# Ah what's a little oil spill anyway?



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Redford calls Alberta oil spill an ?exception? as cleanup continues - The Globe and Mail

Yup, imagine the Tarsands pipe extending into BC and onto the Pacific Ocean. Or even down into the ol' Gulf of Mexico.

I know, I know, they build pipes better nowadays. 

This will be interesting!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Cleanup of latest Alberta oil spill could take all summer*



> Gord Johnston’s tranquil life along the Red Deer River in central Alberta was shattered Thursday night as the nauseating scent of crude oil hung in the air and a coffee-coloured liquid lapped the banks near his home.
> 
> He reported the oil leak and, within two hours, a helicopter dispatched by a local oil company landed on his 57-acre property near Sundre, Alta., to fly him over the devastating scene. Mr. Johnston, who works in the oil patch, could see oil “boiling up” in the river at the site of a pipeline crossing.
> 
> ...





> Loretta Leonhardt, who owns property where the latest spill occurred, said she is concerned. “We all love the oil industry in Alberta, but I think they’ve been really lax on what they’ve been doing for the environment,” she said. “And I think it’s time they’re called to task on some of this stuff.”


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Bad weather not cooperating with the cleanup. Nice mess.
Fresh water trucked in after oil spillOil spill worries Albertans - Calgary - CBC News


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

It's all part of the natural environment of Alberta anyways, just returning home.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I see the usual suspects dancing with glee in this thread pointing righteous fingers at Alberta.

All while owning and driving cars thanks to oil, using transit thanks to oil, flying in aircraft thanks to oil, owning thousands of items made of plastic, some of it in their Macs thanks to oil, consuming electricity from turbines or generators thanks to oil. The list goes on and we all benefit, but it's those hypocrites who are the only ones revelling in this spill.

Spills happen. And they happen a very tiny fraction of the time. Check the spills rate against miles of pipeline worldwide and it is tiny indeed. Expecting any less is like expecting there to be no car crashes, no plane crashes, no sunken ships, no ill humans and that list too goes on.

Now we return you to the gleeful hypocrite thread.


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

+1


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

+2


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> I see the usual suspects dancing with glee in this thread pointing righteous fingers at Alberta.


I assure you, Don, that I am not _dancing with glee_. This is a serious environmental issue. It's not just a pipeline spill, it's a pipeline spill into a tributary of the Red Deer River, which is of major concern:



> By Friday morning, the situation had worsened. Oil clotted one of the province’s most crucial waterways and soaked nearby wetlands.





> ...160,000 to 480,000 litres, has leaked. About 90 workers were erecting booms in Lake Gleniffer, some 40 kilometres downstream, in an bid to prevent an oil slick from reaching Red Deer, Alberta’s third-largest city, which draws its water from the river.





> unlike previous incidents, this spill isn’t in a remote location


(Globe & Mail)

What I find amazing and disturbing is the blasé nature exhibited by some people to this incident:



> "I was going to go fishing but they said, 'No, you're not allowed,' " he said as huddled with his friends underneath a tarp at his campsite near the Gleniffer reservoir.
> 
> "You are not allowed to go near the water because it (oil) is washing up on shore. *I hope it just passes by in a week or two*." (emphasis added)


This spill is not as large, though, as last year's disaster with a pipeline owned by the same company:


> In April of last year a company pipeline in northwestern Alberta ruptured, leaking more than 4.5 million litres of oil.


(Calgary Herald)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> I assure you, Don, that I am not _dancing with glee_. This is a serious environmental issue. It's not just a pipeline spill, it's a pipeline spill into a tributary of the Red Deer River, which is of major concern


I know that Mark, you're not one of the usual suspects.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Awwww!* _I'm special?_


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

CubaMark said:


> *Awwww!* _I'm special?_


Actually you are a reasonable, well-thinking man who stands for his beliefs and does so in an honourable way. We do not always agree, but we do so without name calling and belittling one another or their home province. I like that in a person.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

I just may have to hop in my MexiBeetle, drive up to Alberta, and give you an embarrassing public man-hug, Don... :heybaby:


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> Redford calls Alberta oil spill an ?exception? as cleanup continues - The Globe and Mail
> 
> Yup, imagine the Tarsands pipe extending into BC and onto the Pacific Ocean. Or even down into the ol' Gulf of Mexico.
> 
> ...


Exactly Jimbo, they _do_ build better pipelines these days....and they will build better pipelines in the future as well, perhaps because of events like these. 

You are also correct about how interesting this will be as the details emerge about the actual failure of the system. Was it a mechanical, human or system failure? Or a combination? Why did the failsafe fail? Was the public really the first to detect the spill? If so, how long was the issue ongoing and why did the operators not detect or report it sooner?

As quoted in another oil related thread here, Alberta’s environmental, regulatory and operating laws and standard practices are a model for other provinces and countries fortunate enough to have an oil & gas industry. Alberta’s laws, regulations and operating practices are incorporated, either by direct copy or by reference into many agreements, policies and operating manuals worldwide. If Alberta updates their requirements, many must follow suit. 

New oil & gas facilities of any kind are approved and built on the then current standards. In the future, on an ongoing basis, operating licenses are renewed annually based on meeting the constantly evolving standards for operation and maintenance. Hardware operating properly but not meeting updated standards usually remains operational with grandfathered approval (not unlike plumbing and electrical in older houses). It is not typically feasible to rip up an existing pipeline to upgrade it, unless the operating capacity is being significantly restored or increased. 

So, if the cause of these spills is determined to be mechanical, the hardware will need to be replaced or upgraded to meet current standards. If some portion of the facilities cannot be feasibly upgraded or replaced they will not likely receive approval to operate again, or will receive approval based on a significantly reduced capacity, usually spelling the economic death of the facility anyway. Other facilities of a similar age and design may, even though they have not failed and are operated by a different company, also receive a reduced operating capacity rating with their next operating license renewal.

If the failure was human, then training, employment and hiring standards and practices will be reviewed and upgraded where necessary. 

Where all mechanical and operating was done in accordance with the laws and regulations, but still failed, these laws and regulations will be reviewed and upgraded as thought required to prevent another similar failure in the future. And those who aspire to, or are otherwise bound to comply with Alberta’s standards, will do so as well.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Dancing with Glee? Hardly.

Summer vacation is a miraculous camping trip into the Wilmore Wilderness. This spill is a sad reminder of the ramifications of pipelines. And what are we doing? Why we're building more. Sad indeed!

Expect more to come of course.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> I see the usual suspects dancing with glee in this thread pointing righteous fingers at Alberta.
> 
> All while owning and driving cars thanks to oil, using transit thanks to oil, flying in aircraft thanks to oil, owning thousands of items made of plastic, some of it in their Macs thanks to oil, consuming electricity from turbines or generators thanks to oil. The list goes on and we all benefit, but it's those hypocrites who are the only ones revelling in this spill.
> 
> ...


Spills kill, especially wildlife. Doesn't matter how you justify it. You're missing the point here, Don.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> ..... This spill is a sad reminder of the ramifications of pipelines. And what are we doing? Why we're building more. Sad indeed!


Sorry that you are sad. 
I, for one, am pleased that our economy is strong enough to support more capital development such as new pipelines. 



jimbotelecom said:


> Expect more to come of course.


Thank you. That's helpful. 



fjnmusic said:


> Spills kill, especially wildlife. Doesn't matter how you justify it. ....


Yes, you are correct fjnmusic, spills kill a lot of things. Innocent things, I'll add. So do power line failures, water dam failures, wind turbine failures, nuclear failures.....and so on. 

One can never justify a spill, in any way. I can however, justify many industries.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

SINC said:


> I see the usual suspects dancing with glee in this thread pointing righteous fingers at Alberta.
> 
> All while owning and driving cars thanks to oil, using transit thanks to oil, flying in aircraft thanks to oil, owning thousands of items made of plastic, some of it in their Macs thanks to oil, consuming electricity from turbines or generators thanks to oil. The list goes on and we all benefit, but it's those hypocrites who are the only ones revelling in this spill.


i didn't see anyone dancing with glee in their responses.

i also think it's ridiculous hyperbole to suggest someone is a hypocrite for criticizing big oil simply because our society relies on petroleum so much.

by that same (faulty) logic those who defend the oil industry are hypocrites because they breath air and drink water which our environment (thankfully!) provides.

there are serious issues which need to be examined. why are these oil companies not detecting the spills? this is an all too common trend.

more importantly why are we considering building more pipelines to transport unrefined bitumen? we've been lucky in canada so far that these large spills have been light crude. a large bitumen spill would be disastrous.

not to mention the danger of gutting the environmental process which Harper and co. are shoving through parliament with their Budget implementation bill.

the country's focus should be on increasing the safety of the pipelines and only transporting bitumen along pipelines that pose minimal risk. this would mean refining the oil sands in Canada, which has the added benefit of the economic spoils staying in Canada.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Nor did I notice anyone stomping on Alberta. 

All the fraking talk going on in all provinces is enough to make one seriously consider what exactly is the point beyond which there is no return.

Sadly, there seems to be a fair bit of hyperbole coming from defenders of questionable policy.

More to come I suspect.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Nor did I notice anyone stomping on Alberta.





BigDL said:


> It's all part of the natural environment of Alberta anyways, just returning home.


Yeah, right. 

Not to mention that snide little thread title:

*Ah what's a little oil spill anyway?*


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

fjnmusic said:


> Spills kill, especially wildlife. Doesn't matter how you justify it. You're missing the point here, Don.


Sorry, but no. Pipelines are a calculated risk with a benefit to all mankind. That's what you are missing. Spills are less frequent than many natural and other man-made disasters and Alberta is a world leader in dealing with them.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Yeah, right.
> 
> Not to mention that snide little thread title:
> 
> *Ah what's a little oil spill anyway?*


The point is there a bigger spills to come with more detrimental outcomes in even more sensitive ecological areas as the Tarsands expand.

The title is perfectly appropriate especially for those with holdings that border the river not to mention the species that need their liquid from this valuable source. Hopefully this will make a significant impact and cause everyone to think twice or even three times before heading down a disastrous path.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> Nor did I notice anyone stomping on Alberta.


I didn't see any stomping in this thread, but I did see a couple sarcastic darts thrown in this and other threads. Hey! Those could've smarted, had they hit the target! 



jimbotelecom said:


> All the fraking talk going on in all provinces is enough to make one seriously consider what exactly is the point beyond which there is no return.


Jimbo, could you please expand on what your concern is here? What do you mean by “point of no return”? Environmental, I’d guess, but it could also be economic or perhaps even moral or something else. Many oil & gas fields with remaining reserves are already shut-in as they are past the economic point of no return even with the outrageous prices today. 

Fraking is generally a safe and effective treatment for tight reservoirs, however, I will agree that this may not be the case in all circumstances. It is a hot enough topic now that I am reasonably confident that it is getting the attention it requires to be fully understood (by those who are genuinely interested in the truth) and appropriate regulations and guidelines if not already in place, will be put in place for any concerned party. Public awareness, as always, is fundamental in getting the corporations to examine their own commonly accepted industrial practices for any unjustifiable risk (or plain stupidity) that may exist. Ignorance may have been the explanation but it will never make a valid excuse. 



jimbotelecom said:


> Sadly, there seems to be a fair bit of hyperbole coming from defenders of questionable policy.


