan or spent 20 years there, but we did, so the exit was a problem. Christ, it's like little kids who think if they cry hard enough their goldfish will come back to life.


Stop adding to the ponds and you halt the constantly increasing risk which buys more time to figure out how to safely dispose of the tailings instead just doubling down.

Also you should go back to being a cool Farker.

You're all weird and cranky now.
 
Displayed 50 of 52 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.