Keep oil and gas activity off Sable Island??

Date: Wed, 9 Jun 1999 08:04:17 -0300 (ADT)
From: Paul A Falvo <pfalvo@chebucto.ns.ca>
To: Sustainable Maritimes <sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca>
Precedence: bulk
Return-Path: <sust-mar-mml-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>

next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects

Index of Subjects
3 forwarded sust-mar messages 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date:	Tue, 1 Jun 1999 09:14:02 -0300 (ADT)
From:	Mark Butler <ar427@chebucto.ns.ca>

Hi Kevin
The argument that natural causes exert x level of damage or mortality so
therefore human impacts are negligible or irrelevant, was
one well used by oil companies during the Sable Hearings. To me it seems a
little fallacious. The question is what is the combined impact of natural
and human impacts? What is the impact on Sable Island of storms and human
activity. For example, if a storm tore lots of siding off my house and
then the neighbour came along and tore a little more off would I shrug off
his actions as irrelevant?

Yes, gulls prey on terns, alcids, and sea ducks during nesting period.
Apparently, they are more vulnerable when they are disturbed by human
activity. They leave the nest which allows the gulls to move in and steal
eggs or young. This scenario would support the point above.

Mark Butler


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date:	Tue, 1 Jun 1999 08:11:36 -0300 (ADT)
From:	Paul A Falvo <pfalvo@chebucto.ns.ca>

OK, i'll bite ... :)

Kevin, by your own admission you are not overly informed on this issue. 
You frequently challenge other contributors to shore up their posts with
evidence.

Respectfully i'd like to turn the tables and ask you for your evidence
that human activity on Sable Island does not cause damage. 

~paul :)

On Sun, 30 May 1999, Kevin Chisholm wrote:

> If there is indeed a threat to Sable Island, as a consequence of
> increased heman traffic, through industry or tourism, then I would share
> your concerns. 

"he-man?" ... you must be referring to those roughnecks ... :) :)

[. . .]
> of the Atlantic" for nothing. It would appear to me that the violent
> weather patterns in the area would do far more damage in one day with

and it would appear to me that this claim is without evidence ...

[. . .]
> of the story. The major threat to the Terns is the seagulls which breed

would human activity not encourage more seagulls?

[. . .]
> I don't have a position on eitherr issue, because I know so little about
> them. I would propose a Debate, to enable all the sides of the stories

with respect, why then do you propose a resolution which indicates a
position? 

[. . .]
> "It is resolved that the violent veather patterns at Sable Island can do
> more Environmental damage in one day than can thounands of people
> visiting daily over hundreds of years. 

[. . .]

> "Accordingly, we support the use of Sable Island for Geophone test work, and the
> opening of the Island to supervised tourism."

[. . .]

> This does not seem like very destructive behaviour. I would guess that
> hundreds of horses would do far more foot traffic damage than would the
> oil exploration crews, or supervised tourists who would only go is
> suitable areas. 

with respect, Kevin ... you're guessing.

how did those horses get there? Human activity, no?

where is the evidence to support the claim that the crews and tourists go
only to suitable areas? 

[. . .]
> I would totally agree that caution is indeed necessary. Prohibition of
> any development whatsoever is not "caution."del... 

how do you define "caution", Kevin ... prohibition of Wal-mart stores on
Sable? >;-)

__________________________________________________________________________
Paul A. Falvo, LL.B. * chebucto.ns.ca/~pfalvo/Profile.html * (416)694-1513


---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date:	Tue, 01 Jun 1999 11:19:31 -0300
From:	Kevin Chisholm <kchishol@fox.nstn.ca>

Dear Mark

Thanks for your observations...

Mark Butler wrote:

> Hi Kevin
> The argument that natural causes exert x level of damage or mortality so
> therefore human impacts are negligible or irrelevant, was
> one well used by oil companies during the Sable Hearings. To me it seems a
> little fallacious.

Expressed in that manner, the argument is indeed potentially fallacious. If natural
causes lead to "x level of damage", and if additional human sourced damages cause an
additional ".5x" level of damage, then the extra "human increment of damage" is quite
significant, and the argument is fallacious. However, if the level of "human induced
damage" was only ".0005x", then the argument is reasonable.

> The question is what is the combined impact of natural
> and human impacts? What is the impact on Sable Island of storms and human
> activity.

That is indeed the key question. Nobody seems to have even qualatitive answers, let alone
answers which are anything close to quantitative. If we had this perspective, then a
decision to support or resist Human Development would be far more rational.

> For example, if a storm tore lots of siding off my house and
> then the neighbour came along and tore a little more off would I shrug off
> his actions as irrelevant?

To deal with your specific example, the answer would revolve around the cost of the
repair: How much would the Contractor charge to repair your house "as is", and how much
would he charge to repair it after your neighbour took a few more pieces off? If the
damage was really extensive, there would likely be no difference in his quoted price.
There is also a peculiar state, where your neighbour could lead to a lower cost to you,
if he took off siding that the Contractor would also have had to remove.

However, I feel your analogy may not be totally appropriate. Consider if you had a forest
stand and you were harvesting at 95% of the TAC (Total Allowable Cut) By definition of
the TAC, your stand would last into perpetuity. If you give your neighbour the right to
cut 3% more, then you are still OK. However, if he gets piggish, and takes 6%, then his
"cutting increment"creates an "overharvest condition", and if this situation continues,
the stand will eventually be depleted.

> Yes, gulls prey on terns, alcids, and sea ducks during nesting period.
> Apparently, they are more vulnerable when they are disturbed by human
> activity. They leave the nest which allows the gulls to move in and steal
> eggs or young. This scenario would support the point above.

If I walk too near a tern nest, and frighten off a tern, would not the seagulls also be
frightened away until I was out of range? And who would get back to the nest first: the
tern or the gull?

Kindest regards,

Kevin Chisholm


-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-
You received this because you are subscribed to "sust-mar", the
Sustainable Maritimes mailing list. To unsubscribe, send email to
<majordomo@chebucto.ns.ca> with "unsubscribe sust-mar" (without quotes) as
the body of your message. To post a message to sust-mar subscribers, send it to
<sust-mar@chebucto.ns.ca> Posts that are off-topic or excessive length
(10K) will be rejected. For help contact <sust-mar-owner@chebucto.ns.ca>





next message in archive
no next message in thread
previous message in archive
previous message in thread
Index of Subjects