I apologize if my posts are contributing towards your continuing melancholia. I do not mean to exaggerate or even defend (for the most part). I’m merely providing an explanation with the goal of fostering a better understanding of an industry I know fairly well. As far as questionable policy, yes, oil & gas policy is definitely and continually questionable and thankfully, it usually provides satisfactory answers. 


jimbotelecom said:


> More to come I suspect.


See! Your suspicions were correct! 

I'm now going outside to enjoy what's left of my Alberta with all-hell-for-a-basement environment.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Sorry, but no. Pipelines are a calculated risk with a benefit to all mankind. That's what you are missing. Spills are less frequent than many natural and other man-made disasters and Alberta is a world leader in dealing with them.


Well I am certainly not suggesting we don't need good pipelines. Far from. But we do need pipelined that don't break and spill forth their contents on the environment, particularly freshwater streams and rivers, on which we all depend for our water supply, plants and animals included.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> The point is there a bigger spills to come with more detrimental outcomes in even more sensitive ecological areas as the Tarsands expand.
> 
> The title is perfectly appropriate especially for those with holdings that border the river not to mention the species that need their liquid from this valuable source. *Hopefully this will make a significant impact *and cause everyone to think twice or even three times before heading down a disastrous path.


OK, I lied about going right outside.....but, but.....
WHY would you hope for a significant impact? 
Isn't that like hoping someone gets hurt at an intersection so they'll finally install traffic lights?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> The point is there a bigger spills to come with more detrimental outcomes in even more sensitive ecological areas as the Tarsands expand.


If you refer to the oilsands, try the correct term. There is no tar in the oilsands, no matter how much you try to smear them with the term.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> If you refer to the oilsands, try the correct term. There is no tar in the oilsands, no matter how much you try to smear them with the term.


Surely you realize that the Athabasca Tarsands have a deep rooted existence in Alberta. For example take a look at this Government of Alberta report:

Athabasca Tar Sands Study, The Environmental Impact of In Situ Technology

The name was whitewashed in recent times. I can pull up more historical data if you desire.
I prefer to use the correct term - Tarsands. 

Thank you.


----------



## cap10subtext (Oct 13, 2005)

It's bitumen. Technically not tar but calling it oil is a stretch.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

cap10subtext said:


> It's bitumen. Technically not tar but calling it oil is a stretch.


Life can be a bitumen when you're tarred with the same brush. XX)


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Alberta oil spill mostly contained, firm says - Calgary - CBC News


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

KC4 said:


> I didn't see any stomping in this thread, but I did see a couple sarcastic darts thrown in this and other threads. Hey! Those could've smarted, had they hit the target!
> 
> 
> Jimbo, could you please expand on what your concern is here? What do you mean by “point of no return”? Environmental, I’d guess, but it could also be economic or perhaps even moral or something else. Many oil & gas fields with remaining reserves are already shut-in as they are past the economic point of no return even with the outrageous prices today....



Isn't it frustrating when you take the time to write a well reasoned, knowledgeable and congenial post to someone only to be bypassed by them to make a trite retort to someone else... kind of makes you wonder why you bother to go to the trouble some days... well at least it does for me. 

Great post KC4.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Surely you realize that the Athabasca Tarsands have a deep rooted existence in Alberta. For example take a look at this Government of Alberta report:
> 
> Athabasca Tar Sands Study, The Environmental Impact of In Situ Technology
> 
> ...


Not the correct term then not the correct term now, if you want to be correct they are the bitumen sands.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

BigDL said:


> It's all part of the natural environment of Alberta anyways, just returning home.


I thought I reflected Alberta Government's position with the Premier's statement of nothing to see here, move along. Move along! When I first heard it, I thought it was an industry statement being read by the Premier.



CBCNews said:


> Premier defends pipeline regulations:
> 
> Premier Alison Redford said while many questions will be asked over the coming days about Alberta's pipeline infrastructure she feels Alberta has an internationally recognized pipeline system supported by a strong regulatory framework.
> 
> ...


Alberta residents angry after oil spills into nearby lake - Calgary - CBC News

Some should be testy with the Government of Alberta for their lackadaisical position, not me for repeating it.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> I thought I reflected Alberta Government's position with the Premier's statement of nothing to see here, move along. Move along! When I first heard it, I thought it was an industry statement being read by the Premier.
> 
> Some should be testy with the Government of Alberta for their lackadaisical position, not me for repeating it.


The fact of the matter is that the spill was first reported Friday morning. By Friday afternoon, just hours later, Premier Redford was present on the site holding a news conference outlining what the province would do to contain the spill:



> Premier Alison Redford headed to nearby Dickson Dam to hold a news conference Friday afternoon where she said the spill had been contained to the Gleniffer reservoir and crews were working to minimize the environmental impact.


Province rushes to contain oil spill on Red Deer River

Twisting the facts just a bit aren't we?

Here btw, is the definition for future reference:

lackadaisical [ˌlækəˈdeɪzɪkəl]
adj
1. lacking vitality and purpose
2. lazy or idle, esp in a dreamy way
[from earlier lackadaisy, extended form of lackaday]
lackadaisically adv
lackadaisicalness n


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Seems the media only reported this story this far east. (The story refers to Thursday night reporting to the Government officials.)

Seemed to me, shockingly, that other than the residents immediately affected, Albertans in generally, were not upset over oil spilled into a major source of drinking water.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> Seems the media only reported this story this far east. (The story refers to Thursday night reporting to the Government officials.)
> 
> Seemed to me, shockingly, that other than the residents immediately affected, Albertans in generally, were not upset over oil spilled into a major source of drinking water.


Spoken in ignorance from afar with not the slightest knowledge of Albertans reactions. It is the hottest topic on the streets of the capital. To insinuate otherwise is incorrect.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

In the fall of 2003 Hurricane Juan wasn't much of a story in the western lands. The closer to home more the focus to any story.

This thread took some time to see some reaction from the flat lands now didn't it?

Was the information forthcoming on the crisis? No! 

The first reaction was condemnation to posts of perceived butt covering by the Government and industry. 

The next reaction was anger directed at the observers, no anger stated or directed towards the perpetrators of the butt covering that being the gov and/or industry, by all means enjoy the circus that ensues.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

BigDL said:


> In the fall of 2003 Hurricane Juan wasn't much of a story in the western lands. The closer to home more the focus to any story.
> 
> This thread took some time to see some reaction from the flat lands now didn't it?
> 
> ...


^

Speaking of butt covering.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> ^
> 
> Speaking of butt covering.


And a massive stretch.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

MazterCBlazter said:


> The oil spill is just a practice run. Soon they might have a new pipeline running through much sensitive pristine wilderness. Most of it will not spill but make it to the port. The captain of the Exxon Valdez II will be waiting for it. He will drink a toast to shipping our oil to Communist countries. Support of their sweat shop manufacturing can continue to kill off Canadian business and jobs with throwaway inexpensive garbage products.


Oh. Wow. 
Willful and wanton polluters, drunkards, Commies, sweat shop operators (possible child labor users?), Canadian business killers, junk manufacturers and dealers. Is this really how you view the petroleum industry and what it supports? If so, unfortunately, you are not alone with that impression. Now that makes _me_ sad. 

MCB, I've always thought you to the type to be interested in learning new things, especially the truth. 

In the interest of balance and hopefully some informative facts, may I suggest a little easy reading? 

This goes for ANYONE here concerned enough about the petroleum industry to investigate further..... The Oil Sands Fact Book

Alternatively, one can choose the strategy of ignorance and spend more time and energy on finding and reporting more misinformation or negative things. I bet if anyone looks hard enough, among the millions gainfully and directly employed in the oil & gas industry, there are undoubtedly wife-beaters, pedophiles and please don't forget all of the animal killers we have.

Regarding your statement that the recent oil spill is just a practice run, I think we (the oil industry) have had enough practice by now, don't you think? It's time we wrap up this mess rehearsal and get on with the really big show.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Here's a present for Jimbo, should he choose to accept it. 

The Facts on Natural Gas

It has a decent perspective on hydraulic fracturing (a.k.a "fraking" or "fracing") 

_Anybody_, again, is welcome to read it if they want to find out more about this controversial practice.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

KC4 said:


> Here's a present for Jimbo, should he choose to accept it.
> 
> The Facts on Natural Gas
> 
> ...


Thanks. I'll go over it.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

KC4 said:


> Oh. Wow.
> Willful and wanton polluters, drunkards, Commies, sweat shop operators (possible child labor users?), Canadian business killers, junk manufacturers and dealers. Is this really how you view the petroleum industry and what it supports? If so, unfortunately, you are not alone with that impression. Now that makes _me_ sad....


:clap: Great post KC4.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

From what we're seeing in the news, it looks like this is turning out to be less damaging than we initially feared (though it *is* damaging). The words of the Pipeline boss, though, arent' comforting:



> A representative for the company whose pipeline spilled hundreds of thousands of litres of oil into an Alberta river suggests there were two strokes of luck that kept the problem from being worse.
> 
> Stephen Bart, the vice-president of crude oil operations for Plains Midstream Canada, says the first piece of good luck was that oil wasn't flowing through the pipeline at the time.
> 
> Bart says the second was that the Red Deer River was swollen with recent rain, which washed the oil to the Gleniffer Reservoir where it can be more easily contained by booms, leaving only localized pockets of oil on the river.


So - *LUCK.* Not well-managed pipelines, appropriate maintenance or watchdog inspections. *LUCK.*

As for environmental damage:



> the fact the water level in the river was high means grass and other land that's further up on the riverbank is more likely to have been coated with oil.
> 
> "That means some animals, particularly the ducks that are nesting on the banks, and some of the animals like muskrat and beaver that use the banks quite a bit, may be that much more exposed to oil," Hodson says.


(HuffingtonPost.ca)


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

CubaMark said:


> From what we're seeing in the news, it looks like this is turning out to be less damaging than we initially feared (though it *is* damaging). The words of the Pipeline boss, though, arent' comforting:
> 
> 
> 
> So - *LUCK.* Not well-managed pipelines, appropriate maintenance or watchdog inspections. *LUCK.*


Have you found some facts about this? Linky please? 
Where did you find out that the pipeline wasn't well managed? That it wasn't appropriately maintained or inspected? I haven't heard anything of this nature, yet. 

Holy carp! If that's true, Plains is risking losing a bunch of operating licenses. 



CubaMark said:


> As for environmental damage:
> 
> 
> 
> (HuffingtonPost.ca)


No contamination at all would be best of course, but that's not an option at this point in time. Any contamination, no matter where along a riparian area is very serious, but higher than the normal water level would be helpful in reducing waterborne dispersion. Contaminated grasses and scrub brush can be cut back and removed. Grasses and scrub brush are wonderfully resilient and thankfully grow back quickly.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Seems the onus of proof is on pipeline operator to prove the line was well maintained and operated.

First there was a leak, if this is in the maintenance and operating plan not a good idea IMO.

Second the operator is one that introduced the idea of being lucky. Why pick on CM?



> A representative for the company whose pipeline spilled hundreds of thousands of litres of oil into an Alberta river suggests there were two strokes of luck that kept the problem from being worse.
> 
> Stephen Bart, the vice-president of crude oil operations for Plains Midstream Canada, says the first piece of good luck was that oil wasn't flowing through the pipeline at the time.
> 
> Bart says the second was that the Red Deer River was swollen with recent rain, which washed the oil to the Gleniffer Reservoir where it can be more easily contained by booms, leaving only localized pockets of oil on the river.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Alberta oil spill contained, drinking water safe: company | CTV News


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

I wonder what kind of reception do you think you'd get in Fukushima and told them not to complain after reaping the benefits of nuclear power for so long given that nuclear accidents are, like pipeline accidents, quite rare? 



