Emissions from oil and gas extraction more toxic than selenium
By Lethbridge Herald on December 28, 2024.
Editor:
Finally I agree with a policy of the Minister of Energy and Mining( Brian Jean) and the UCP, the governing party of Alberta.
In my reasoning, allowing coal mining with strict regulations on the process and close monitoring is only fair when you consider the huge environmental footprint the petroleum industry has.
The harmful toxic emissions from oil and gas extraction and subsequent processing are many, many times greater than the selenium that may occur in water born-selenium from the coal mining industry and it can be relentlessly tested and immediately shut down.
Nothing like that would be even considered for the toxic emissions from oil and gas extraction and processing, given that they can cover their butt with carbon credits and professing to work towards carbon sequestration.
Fair is fair – every industry should be given the chance to establish a business and do the job right and if they get off track the governing body that gave them the go ahead (Government of Alberta – in this case) must have the method in place to shut them down.
Grant R Harrington
Lethbridge
9-8
Sounds like a backhanded argument for doing nothing.
You make it sound like long-term selenium contamination of our rivers is the only problem with coal mining. There are other heavy metals, calcite, acids ‘diluted’ in the rivers, air pollution, small particulate pollution, biodiversity loss, land erosion, groundwater contamination, not to metion the negative social costs related to mining operations.
https://environmentamerica.org/center/articles/how-coal-mining-harms-the-environment/
What we really need to do is to stop all mining, except in NDP land B.C. and condemn our infatuation with batteries and electric vehicles good bye. The Kids in the Congo would appreciate you leading the way Sophie. This is all politics and NIMBYism. Mining in Alberta, no way, mining NDP land, Sparwood to Westport, just fine with you. Nothing to do with something you can buy at a health food store.
Troll away, my friend.
By your (and Grant’s) ‘logic’, some activities have negative impacts, therefore everything is permitted.
I subscribe to the logic that if we can act, consume and work better, then we should do so. If that begins in one’s backyard, great!
It’s all about preserving a livable environment and a democratic process that balances liberty and equality. It is abundantly clear that you value none of these.
Why are these Reform Party Supporters so easy to fool? While our hero Peter Lougheed was so concerned with coal mining polluting our water supply he put a protection on it to see that it wasn’t. Yet it’s a well know fact that Reformers deliberately destroy everything Conservatives have created for the good of the people and don’t care who gets hurt in the process, namely our children and grandchildren’s future.
Can Grant explain to us true Conservatives why he has watched our oil wealth and corporate taxes stolen from the public, our healthcare and education systems destroyed, and our municipalities with underfunding .
With privatization pushing the costs of living through the roof these Reformers have put thousands of Albertans in need of Food Bank help and while our children already face an $85 billion debt and a $260 billion oil well clean up mess he doesn’t care what coal mining could add to this financial disaster and like a true Reformer ignores the fact that Teck Coal has already been fined $60 million for the pollution they created in B.C. Where is the intelligence in that? How much is he willing to pay to help finance the horrific mess he has helped these Reformers create?
This:
“$1.2B later, Teck Resources has barely put a dent in its pollution problems, documents show. The mining giant’s water treatment facilities have been plagued by delays and unexpected water quality issues.”
http://www.thenarwhal.ca
All sides-of-mouth talk about managing all open pit mining toxin water contamination is iffy at best. If Teck can’t do it, then who? Myself, I don’t believe a word that is said about so-called ‘responsible’ open pit coal mining, let alone the massive amount of water this mining requires. We do not have the amount of water for it, in the first place.
The seniors in our circle of friends find that it’s only seniors they are fooling the young Albertans aren’t that stupid. I bet Grant R Harrington is just another one and when you suggest they put their money where their mouth is they don’t want any part of paying for the mess they’re helping create. If Lougheed was so concerned about it that should have been the end of it but not with these fools and their ignorant easy to fool supporters they believe every lie they feed them.
what are you trying to say: that potable water, as well as having enough usable water to serve the needs of a southern alberta that is drought ridden and growing in numbers, is not a concern because fossil fuels are more toxic? \how about thinking this awful comparison through one more time.
Seems ironic that we will have many who preach from the pulpit on preserving mother earth and “savin the planet”! Yet, when confronted with cheaper EVs from China, protectionists throw 100% tarriffs, and nada from the pulpit?????
So its save the planet as long as Quebec, Ontario are ok lol
If you are talking about the federal government protecting existing jobs over ghg emission reductions, I agree. There should be greater public discussion on this. I would lean towards the best decision for the long term – low-cost evs.
Interestingly, this is the same argument being proffered by the coal mine corporations. That is, the promise of jobs over the long-term health of our rivers and the environment we need to live and prosper.
Useful employment and a healthy economy are important. But not when the gains are short-term, at the expense of a sustainable economy. The decision by a few to gain in the present, that harms many into the future is unethical.