SINC said:


> I see the usual suspects dancing with glee in this thread pointing righteous fingers at Alberta.
> 
> All while owning and driving cars thanks to oil, using transit thanks to oil, flying in aircraft thanks to oil, owning thousands of items made of plastic, some of it in their Macs thanks to oil, consuming electricity from turbines or generators thanks to oil. The list goes on and we all benefit, but it's those hypocrites who are the only ones revelling in this spill.
> 
> ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Amiga2000HD said:


> I wonder what kind of reception do you think you'd get in Fukushima and told them not to complain after reaping the benefits of nuclear power for so long given that nuclear accidents are, like pipeline accidents, quite rare?


Oil spills are for the most part able to be contained, cleaned up and have a tiny impact on the environment, such as this one. Granted some are more serious. This one didn't even taint the drinking water. How are they making out with undoing that mess in Fukushima, by the way?


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

BigDL said:


> Seems the onus of proof is on pipeline operator to prove the line was well maintained and operated.
> 
> First there was a leak, if this is in the maintenance and operating plan not a good idea IMO.
> 
> Second the operator is one that introduced the idea of being lucky. Why pick on CM?


Pick on CM? Hah. I think he can take it. I’ve seen him wrassle a bear. 

My efforts in this thread are not as much directed at individuals, even though individuals have given me the examples to work with. My objective is to battle this outdated, unhelpful perception of industry.

It’s been a long time (about 100 years) since oilmen were running around in glee when oil gushed from the top of a derrick, spreading for miles. Crazy bastards. Now we do everything we can to prevent that from happening. 







It’s been even longer since we stupidly placed hundreds of derricks in the same field, racing against our neighbors to pull the most the fastest. Now we know that not only is that not safe, nor equitable, it can irreparably damage the reservoir making the remaining reserves inaccessible to anyone. Greed and ignorance is always an ugly pairing.







We no longer, in a display of pyrotechnical idiocy, routinely flare terrible quantities of natural gas to produce oil. We could light up the sky for miles around and BBQ weinies from a mile away. Now we recognize the value of natural gas and have developed the technology to conserve it. 

Being a maritimer BigDL, do you remember the time when the farmers used to pitchfork lobsters into their fields for fertilizer? Or more recently, the cod fishing industry issues?

Gone are the days when other industries are permitted to use the rivers as sewage outlets, or routinely spew toxic clouds from their stacks. Agriculture thankfully discontinued the use of DDT and other chemicals that turned out to be more harmful than helpful. 

Are we all good now? No, and probably never will be. But it’s a foolish assumption to believe that any long-standing major industry player having made a significant investment would not operate, maintain or inspect their equipment properly. 

The petroleum industry has enough risk to manage without needlessly adding more in the form of sloppy management or regulatory non-compliance.

Industry is helped by and appreciates public feedback and reporting. We are hopefully going to be neighbors for a very long time. However, those members of the concerned public who (despite having access to the facts) constantly feed back and disseminate false assumptions or claim outdated practices are still in use today are being about as helpful as they can be without being any help at all. 

Have you ever operated and maintained a piece of machinery properly and still had it fail? I have and still view Jeep products with some trepidation today. Perhaps I shouldn’t be so hypocritical. I understand they build Jeep products much better these days.

And, lastly, if I was the spokesperson for Plains Midstream, I too would be humbly lauding luck and not boasting about my company’s management or maintenance skills (even if I believed they were without fault). Wouldn't you?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

This is getting embarassing.... I'm begining to feel like a cheerleader... another great post KC4. :clap:


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

Hah! Thanks Screature. My one man cheering section. Can you do the wave?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

KC4 said:


> Hah! Thanks Screature. My one man cheering section. Can you do the wave?


If I wave my arms back and forth independently and shuffle sideways...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Count me in as part of the wave KC4! :clap:


----------



## Aurora (Sep 25, 2001)

Me too.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

Which group does the Government have the interest of, first and foremost , the Industry? Or the general population?

We all know about acceptable risk but go console the family of a dead worker with "everything is OK this one death fell within acceptable parameters."

The very idea that multiple pipelines were allowed to be build so close to a watershed and source of supply of City Water for a Major City is so scary in and of it self. 

"So which side are they on boys which side are they on?"


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Some times the ignorance of posters in this thread about pipelines astounds me. Making statements based on such ignorance is just plain wrong.


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

BigDL said:


> Which group does the Government have the interest of, first and foremost , the Industry? Or the general population?


Now you are getting political, which is outside of my area of expertise. 
However, I may be naive, but IMO the government has the interest of the general population first and foremost. 



BigDL said:


> We all know about acceptable risk but go console the family of a dead worker with "everything is OK this one death fell within acceptable parameters."


Seriously, BigDL? Where are you going with this one? Are you trying to say that you believe industry has some parameters where a death is considered acceptable in certain circumstances? 

Would any accidental deaths, in any situation, be acceptable? Are traffic related deaths acceptable because every time a person chooses to get behind the wheel, they have assumed acceptable risk? Or perhaps a traffic death is only considered acceptable if the decedent was the driver at fault? 



BigDL said:


> The very idea that multiple pipelines were allowed to be build so close to a watershed and source of supply of City Water for a Major City is so scary in and of it self.
> 
> .....


Oh poor BigDL, I hate to frighten you any further but, don't look now....

L?Explorateur ONG Map Viewer

You're surrounded! There are pipelines everywhere around you! In the watersheds and near the water supply and down your streets and back alleys! There might even be a natural gas pipeline right in your very own house! 

Wait! There's more : New Brunswick | Canadian Natural Gas




> New Brunswick is home to the Frederick Brook Shale, which roughly stretches across the southeastern part of the province and is part of the Maritimes Basin. The government estimates that there are 80 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gas in place.


80 TRILLION cubic Feet! Right under your feet! 


> New Brunswick is also home to a portion of the Maritimes and Northeast Pipeline, which runs from Nova Scotia to New England.


Whoa, now, that's a major pipeline, dontcha know. 

But, wait, there's some good news....


> Since New Brunswick uses a significant amount of coal and diesel fuel for power generation, opportunity exists to switch to cleaner-burning natural gas.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

As long as your happy with the choices made , that's all that matters. 

Some are not.

Shale gas exploration and fracking has generated much discussion and opposition in New Brunswick with the Alward Government taking a "Harper lite" approach and receiving a rough ride.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

One big area of concern for me is that the fracksters are going to be going into remote areas like Liard BC to tap into the gas and then run pipes all through one of the most gorgeous ecosystems I have ever had the pleasure of visiting. My own opinion is that these areas need to be fully protected from any sort of mass development/resource extraction in an effort to maintain wild spaces for biodiversity to flourish. The majority of people still haven't thought through the consequences of habitat depletion and extinction of species and life itself.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> One big area of concern for me is that the fracksters are going to be going into remote areas like Liard BC to tap into the gas and then run pipes all through one of the most gorgeous ecosystems I have ever had the pleasure of visiting. My own opinion is that these areas need to be fully protected from any sort of mass development/resource extraction in an effort to maintain wild spaces for biodiversity to flourish. The majority of people still haven't thought through the consequences of habitat depletion and extinction of species *and life itself.*


You think oil and gas exploration, transportation and use is going to cause the extinction of life itself??!!! If you think that is possible I don't think you appreciate the truly catastrophic events that have occurred in the earth's past and were not capable of bringing about the extinction of life itself.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

screature said:


> You think oil and gas exploration, transportation and use is going to cause the extinction of life itself??!!! If you think that is possible I don't think you appreciate the truly catastrophic events that have occurred in the earth's past and were not capable of bringing about the extinction of life itself.


Yes I think that human encroachment on various habitats is a contributing factor to the elimination of species. There has been a marked increase in loss of species in the last century the result of direct human intervention. I adopt the view that the loss of a species through human intervention has a detrimental impact on the ecosphere - which is life itself.

I do fully appreciate the natural events of the past that have occurred and altered the course of life at that time.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

There is absolutely no question that human industrial activity is the cause of a mass extinction event. The question is of what magnitude will it be? The Permian extinction resulted in a loss of about 90% of species, but the Triassic event eliminated only about 20% of species, as far as we can tell (it's obviously difficult to know how much microbial diversity was lost in these events).

The Anthropocene will certainly see the loss of a great deal of biodiversity, but I agree with screature, that it's very unlikely to extinguish all life on Earth. I think what jimbotelecom is saying that all extinctions are a loss to the complexity of life on earth, and should be avoided if possible. While I appreciate that sentiment, I don't think extinctions are always necessarily bad; extinction is the ultimate fate of all species. What we need to worry about is loss of biodiversity, and that we are wiping out whole ecosystems with their myriad networks of interacting species through our industrial extraction of resources.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Life in some form will go on. I think that humans are smart enough, for too numerous, and adaptable that they will survive nuclear war and even a horrendous natural event. 

I make a very clear distinction between natural and human caused events. I recognize that looking at the ecosphere at any one time you have a snapshot of the life force we co-exist in with other species. When humans alter the course of nature and are directly responsible for loss of existence of a species we do harm to life itself. When an event naturally occurs and wipes out a species I have no bone to pick.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Life in some form will go on. I think that humans are smart enough, for too numerous, and adaptable that they will survive nuclear war and even a horrendous natural event.
> 
> I make a very clear distinction between natural and human caused events. I recognize that looking at the ecosphere at any one time you have a snapshot of the life force we co-exist in with other species. When humans alter the course of nature and are directly responsible for loss of existence of a species we do harm to life itself. When an event naturally occurs and wipes out a species I have no bone to pick.





bryanc said:


> There is absolutely no question that human industrial activity is the cause of a mass extinction event. The question is of what magnitude will it be? The Permian extinction resulted in a loss of about 90% of species, but the Triassic event eliminated only about 20% of species, as far as we can tell (it's obviously difficult to know how much microbial diversity was lost in these events).
> 
> The Anthropocene will certainly see the loss of a great deal of biodiversity, but I agree with screature, that it's very unlikely to extinguish all life on Earth. I think what jimbotelecom is saying that all extinctions are a loss to the complexity of life on earth, and should be avoided if possible. While I appreciate that sentiment, I don't think extinctions are always necessarily bad; extinction is the ultimate fate of all species. What we need to worry about is loss of biodiversity, and that we are wiping out whole ecosystems with their myriad networks of interacting species through our industrial extraction of resources.





jimbotelecom said:


> Yes I think that human encroachment on various habitats is a contributing factor to the elimination of species. There has been a marked increase in loss of species in the last century the result of direct human intervention. I adopt the view that the loss of a species through human intervention has a detrimental impact on the ecosphere - which is life itself.
> 
> I do fully appreciate the natural events of the past that have occurred and altered the course of life at that time.


No doubt our activities have brought about the extinction of species and it is unfortunate. But we are in fact part of nature so it is still natural, however I agree with you both that preservation of species to maintain biodiversity is highly desirable and we should do everything we can within our power so that when conducting resource exploration and extraction we minimize the impact on the environment.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

screature said:


> I agree with you both that preservation of species to maintain biodiversity is highly desirable and we should do everything we can within our power so that when conducting resource exploration and extraction we minimize the impact on the environment.


I have no doubt that most reasonable people would agree with this. The question will always be "what is the optimal balance?" 

What is the correct compromise between obtaining wealth and damaging the environment. Given that essentially everything we do damages the environment, we can never take the position of "do no harm." So it's always a question of "is this harm I'm doing to others worth the benefit to me?" It's actually a very tricky philosophical question.

It's also a very trick practical question if you don't have a good idea of what the risks actually are, or how much damage various plausible outcomes may have.

Personally, given that the resources aren't going anywhere, I'm inclined to caution; extract only as much as we need using the safest and least damaging technologies. If we can't find some other solution in the future and we really need the resources, we can relax our standards at that time.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Certainly the wrong thing to do is this:
Research on oil-sands impact cost centre its funding, scientists say - The Globe and Mail

Along with gutting environmental law in general in the latest "budget" bill.

A step backward that I am very concerned about.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

jimbotelecom said:


> Certainly the wrong thing to do is this:
> Research on oil-sands impact cost centre its funding, scientists say - The Globe and Mail
> 
> Along with gutting environmental law in general in the latest "budget" bill.
> ...


 
Yeah, and they're not just cutting scientific research into oil-sands polution, but all pollution impact scientific research. 

ex. Killer whale expert out of work as feds cut ocean-pollution monitoring positions

There was another article I read that listed enven more environmental monitoring and research programs being cut... I can't find it.

Pretty soon, we'll have no idea how our industries and businesses are polluting our environment (air, land, and sea),and it's effects on the environment and us. They're just stopping everything.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Enbridge Elk Point Spill Pumps About 230,000 Litres Of Heavy Crude*



> There's been another oil spill in Alberta, this time northeast of Edmonton.
> 
> The Energy Resources Conservation Board says the leak of heavy crude oil happened Monday at a pumping station on Enbridge Inc.’s (TSX:ENB) Athabasca pipeline about 24 kilometres southeast of Elk Point.
> 
> Enbridge estimates about 230,000 litres has leaked, but the ERCB's Darin Barter said Tuesday that amount hasn't been confirmed.





> Steve Upham, reeve of the County of St. Paul, where the pumping station is located, said as of Tuesday night he hadn't received any notification.
> 
> Upham said he was aware of the spill only through media reports.
> 
> ...


(HuffingtonPost.Ca)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> 230,000 Litres Of Heavy Crude


23 cubic metres. One 10th of a boxcar.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, a mere drop in the bucket the media and anti oil groups are trying to make a big deal of instead. Kinda like your kid dripping his popsicle on the local water park.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

So how big does a spill have to be before the authorities need to be notified? I would've thought a responsible company would notify authorities at the first sign of *any* spill, in order to ensure that whatever problems occur are kept to a minimum.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> So how big does a spill have to be before the authorities need to be notified? I would've thought a responsible company would notify authorities at the first sign of *any* spill, in order to ensure that whatever problems occur are kept to a minimum.


This was done and duly reported by the company:



> EDMONTON - Cleanup is underway after an oil spill Monday along Enbridge’s Athabasca pipeline, southeast of Elk Point, the Alberta Energy Resources Conservation Board says.
> 
> The company estimates about 230,000 litres of heavy crude oil spilled from a pumping station along the surface pipeline about 24 kilometres southeast of Elk Point, the board said Tuesday.
> 
> ...


It was just big enough for the agency to issue a news release, so it is considered a minor spill. From what I read, it threatens no groundwater and will be entirely cleaned up.

Elk Point pipeline spill releases 230,000 litres of heavy crude: Enbridge


----------



## chimo (Jun 9, 2008)

Macfury said:


> 23 cubic metres. One 10th of a boxcar.


230 cubic meters


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> This was done and duly reported by the company


Okay, I misunderstood. From the earlier postings it appeared that the appropriate authorities had not been contacted, and that some of you were okay with this because it was "just a _small_ spill."

I'd be much more comfortable with the development of oil resources if I trusted that the companies (or even the government) viewed environmental protection as anything other than "a cost of doing business" (i.e. something to be minimized).

Any heavy industry (including environmentally sustainable industries) are going to have impacts, and accidents are going to happen in which habitat is destroyed, wildlife and even people get killed. What we need is more than contrite CEOs apologizing (or worse, deflecting responsibility) when that happens. We need to see significant (i.e. substantial investments) in minimizing impact, mitigating effects, maintaining infrastructure, remediating impacted sites, and researching potential improvements. The oil industry in Alberta is both a great and terrible example of this; they often say and even do the right things, but they have also dragged their feet and/or participated in "greenwashing" shams (not to mention their prodigious efforts at political lobbying to reduce their environmental constraints). Unfortunately, the government of Alberta has a tradition of letting the oil industry do whatever is most profitable, so it is difficult to trust that they're really monitoring pipelines etc. effectively.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

chimo said:


> 230 cubic meters


Yes, of course.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Any heavy industry (including environmentally sustainable industries) are going to have impacts, and accidents are going to happen in which habitat is destroyed, wildlife and even people get killed. What we need is more than contrite CEOs apologizing (or worse, deflecting responsibility) when that happens. We need to see significant (i.e. substantial investments) in minimizing impact, mitigating effects, maintaining infrastructure, remediating impacted sites, and researching potential improvements. The oil industry in Alberta is both a great and terrible example of this; they often say and even do the right things, but they have also dragged their feet and/or participated in "greenwashing" shams (not to mention their prodigious efforts at political lobbying to reduce their environmental constraints). Unfortunately, the government of Alberta has a tradition of letting the oil industry do whatever is most profitable, so it is difficult to trust that they're really monitoring pipelines etc. effectively.


There are a considerable number of leak detection technologies being worked on that not only accurately pinpoint oil leaks, but proactively check pipeline condition. A lot of these technologies are developed in Canada. This one sends a monitor shaped like a ball through the active pipeline: 

Leak Detection | Oil & Gas Pipelines

Another uses cellular technology to phone in accurate line leak information with considerable accuracy.

This is fairly new stuff and, as with any new technology, these are currently in testing, but are being fully implemented in phased roll-outs.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

bryanc said:


> Okay, I misunderstood. From the earlier postings it appeared that the appropriate authorities had not been contacted, and that some of you were okay with this because it was "just a _small_ spill."
> 
> I'd be much more comfortable with the development of oil resources if I trusted that the companies (or even the government) viewed environmental protection as anything other than "a cost of doing business" (i.e. something to be minimized).


On this we can agree. No spill is acceptable, but let's keep them in perspective. When a relatively small and harmless to the environment spill occurs, oil opponents use the opportunity to exaggerate the spill for their own purposes against big oil.

Is that any different than an oil company downplaying a spill? I think not. Both are unacceptable to me and unfair to the public's being properly informed of the magnitude of any spill.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

SINC said:


> Is that any different than an oil company downplaying a spill? I think not.


Fair enough. But I think it's worth keeping in mind that the oil companies have massive budgets for PR and lobbying, whereas the environmentalists are largely small organizations of private citizens trying to look after their 'back yard.' So I'm not sure it's reasonable to hold both sides to the same standards.

Furthermore, if environmental extremists "won" and oil production stopped, it's not like the oil would go away. If that turned out to be a bad decision (and I think it would), there'd be nothing stopping us from extracting the resource. I think a better balance between environmental protection and resource extraction can be found, as well as a better balance between stimulating investment and generating tax revenue that benefits everyone. But finding those balances can certainly be challenging, and I think they're moving targets, so what was a good balance in the past is not necessarily a good balance today.

So it's important that we keep scrutinizing these processes, deals, and relationships, and re-evaluate them frequently in light of new data. One of my biggest problems with the current government is their propensity to prevent the collection of new data, and prevent access to what data there is. You'd think they either had, or are planning to have something to hide.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_A little bit of satire that Enbridge doesn't want you to see.... _





+
YouTube Video









ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.








> Animation by Dan Murphy, editorial cartoonist for Vancouver's "The Province," that was pulled from the newspaper's website after a complaint from Enbridge.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Findings into the Enbridge Kalamazoo spill released today :

Enbridge failed to fix cracks in leaking Michigan pipeline - Calgary - CBC News



> "Learning about Enbridge's poor handling of the rupture, you can't help but think of the Keystone Kops," said Deborah Hersman, chair of the NTSB.
> 
> "Why didn't they recognize what was happening? What took so long?" she said in statement.
> 
> She said that despite alarms and pressure differentials, Enbridge staff twice pumped more oil, about 81 per cent of the total release, into the ruptured pipeline.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> Findings into the Enbridge Kalamazoo spill released today :
> 
> Enbridge failed to fix cracks in leaking Michigan pipeline - Calgary - CBC News


Enbridge is simply a bad company caught up in its own brilliance. I have experienced them first hand. That company needs to be slapped down hard.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

i-rui said:


> Findings into the Enbridge Kalamazoo spill released today :
> 
> Enbridge failed to fix cracks in leaking Michigan pipeline - Calgary - CBC News


Yup. Modern management. The best in pipeline technology. Gotta trust the private sector oil barons eh?

Lookin' good Harper.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Oh, yeah, it's Harper's fault. Riiiiiight.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

SINC said:


> Oh, yeah, it's Harper's fault. Riiiiiight.


Hey Good Buddy, if you follow the thread you might notice that there is a concern regarding the pipe that Harper wants to run from the tar sands over the mountains and into Canada's western ocean port.

Thanks for the positive vibes though.

Cheers!


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

jimbotelecom said:


> Hey Good Buddy, if you follow the thread you might notice that there is a concern regarding the pipe that Harper wants to run from the tar sands over the mountains and into Canada's western ocean port.
> 
> Thanks for the positive vibes though.
> 
> Cheers!


Your continued calling me good buddy shows a total lack of decorum. Too bad you are here to inflame rather than debate. That is a sad demonstration of intent on your part.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Regardless of your feeble attempt to deal with the issue in this thread you have every right to post as you see fit.

Thank you for being you!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> Your continued calling me good buddy shows a total lack of decorum. Too bad you are here to inflame rather than debate. That is a sad demonstration of intent on your part.


Don't take jimbo too seriously SINC he is having an identity crisis. He thinks he is the reincarnation of groovetube....


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

No you're wrong again. No identity crisis whatsoever. I liked the Groovetube as a teen, but I think I wouldn't like it so much now.

In any case back to the topic, the fallout from the Enbridge investigation should do a lot of good to kill off the tarsands pipe down to the Gulf. The larger worry for most Canadians is of course the route into BC. Good timing. Of course now that environmental assessments can be circumvented with the Harper govts help it's going to take a miracle to stop the destruction.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

screature said:


> Don't take jimbo too seriously SINC he is having an identity crisis. He thinks he is the reincarnation of groovetube....


He seems to be having a fever dream about the end of oil pipelines.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> He seems to be having a fever dream about the end of oil pipelines.


Yep just a little delusional...


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Like it or no, Big Business tends to be every bit as corrupt is Big Brother. Perhaps more so since they do like to use some of their profits to buy Big Brother.

Solution here is to look at the companies history. When spills do happen and it is inevitable that they will; Are the clean-ups prompt? Are they complete? Are individuals who suffer losses as a result of the spill promptly and adequately compensated?

If the answer to any of the above is no then very large cash bonds should be required. Clean-ups and compensation can be payed out of the bond while the lawyers wrangle their way to a settlement. Ultimately the company responsible would have to replenish the bond funds.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Well. After a much needed break from the festivities here, I had thought perhaps things would get back on track, maybe, just maybe -I- was the whole problem. I guess things still are in circles without my help, and we still need to take swipes (reincarnation of groovetube? really? now there's a personal attack if I ever saw one) no to mention the same one referring to another member's 'megalomania' while in another thread, complaining of someone else referring to Harper as a megalomanic. 

I have no problem living within the rules. If using terms like herr harper, or our glorious leader are strictly banned, then those are the rules. However, I would think the same rules should apply to such things like referring to environmentalists in a respectful way, not as 'eco-ninnies' like macfury did I see, without any such outrage shown.

Respect is respect I think, and I'll certainly show it, if others do. I don't how much I'll participate in these threads if it keeps up like this. But there's a few friends here I'd like to keep in contact with, so I'd pop by if the waters are calm in some spots.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Well. After a much needed break from the festivities here, I had thought perhaps things would get back on track, maybe, just maybe -I- was the whole problem. I guess things still are in circles without my help, and we still need to take swipes (reincarnation of groovetube? really? now there's a personal attack if I ever saw one) no to mention the same one referring to another member's 'megalomania' while in another thread, complaining of someone else referring to Harper as a megalomanic.
> 
> I have no problem living within the rules. If using terms like herr harper, or our glorious leader are strictly banned, then those are the rules. However, I would think the same rules should apply to such things like referring to environmentalists in a respectful way, not as 'eco-ninnies' like macfury did I see, without any such outrage shown.
> 
> Respect is respect I think, and I'll certainly show it, if others do. I don't how much I'll participate in these threads if it keeps up like this. But there's a few friends here I'd like to keep in contact with, so I'd pop by if the waters are calm in some spots.


Ha! Too bad people don't have a look and see what you have to say about people here behind their backs on another site to know how, as per usual, duplicitous you are in your comments. 

Also you weren't a member here any longer so how could it be a personal attack on you...? Now jimbo might have been offended so sorry jimbo I apologize for the reference to you being in anyway like gt.

Over and Out.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

screature said:


> Ha! Too bad people don't have look see at what you have to say about people here behind their backs on other sites to know how, as per usual, you are duplicitous in your comments.
> 
> Also you weren't a member here any longer so how could it be a personal attack on you...?
> 
> Over and Out.


nice justification, but I've seen you make other personal attacks, and the rules -here-, are no personal attacks.

So if you're going to make a case for others not living up to the terms, live them yourself. If you wish to enjoy freedoms of another site, you're free to do so as they have their own rules which have nothing to do, with this site.

I'll certainly abide the rules here, and not make any swipes at other registered members. I am in fact a member here, have been for many years, I simply needed to step away, and get another perspective.

One that says, if people were to spend less time jabbing, snide remarks, and finger pointing if some used something like glorious leader, etc., and injected some adult behaviour, perhaps the thread would stay a little more on topic. All I see, is still, continued bashing throughout. That's just from an outside in perspective.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't know if it was just a coincidence, but things have been improving considerably here over the last few months.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Doesn't appear so at all from an outside perspective. I still see all the sorts of noise, off track finger pointing, and jabs as there ever was. And no one else who gave up has really returned.

If I participate even infrequently, I don't think that'll change much. But, it should be someone's fault!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I don't think it matters to anyone if you do.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

excellent! Then we'll get on famously.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Must have gotten a tad lonely in the graveyard of Apple user forums.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Macfury said:


> I don't know if it was just a coincidence, but things have been improving considerably here over the last few months.


Most definitely...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> Well. After a much needed break from the festivities here, I had thought perhaps things would get back on track, maybe, just maybe -I- was the whole problem. I guess things still are in circles without my help, and we still need to take swipes (reincarnation of groovetube? really? now there's a personal attack if I ever saw one) no to mention the same one referring to another member's 'megalomania' while in another thread, complaining of someone else referring to Harper as a megalomanic.
> 
> I have no problem living within the rules. If using terms like herr harper, or our glorious leader are strictly banned, then those are the rules. However, I would think the same rules should apply to such things like referring to environmentalists in a respectful way, not as 'eco-ninnies' like macfury did I see, without any such outrage shown.
> 
> Respect is respect I think, and I'll certainly show it, if others do. I don't how much I'll participate in these threads if it keeps up like this. But there's a few friends here I'd like to keep in contact with, so I'd pop by if the waters are calm in some spots.


Welcome back to ehMacLand, gt. Drop in at The Shang for a free cup of coffee. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

thanks Marc, the break was good. and nice to meet other people out there. I'll ignore the snide comments and move on and enjoy some peace, and decent conversation.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

groovetube said:


> thanks Marc, the break was good. and nice to meet other people out there. I'll ignore the snide comments and move on and enjoy some peace, and decent conversation.


Sounds like a wise decision. Paix, mon ami.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

groovetube said:


> Well. After a much needed break from the festivities here, I had thought perhaps things would get back on track, maybe, just maybe -I- was the whole problem. I guess things still are in circles without my help, and we still need to take swipes (reincarnation of groovetube? really? now there's a personal attack if I ever saw one) no to mention the same one referring to another member's 'megalomania' while in another thread, complaining of someone else referring to Harper as a megalomanic.
> 
> I have no problem living within the rules. If using terms like herr harper, or our glorious leader are strictly banned, then those are the rules. However, I would think the same rules should apply to such things like referring to environmentalists in a respectful way, not as 'eco-ninnies' like macfury did I see, without any such outrage shown.
> 
> ...


Good to see your return GT. Seems to me that not being nice, for a select few, is regularly tolerated but it might have to do with the spectrum one supports. Who knows for sure.

Good luck with the few that seem to spoil things on a regular basis.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's probably better I don't get involved with any political spats with some members. It's better for my health, and general happiness in general. Not to mention it makes for a drag for anyone trying to read it.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The irony, the irony......



> Ottawa takes new interest in the health effects of wind energy - The Globe and Mail


where is the rolling in the aisles laughing icon.
The Cons after gutting environmental and laws and science support and promoting the fossil fuel industry with it's litany of health issues ........is going to study the health effects of wind power.....

why???? to curry votes.....period, full stop.

I'm not particularly in favour of wind but only due to efficient use of resources issues. That the Feds are all in froth about wind power health impacts is hilariously ironic......in that sort of death of democracy black humour way.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> The irony, the irony......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The worst health effects are those felt on the public purse. This boondoggle should have been stopped years ago.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> The irony, the irony......
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Until you stop driving your scooter and flying to and from Australia every year you might want to stop and consider the irony and hypocrisy of your own position on fossil fuels there Mr. Irate.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Well there's always hope....
Calls for Alberta pipeline safety review grow louder - The Globe and Mail


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

And the opposition gets organized -
B.C. NDP Leader Adrian Dix mobilizes to nix Northern Gateway - The Globe and Mail


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Louder? Organized? Looks like the end of oil pipelines in Canada! Stick a fork in that Northern Gateway--it's done!


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> Louder? Organized? Looks like the end of oil pipelines in Canada! Stick a fork in that Northern Gateway--it's done!


I am of two minds on Northern Gateway. The need to reduce Canadian trade dependence on the US is overwhelming. However NG is going through some wonderful territory, several First Nations and Northern Pipeline construction is tricky under the best of circumstances. Build it but do not try to short circuit environmental safeguards. 

Beyond that; Let these big Corps put some of their huge cash surpluses to work in the form of big cash bonds for when the inevitable OOPS! hits home.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> Beyond that; Let these big Corps put some of their huge cash surpluses to work in the form of big cash bonds for when the inevitable OOPS! hits home.


Exactly! There is no reason that you can't put a per-gallon price on oil spills, added to all clean-up costs. Let the oil companies put up a bond, then figure out how they're going to achieve the lowest possible fine levels.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Macfury said:


> Exactly! There is no reason that you can't put a per-gallon price on oil spills, added to all clean-up costs. Let the oil companies put up a bond, then figure out how they're going to achieve the lowest possible fine levels.


I actually agree with you for once!!!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Exactly! There is no reason that you can't put a per-gallon price on oil spills, added to all clean-up costs. Let the oil companies put up a bond, then figure out how they're going to achieve the lowest possible fine levels.


You can't put a per-gallon price on my home, or the community that I love. You can't put a per-gallon price on debilitating health effects that can linger for decades or lifetimes. You can't put a per-gallon price on destroying people's way of life. You can't put a price on destroying a relatively pristine ecosystem that is a global treasure. A major BC coastal bitumen spill would have effects that can't be repaired with cash.

All you could do is give people enough money to regroup and carry on if possible or try and re-create their broken lives elsewhere. But as we know from past experience, companies won't ever pay out even enough for that basic justice.

Your idea that the oil companies or pipeline companies would agree to carry a large enough bond or get enough insurance to adequately compensate people whose homes, health, lives and livelihoods might be destroyed in a major coastal bitumen spill in BC is completely unrealistic. 

The companies would never agree to taking on such a massive cost. It would make their product uncompetitive and/or destroy their profits. And no government -- certainly not a Conservative government involving Stephen Harper -- would ever contemplate imposing such a rule.

And as we have seen from past major spills, oil companies aggressively fight paying out any compensation and tend to slink away and abandon their responsibilities once the spotlight from the media goes elsewhere, leaving a trail of lawyers to fight any lingering demands. Costs for cleanup, health and rebuilding communities inevitably fall to government.

Fortunately for BC, the Enbridge bitumen pipeline will not happen anytime soon, if ever, due to the vast majority of the BC population here being opposed. That includes many BC native bands whose land the pipeline would have to cross and who have proclaimed "never". Other areas may not be so lucky.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

This is one reason New York is banning fracking - what's the value of a watershed?

or the cost of not having a clean one.? Companies that pollute and get hit with beg settlements just pack their tents - the damage in many cases cannot be undone.

A major reason aside from the larger AGW threat to move to low carbon is to reduce or eliminate hydrocarbon pollution of all forms.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You can't put a per-gallon price on my home, or the community that I love. You can't put a per-gallon price on debilitating health effects that can linger for decades or lifetimes.


Yes, you can! Just the same way you assess the costs of traveling by a motorized fossil-fueled vehicle, knowing full well it might cause lung cancer in a fellow human being.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

Macfury said:


> Exactly! There is no reason that you can't put a per-gallon price on oil spills, added to all clean-up costs. Let the oil companies put up a bond, then figure out how they're going to achieve the lowest possible fine levels.


This is good policy. It transfers the cost of risk to the ones introducing the risk. 

The next challenge would be calculating the cost of the risk. Ideally, enough to mitigate the risk entirely, hopefully enough that it is not discounted as "acceptable losses as a part of doing business". 

Somewhere between Harper and Nimby, is there a figure the market would bear?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

MacDoc said:


> This is one reason New York is banning fracking - what's the value of a watershed?
> 
> or the cost of not having a clean one.? Companies that pollute and get hit with beg settlements just pack their tents - the damage in many cases cannot be undone.
> 
> A major reason aside from the larger AGW threat to move to low carbon is to reduce or *eliminate hydrocarbon pollution of all forms.*


like this:










or this:


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

does this need to get personal?

I heat my home with gas, I own a car, and I do take flights for business. But agree with macdoc.

I don't think one needs to live in a hut burning horse poop for heat, to have this position.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacDoc said:


> This is one reason New York is banning fracking - what's the value of a watershed?.


New York is not banning fracking at all. It is considering a fracking policy.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

vancouverdave said:


> This is good policy. It transfers the cost of risk to the ones introducing the risk.
> 
> The next challenge would be calculating the cost of the risk. Ideally, enough to mitigate the risk entirely, hopefully enough that it is not discounted as "acceptable losses as a part of doing business".
> 
> Somewhere between Harper and Nimby, is there a figure the market would bear?


I support free enterprise, but not a free ride for companies who can mitigate their liability because the law favours them by limiting compensation to a slap on the wrist. I believe one could set a market price per gallon for spills that would eliminate more risky projects. Innovative companies might find better ways to manage riskier ventures and make them economically feasible.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Hume: Citizen Marsh calculates the odds of a Northern Gateway oil spill


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

_interesting,_ *i-rui,* particularly as he's used _Enbridge's own data..._



> On June 25, he presented the pipeline panel with his calculations for the probability of an oil spill at sea, at the Kitimat terminal or in the six geological regions traversed by the proposed Northern Gateway pipeline route.
> 
> Here’s what he found, crunching Enbridge’s own data:
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

FUNNY!

From a link on Facebook - but most of the photos (at least under my Safari) won't open full-size. Still, the resolution is sufficient to see the captions... I think this one really backfired on Shell...

Let's Go Public! Ad Contest Gallery | Shell


















(Shell: ArcticReady)


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Another Enbridge spill in Wisconson this time. 

Enbridge shuts large Canada-US pipeline after spill - The Globe and Mail

No spills in BC so far though.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> The NTSB said its investigation found a complete breakdown of company safety measures, while its employees performed like “Keystone Kops” trying to contain it. The rupture, which went undetected for 17 hours, spilled more than 20,000 barrels of heavy crude into Michigan’s Kalamazoo River.
> 
> In response to the report, Enbridge said it believed its personnel were trying to do the “right thing” at the time.


Just wow.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

1 barrel of oil = 159 litres. So.... 159 x 20-thousand: that's *3.18-million litres* of oil.... but that refers to the 2010 spill, not this 2012 spill.

The only figures I can see for this recent spill estimate around 1,200 barrels - or *190-thousand litres.*


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Enbridge Oil Spill: U.S. Officials Block Company From Reopening Pipeline After Wisconsin Incident*



> U.S. officials are demanding Calgary-based oil giant Enbridge submit a re-start plan before it can re-open a pipeline which spilled thousands of gallons of crude in Wisconsin last week.
> 
> The U.S. Department of Transportation's Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration announced Tuesday it has blocked Enbridge's Houston-based subsidiary from reopening the 687 kilometre line.





> U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said in a statement that he plans to meet with company officials soon.
> 
> He said they'll have to convince him why the pipeline should continue to operate without an overhaul or complete replacement.





> State Department of Natural Resources spokesman Ed Culhane said the pasture's owner and his wife, as well as a woman, her daughter and her mother were evacuated from two homes near the rupture because the air was full of benzene, a chemical that can cause cancer.
> 
> Some cattle and horses also had to be rinsed off, he said.


(HuffingtonPost)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Seem like reasonable demands...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*It's gotta be pretty bad when even the U.S. says you're not doing a good enough job regulating an oil company *:yikes:

*The Tyee: It Just Gets Worse: NTSB's Final Flaying of Enbridge*



> Even Enbridge CEO Patrick Daniel admits that the NTSB's initial findings cast doubt on the "operational capacity" of the company and would create "additional challenges" for its highly controversial Northern Gateway project.
> 
> On July 10 the U.S. federal accident investigator embarrassed Canada's oil industry when it found both Enbridge and its public regulators guilty of negligence and incompetence during the costly Michigan rupture which contaminated 38 miles of the Kalamazoo River with toxic diluted bitumen.





> The NTSB summary report not only found Enbridge's pipeline rupture in Michigan totally preventable but also lambasted Enbridge for its "culture of deviance" on pipeline safety. It also criticized weak regulators.


(TheTyee)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

incompetent company and a government that doesn't give two craps. What could possibly go wrong?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*TGIF? Federal announcement gives long weekend plans new meaning*



> Today the federal government confirmed the provisions of its weakened environmental assessment of the proposed Northern Gateway project: a fast-tracked process, with narrowly-defined environmental criteria, and within which the review panel no longer even has the authority to overturn the proposal on environmental grounds.


(WWF.ca)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

^

Ah yes, an unbiased opinion indeed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes we've gotten used to the tactics of this government. Anyone see Peter Kent get all tongue tied when asked about when they're going to announce dropping Kyoto? Apparently not until, dec. 23rd...

If it's so supported and unbiased, why not announce when everyone is paying attention?


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

The wwf article makes it sound like the assessment will happen over the weekend.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I believe it's time for both sides to calm down on this sort of thing. Some pipelines will be built, so the "no pipeline" position is not reasonable. Some pipelines will not be built, so the argument that the economy depends on it is also not valid. The process should concentrate on valuation of oil spill penalties, to the degree that a company would rather avoid them than pay the fines involved. Let the company decide on the appropriate technology required to achieve those ends.

Hell, some Ontario roads are being built with snake and turtle access underneath and berms on top for deer crossings. We could certainly make oil pipelines less intrusive to the environment.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'd be far happier to move beyond "spill penalties" and look at the horrendous track record of enbridge, and for any pipelines that will be built, enforce waaaaay higher standards and maintenance to prevent any spills from happening in the first place.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

The truth? It must be. Why would someone present this if they were not stating facts? This post is making the rounds:

Meet 'Dil Bit': The Enbridge Testimony Stephen Harper Doesn?t Want Heard


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

2% of capacity a week????


----------



## KC4 (Feb 2, 2009)

jimbotelecom said:


> The truth? It must be. Why would someone present this if they were not stating facts? This post is making the rounds:
> 
> Meet 'Dil Bit': The Enbridge Testimony Stephen Harper Doesn?t Want Heard


Geez, there's nothing quite like the professional approach, rationale and common sense of a fired up Greenpeacer. I regret wasting the time it took to read her "bit". 

Does _anyone _actually think that oil companies don't _really_ understand the nature of diluted bitumen and therefore do nothing to address its proper handling?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

KC4 said:


> Geez, there's nothing quite like the professional approach, rationale and common sense of a fired up Greenpeacer. I regret wasting the time it took to read her "bit".
> 
> *Does anyone actually think that oil companies don't really understand the nature of diluted bitumen and therefore do nothing to address its proper handling?*


Regrettably it seems some do KC4... 

Ignorance is bliss dontcha know  and for some can be used as a weapon in the "(mis)information" wars. I see examples of it almost every day.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

KC4 said:


> Geez, there's nothing quite like the professional approach, rationale and common sense of a fired up Greenpeacer. I regret wasting the time it took to read her "bit".
> 
> Does _anyone _actually think that oil companies don't _really_ understand the nature of diluted bitumen and therefore do nothing to address its proper handling?


Well if you didn't like that critique, you're probably not interested in listening to CBC's the house this morning (you can still catch the podcast, but why bother).

Here's a written summary of the content of a fact based program:
Scathing U.S. report missing from Northern Gateway hearings - Politics - CBC News

Thank goodness the public is increasingly sceptical of industry leaders like Enbridge.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

If they (the oil companies) did understand the nature of diluted bitumen, why are there these oil spills occurring that often and the responses being referred to as 'keystone kops'? 2% of capacity acceptable?? Really??

I'm glad to see the government (whose sole purpose these days seems to be advancing the interests of the oil patch...) and Enbridge having their feet held to the fire, regardless of how this all plays out.

Gutted environmental standards, reviews, and reduced information available to the public, is NOT in our best interests, despite the rhetoric coming from Harper and crew.


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

groovetube said:


> If they (the oil companies) did understand the nature of diluted bitumen, why are there these oil spills occurring that often and the responses being referred to as 'keystone kops'? 2% of capacity acceptable?? Really??
> 
> I'm glad to see the government (whose sole purpose these days seems to be advancing the interests of the oil patch...) and Enbridge having their feet held to the fire, regardless of how this all plays out.
> 
> Gutted environmental standards, reviews, and reduced information available to the public, is NOT in our best interests, despite the rhetoric coming from Harper and crew.


Yeah...misinformation!


----------



## jimbotelecom (May 29, 2009)

Makin' friends in Texas!
Texas farmer fights Keystone XL route - Business - CBC News


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

jimbotelecom said:


> Yeah...*misinformation*!


Cheering for your own posts now jimbo....


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

KC4 said:


> Does _anyone _actually think that oil companies don't _really_ understand the nature of diluted bitumen and therefore do nothing to address its proper handling?


i think many people think they *understand* it just fine, but they just don't *care enough* about it in the face of profits. the very nature of their corporate entity qualifies everything in their view as a dollar & cents proposition, and as their business model focuses on extracting the product, that is what drives their decisions, not the danger of environmental spills.

the above was clearly demonstrated in the Kalamazoo spill where enbridge was aware of the cracked pipe for *years*.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

this is just too much :










Tell Enbridge to pull its misleading ads. | SumOfUs


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

not to worry i-rui. All we have to do is take away all of those pesky regulations and government interference, and they'll magically do the right thing!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

i-rui said:


> this is just too much :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I see by that map that it may be easier to just extend the pipeline beyond the islands and just empty the oil into the ocean where tankers will suck it up and deliver it.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> I see by that map that it may be easier to just extend the pipeline beyond the islands and just empty the oil into the ocean where tankers will suck it up and deliver it.


...and as usual, no comment on the deceit practiced by a corporation. We must trust in business and the market, they will do the logical thing, which is certainly of benefit to mankind... Right, MF?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> ...and as usual, no comment on the deceit practiced by a corporation. We must trust in business and the market, they will do the logical thing, which is certainly of benefit to mankind... Right, MF?


Of course not. The deceit is self-evident. As written, however, laws concerning spills look like a big stick, but they actually place limits on damages for which oil companies can be held accountable. They work this into their business model and the logical result is a less safe pipeline. By simply holding companies accountable for ANY damage they cause, the logical result would be safer pipelines. 

I certainly hope, however, that no company sets out to be a benefit to mankind. It would be a business model doomed to disaster.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Of course not. The deceit is self-evident. As written, however, laws concerning spills look like a big stick, but they actually place limits on damages for which oil companies can be held accountable. They work this into their business model and the logical result is a less safe pipeline. By simply holding companies accountable for ANY damage they cause, the logical result would be safer pipelines.
> 
> *I certainly hope, however, that no company sets out to be a benefit to mankind. It would be a business model doomed to disaster.*


Let's rewrite that a little: I certainly hope, however, that no company sets out to be a benefit to mankind. _It would make the very few who stand to gain the most, less money_.

As long as people keep being told this nonsense you posted and they believe it, we will continue to have these huge problems.


----------



## joeyrussell37 (Aug 10, 2012)

Sigh, seriously. What is there to believe nowadays. Anything could be a lie; it's become so difficult to trust government and large corporations now (not like it was any easier in the past.)


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

joeyrussell37 said:


> Sigh, seriously. What is there to believe nowadays. Anything could be a lie; it's become so difficult to trust government and large corporations now (not like it was any easier in the past.)


Follow the money. It's pretty easy to trust corporations to do whatever will yield the greatest short-term profits. Remember that corporations are completely amoral, and that the people who make up the corporation (most of whom are nice, moral individuals) are constrained both by the rules of corporate governance and by the corporate culture not to apply their human moral instincts or judgements to the corporate decision making process, lest it interfere with the profitability that it is their fiduciary responsibility to maximize.

As for government; all one needs to know is that politicians will do whatever it takes to get elected. In the current political climate, that generally means doing what corporations want while appearing to listen to your constituents.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Macfury said:


> I certainly hope, however, that no company sets out to be a benefit to mankind. It would be a business model doomed to disaster.


A perfect one line summation of the reason why public utilities should never ever be privatized. By definition public utilities are intended to benefit the public and as MF so eloquently points out that is something Corporations want no part of.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

an older article, not sure if it was ever posted, but definitely deserves another look after the shameless manoeuvre by Enbridge :

Retired sea captain: Don't be fooled by Harper's pipeline plans | rabble.ca


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> A perfect one line summation of the reason why public utilities should never ever be privatized. By definition public utilities are intended to benefit the public and as MF so eloquently points out that is something Corporations want no part of.


Public utilities benefit mankind?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

eMacMan said:


> A perfect one line summation of the reason why public utilities should never ever be privatized. By definition public utilities are intended to benefit the public and as MF so eloquently points out that is something Corporations want no part of.


good eye. Yes MF did make a very good point there, and quite true!


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Public utilities benefit mankind?


Uh... yes, they do. How could you possibly argue they don't? Running water, electricity, sewage treatment, etc. are obviously beneficial to the people who use them. You might argue that the public companies that provide these beneficial services are not always doing so optimally, but you'd have to be completely divorced from reality to think that the privatization of such services would not increase their costs.


----------



## BigDL (Apr 16, 2003)

*So Sad Really!*

To see a citizen, drowning in their own rhetoric, believing in, being immerse in their own truth they have feelings of being buoyed up, is so very sad to witness. 

Really!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Uh... yes, they do. How could you possibly argue they don't? Running water, electricity, sewage treatment, etc. are obviously beneficial to the people who use them. You might argue that the public companies that provide these beneficial services are not always doing so optimally, but you'd have to be completely divorced from reality to think that the privatization of such services would not increase their costs.


Their costs would probably be identical, with the portion hidden in taxes and slush funds accurately billed on a "user pay" basis.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> Their costs would probably be identical


Well, the history of privatization and deregulation begs to differ. Regardless, that was not the argument; the argument was wether public utilities benefit people... clearly they do.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Well, the history of privatization and deregulation begs to differ. Regardless, that was not the argument; the argument was wether public utilities benefit people... clearly they do.


As do people who sell food and cars. My point is that the benefit the utilities provide has nothing to do with their being public.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Yes it does. History shows that.

The end.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> As do people who sell food and cars. My point is that the benefit the utilities provide has nothing to do with their being public.


Exactly. Many private groups, organizations and corporations certainly benefit people and that is fact.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I don't think that's quite what he meant.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

BigDL said:


> To see a citizen, drowning in their own rhetoric, believing in, being immerse in their own truth they have feelings of being buoyed up, is so very sad to witness.
> 
> Really!


Drowning in that sentence for sure.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

Anyone been following the Arkansas spill? It seems Exxon has set up a media blackout on the clean up and had the FAA enable a 'no fly' zone above the disaster area.

Apparently eye witness accounts have the clean up crew power washing the tar sands into the sewer system and siphon the excess oil into the wetlands.

real shady stuff going on down there.

FAA puts no-fly zone over Arkansas oil spill with Exxon employee in charge ? RT USA


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Can't have the paparazzi dropping lite cigarettes from helicopters.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Enbridge breaks safety rules at pump stations across Canada*



> The biggest oil and gas pipeline company in Canada is breaking National Energy Board safety rules at 117 of its 125 pump stations across the country, but Enbridge says it's not to blame.
> 
> Enbridge was ordered by the Canadian energy regulator to disclose whether or not it had backup power to operate emergency shut-down systems in the facilities that keep oil flowing through its pipes. The company told the NEB only eight of its pump stations complied with the board's backup power system regulation.
> 
> ...


(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Read the Globe and Mail article, which has actually done its research:



> “In the past, it was thought that this requirement could be met as long as an uninterruptible power supply was available,” Carole Léger-Kubeczek, a spokeswoman for the NEB said Monday, noting the regulator approved Enbridge’s corrective action proposal last week.
> 
> “Over time, it became apparent that having an uninterruptible power supply would not provide sufficient power to remotely close station isolation valves, and that the ability to remotely close station isolation valves was required in order to meet this particular regulation which is part of the [Onshore Pipeline Regulations].
> 
> “As a result, the board began pursuing this non-compliance with companies, in order to provide clarity regarding this regulatory requirement,” she said.


Enbridge ordered to fix emergency-shutdowns at pump stations by 2016 - The Globe and Mail

Meeting the requirements of an industry rule can often be achieved in a number of ways. NEB made it clear that they have changed the way they apply the rule. Enbridge is complying with the ruling.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Noticed on the Lamestream that some Harpolite minister was accusing the Great Gore of making misleading and inaccurate statements. What was not mentioned is why that was considered news. 

Had Al made a carefully thought out and incredibly accurate statement, that would have qualified as news, but nothing he said seems to fall outside the business as usual category.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*In Alberta, toxic waste spill may be biggest of all recent disasters in N. America*



> A leak in Northern Alberta involving at least 9.5 million liters of toxic waste from an oil and gas operation is the third major leak in a region where "residents are now questioning whether enough is being done to maintain aging energy infrastructure." I'm gonna go with no.
> 
> The spill was first detected June 1, but only Wednesday did Houston, TX-based operator Apache Corporation release an estimate of the leak's size.


_“Every plant and tree died” in the area touched by the spill, said James Ahnassay, chief of the Dene Tha First Nation, whose members run traplines in an area that has seen oil and gas development since the 1950s._​
(BoingBoing)

*Toxic waste spill in northern Alberta biggest of recent disasters in North America*



> The substance is the inky black colour of oil, and the treetops are brown. Across a broad expanse of northern Alberta muskeg, the landscape is dead. It has been poisoned by a huge spill of 9.5 million litres of toxic waste from an oil and gas operation in northern Alberta, the third major leak in a region whose residents are now questioning whether enough is being done to maintain aging energy infrastructure.


(Globe & Mail)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Massive wastewater cleanup underway in northern Alberta *



> The pipeline breach is about 20 kilometres northeast of Zama City, a community near the Northwest Territories boundary.
> 
> The company said the affected area is estimated at 42 hectares.





> the Alberta government said some of the wastewater did enter wetlands and some of the smaller tributaries which feed into the Zama River.
> 
> Waste water extracted during oil and natural gas operations contains oil, gas, salt and other minerals.
> 
> Members of the Dene Tha First Nation near Zama City are worried about the effects the wastewater spill could have on their traditional territory.





> Rachel Notley, environment critic for the Alberta NDP, said the time it took for officials to learn about this spill and release information on it is unacceptable.
> 
> “The fact of the matter is if you drank this processed water you would probably die,” she said. “If it kills things, it should not be allowed to run unchecked and it is the largest release of poison into the environment in the history of this province and this government took 12 days to tell us about it.”



(CBC)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *Massive wastewater cleanup underway in northern Alberta *
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The problem here is that the government is not an effective regulator, when it prevents affected parties from suing the perps to the maximum damage they caused.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

What's the value of clean water? Personal health? Unspoiled wilderness?

I agree that the government does a terrible job of regulating industry (and it's getting worse, rapidly, under Harper). But putting monetary values on everything and let the market settle disputes is not going to work either.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> What's the value of clean water? Personal health? Unspoiled wilderness?
> 
> I agree that the government does a terrible job of regulating industry (and it's getting worse, rapidly, under Harper). But putting monetary values on everything and let the market settle disputes is not going to work either.


It will work far better than limiting damages.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> What's the value of clean water? Personal health? Unspoiled wilderness?
> 
> I agree that* the government does a terrible job of regulating industry* (and it's getting worse, rapidly, under Harper). But putting monetary values on everything and let the market settle disputes is not going to work either.


that certainly is the understatement, and as you said, Harper has made that a fine art.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

Collateral damage for Big Oil.

Move along please, nothing to see here.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Alberta toxic waste spill could be biggest North American environmental disaster in recent history*



> A toxic waste spill in northern Alberta has killed off roughly 42 hectares of boreal forest, in what could be the biggest environmental disaster in North America in recent history.
> 
> The spill was first discovered on June 1st, about 100 kms south of the border with the Northwest Territories, near the small town of Zama City. Texas-based Apache Corporation, the oil company responsible for the spill, just released their estimate of its size on Wednesday.
> 
> According to their figures, 9.5 million litres of 'produced water' was released into the environment, covering the equivalent of over 50 football fields-worth of land.


(Yahoo-Geekquinox)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes another pipeline rupture. The propaganda on pipeline safety doesn't seem to match the real world.

Extremely toxic ‘sour gas’ pipeline ruptures in flooded southwestern Alberta | On First Nation Issues, Jobs, Events, And Environmental Issues On The West Coast And World Events.


----------



## iMouse (Mar 1, 2008)

I think that I saw "LOVE OF THE LAND" on the side of a milk carton.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

Oh oh...this is live!
Rail cars filled with flammable product dropping toward Bow River


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*The Alberta Oil Sands Have Been Leaking for 9 Weeks*



_Nine weeks ago, an oil leak started at a tar sands extraction operation in Cold Lake, Alberta, and it's showing no signs of stopping.

On Friday, the Toronto Star reported that an anonymous government scientist who had been to the spill site—which is operated by Canadian Natural Resources Ltd.—warned that the leak wasn't going away. "Everybody [at the company and in government] is freaking out about this," the scientist told the Star. "We don't understand what happened. Nobody really understands how to stop it from leaking, or if they do they haven't put the measures into place."

The impacted area spans some 30 acres of swampy forest, said Bob Curran, a spokesperson for the Alberta Energy Regulator (AER), which oversees these sites. According to the Star, pictures and the documents provided by the scientist show that dozens of animals, including loons and beavers, have been killed, and some 60,000 pounds of contaminated vegetation have been removed. (You can see the pictures at the Star's website.)_​
(Mother Jones)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*And then there's this....*

*Alberta enforcing fewer than one per cent of oilsands environmental violations*



> The (often incomplete) records indicate that there were over 4,000 “alleged contraventions” – possible violations of environmental regulations that have not been proven in court – in that area since 1996.
> 
> According to enforcement reports, in that same time period the ministry took 37 actions to enforce those regulations.
> 
> ...





> A Global News investigation into crude oil spills in the spring of 2013 revealed that Alberta’s energy regulators had been conducting fewer field inspections annually, but finding more instances of high-risk noncompliance. They also rely heavily on industry self-reporting.
> 
> In a March interview, incoming Alberta Energy Regulator CEO Jim Ellis said that, “the system is working.”


(GlobalNews)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> *And then there's this....*
> 
> *Alberta enforcing fewer than one per cent of oilsands environmental violations*
> 
> ...


This is too low. The companies need to buy the land instead of leasing it. Then Alberta will enforce he regs.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I don't know Mac, When the bitumen pollution stretches for hectares, You have to wonder if the product is worth more than the cause

The biggest problem I've observed while in Alberta is which pressure is too much pressure to put into the ground for steam.
Are they equipped to handle too much steam? I think not

As you might notice recently on the news or the non news


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> The companies need to buy the land instead of leasing it. Then Alberta will enforce he regs.


Why would the government be more likely to enforce regulations when they're broken on private land, vs. public land leased from the government?

This is like saying someone is more likely to get busted for running a gro-op in a private house than in a house they're renting from the police.

At any rate, having lived in Alberta for decades, and having worked fairly extensively with the provincial environmental regulatory bodies, I'm quite confident that the oil industry could paint themselves blue and go on a shooting rampage in West Edmonton Mall and get away with it.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> Why would the government be more likely to enforce regulations when they're broken on private land, vs. public land leased from the government?
> 
> This is like saying someone is more likely to get busted for running a gro-op in a private house than in a house they're renting from the police.
> 
> At any rate, having lived in Alberta for decades, and having worked fairly extensively with the provincial environmental regulatory bodies, I'm quite confident that the oil industry could paint themselves blue and go on a shooting rampage in West Edmonton Mall and get away with it.


Because it separates the poachers from the gamekeepers. Governments are traditionally tougher enforcers when they are not directly involved. Also, if the price of the land figures into the business model, the ultimate resale of that land becomes an issue.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bryanc said:


> Why would the government be more likely to enforce regulations when they're broken on private land, vs. public land leased from the government?
> 
> This is like saying someone is more likely to get busted for running a gro-op in a private house than in a house they're renting from the police.
> 
> At any rate, having lived in Alberta for decades, and having worked fairly extensively with the provincial environmental regulatory bodies, I'm quite confident that the oil industry could paint themselves blue and go on a shooting rampage in West Edmonton Mall and get away with it.


The excusing of this is hilarious. Perhaps the residents who had their backyards flooded with it recently might tell a different story. 

So ridiculous the only explanation (besides one that against the rules here...) is just to wind you up bryanc.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

Macfury said:


> if the price of the land figures into the business model, the ultimate resale of that land becomes an issue.


I understand why the oil companies might be more careful if they owned the land, but I don't understand why the government would be more likely to catch them breaking the law if they were doing so on private land.

And while I rather like the idea of the oil companies having to buy and take responsibility for all the property they use for all their activities (should they buy the oceans and lakes they use as well?), I think such a policy would make even the oil industry unprofitable. The problem is that none of these properties exist in isolation; the pollution generated by the oil sands operations in Alberta affects the water Saskatchewan and the climate in Australia.



> Because it separates the poachers from the gamekeepers. Governments are traditionally tougher enforcers when they are not directly involved.


So you're arguing that the government turns a blind eye to the damage the oil companies do to the environment because the government is getting kickbacks in terms of royalties etc. on the oil? I agree. This is certainly the case in Alberta, and in places like Nigeria the government will even provide oil companies with military forces to drive environmental protesters or land owners away (killing as many of them as necessary in the process).

The solution here is not to further privatize the commons (because science shows us that the entire planet, including the land, the water, and the atmosphere, is all one system so no activity can be looked at in isolation), but to reduce the power the corporations have over the government.

If we got rid of the concept of "limited liability corporations" and made oil or other primary resource extractors put up large bonds before engaging in operations in Canada, I think we'd have a better system. If a few oil company executives were imprisoned and their companies' capital and assets completely dissolved and distributed to the citizens of the country who's land they damaged due to their negligence, I expect other companies would take notice and take more care not to leave a mess. This wouldn't make doing business here any more expensive than it already is, but it would provide much stronger incentive to protect the environment.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

bryanc said:


> So you're arguing that the government turns a blind eye to the damage the oil companies do to the environment because the government is getting kickbacks in terms of royalties etc. on the oil?


That's part of it. But when the government owns the land, it often feels it can kick the can down the road on environmental degradation. If nobody else is complaining and the money is flowing in, why blow the whistle on damage to your own property? On the other hand, government enforcers are far tougher on polluters who pollute even their own land and are not shy about exposing polluters with whom they don't share a partnership.



bryanc said:


> And while I rather like the idea of the oil companies having to buy and take responsibility for all the property they use for all their activities (should they buy the oceans and lakes they use as well?), I think such a policy would make even the oil industry unprofitable.


I think oceans are pretty much indivisible, but at least forcing companies to buy the land will internalize the cost of environmental degradation. Certainly, leasing the land and fouling it is fairly inexpensive.


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

More anti-pipeline propaganda from Forbes? ☔☔☔

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2013/08/25/what-is-wrong-with-the-keystone-xl-pipeline/


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

> With the tens of billions of dollars this pipeline will make for these companies each year, you’d think they’d spend a little extra to build it right. Or that they’d care about using new pipe that’s up to specs. We do have specs.


But it isn't about 'building it right'. It's about setting goals forcing the managers to work within those goals and budgets, however impossible they might seem, because the corporation, doesn't care about a job done right.

It cares about getting the job done.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> More anti-pipeline propaganda from Forbes?


No. Just from "James Conca" in its open contributor section. A learned piece no doubt, quoting as it does the _Huffington Post_ for its research.


----------



## vancouverdave (Dec 14, 2008)

Having said that, I don't understand why we ship the raw stuff when there is value to be had in refining it first?

"I’m not sure why Canada doesn’t just build refineries near the tar sands and then move the refined products to the coast where new port facilities would be built to handle the super-tankers from China. It would be a lot more lucrative for Canada in the long-run, and less environmentally risky. .."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

vancouverdave said:


> Having said that, I don't understand why we ship the raw stuff when there is value to be had in refining it first?
> 
> "I’m not sure why Canada doesn’t just build refineries near the tar sands and then move the refined products to the coast where new port facilities would be built to handle the super-tankers from China. It would be a lot more lucrative for Canada in the long-run, and less environmentally risky. .."


Especially when the raw product is abrasive and corrosive enough to reduce the life of the pipelines.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

vancouverdave said:


> Having said that, I don't understand why we ship the raw stuff when there is value to be had in refining it first?
> 
> "I’m not sure why Canada doesn’t just build refineries near the tar sands and then move the refined products to the coast where new port facilities would be built to handle the super-tankers from China. It would be a lot more lucrative for Canada in the long-run, and less environmentally risky. .."


Because the oil sands are seen as having a finite life. The investment cost of building a tertiary refinement infrastructure in Alberta is phenomenal and wouldn't pay off for decades. However, Alberta is building upgrading facilities that will sweeten the export product and which make economic sense.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

vancouverdave said:


> *Having said that, I don't understand why we ship the raw stuff when there is value to be had in refining it first?*
> 
> "I’m not sure why Canada doesn’t just build refineries near the tar sands and then move the refined products to the coast where new port facilities would be built to handle the super-tankers from China. It would be a lot more lucrative for Canada in the long-run, and less environmentally risky. .."


Because of the value of the Yen compared to our dollar and the cost of labour not to mention the billions required to build the refinery(s).

To obtain a profit for refined oil Canadian oil companies would have to recover the cost of both building a pipeline and refinery(s).

All the while paying greater wages over an extended period of time. So then our refined product becomes more much expensive than other countries provide and so then we will end up having this glut of domestic refined product in our country with little to no export value, as no one will want to import it as it will simply be too expensive relative to our international competition... Not exactly a great investment.

These are some of the reasons why for us in our present situation it is more economically viable, i.e. profitable, to build the infrastructure to move the raw product rather than building the infrastructure to both move and refine the oil.

China can more economically pay for our raw product and then pay to refine it themselves. And make no mistake, if they don't buy our raw product, they will buy it from someone else.

Plus it means we get a "foothold " into their economy and so we can actually have a bargaining position at the table down the road.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

How do we have a 'foothold' in their economy if they can just buy it from someone else?

It seems with their growing ownership and the protective deals they're getting courtesy of Harper and co. they're getting a foothold in owning our resources.


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

When "economics" is the argument for why we should do obviously irrational things, like destroy our environment, or ship apples from New Zealand, it's just an illustration that the economy is broken. We should focus on fixing the economy such that it encourages rational, sustainable and efficient activity, not just accept that "the economy is forcing us to do this terrible thing; too bad, we've got to do what the economy needs."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

More specifically bitumen is only attractive when light sweet crude prices are through the roof. A situation oil companies currently enjoy thanks to continued American, Canadian and Israeli manipulations in the Middle East. Lifting the sanctions against Iran would send oil prices plummeting. Instead we see ever increasing pressure to do unto Iran what we have already done to Iraq and Libya and are currently preparing to do Syria.

Because companies do not see these high prices lasting forever there is enormous pressure to exploit the oil sands as quickly as possible. A more measured pace of development would allow smaller more economically viable refineries. 

I will however admit that long term view is most unlikely to occur in an environment where short term profits are king and long term effects are ignored.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> *Especially when the raw product is abrasive and corrosive enough to reduce the life of the pipelines*.


Not all studies indicate this to be true at all, not at least in Alberta pipelines:

Corrosivity of Dilbit and Conventional
Crude Oil in Transmission Pipelines

Jenny Been*, Ph.D., P. Eng., PMP, former Group Leader, Corrosion
Engineering Alberta Innovates Technology Futures (AI-TF)
(*Now with TransCanada Pipelines Ltd.)

Harry Tsaprailis, Ph.D., P.Chem
Group Leader, Corrosion Engineering



> Conclusion
> 
> •In the context of pipeline transportation,
> characteristics of dilbit are not unique and
> ...


----------



## skippythebushkangaroo (Nov 28, 2012)

*Yep*

Neil Young on oil sands:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

skippythebushkangaroo said:


> Neil Young on oil sands:


When Neil Young talks... old lefties listen.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*A Mysterious Oil Spill in Cold Lake, Alberta Can't Stop Won't Stop*

_For several months now, oil has been bubbling up out of the ground in four locations near Cold Lake, Alberta. Over 1.5 million litres of “bitumen emulsion” (a combo of heavy crude and water) has been found on a military base that’s also used by Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL) for oil extraction. Officials have no way of capping the underground oozing, which has many scientists, environmentalists and First Nations worried.

The leak “represents a new type of industrial incident that differs fundamentally from a typical spill,” reads a new investigative report by Dr. Kevin Timoney of Treeline Ecological Research and Peter Lee of Global Forest Watch. In other words, the oil isn’t simply coming out of a pipeline. According to Timoney’s research, it could be coming out of deep cracks in underground rock formations, created by the company’s high-pressure steam injection.

* * *​
In July, a government scientist leaked photos of the growing spill to the media, forcing provincial regulators to go public with the mess. Since then, over 20 hectares of impacted water, muskeg and forest have been fenced off for cleanup. (To put the size into perspective, the Cold Lake spill is nearing one half the volume of the Enbridge spill that devastated Michigan’s Kalamazoo river back in 2010.) _​
(Vice.com)


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

I'd like to see the results of an independent, objective investigation into this issue. Frankly, I don't believe either party involved is capable of that.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I read the "research report" and it's a mess. It raises a few interesting points, but is largely a 65-page bitch session about why people don't answer their questions fast enough.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Alberta Orders Lake Drained To Contain Bitumen Leak*



_First Nations near Cold Lake, Alta., are angry an oilsands company is draining a lake close to their home without consulting them.

Canadian Natural Resources Ltd is emptying two-thirds of the lake in an effort to stop a bitumen leak from its oil production plant.

Cecil Janvier, a member of the Cold Lake First Nation, says he has never supported oilsands production.

"It shouldn't have gotten this far," he said. "It's just common sense that something was bound to happen."

*More than 1.5 million litres of bitumen* *— a mixture of oil sands, heavy crude and water — has leaked on CNRL's Cold Lake Site. So much, so fast, Alberta Environment ordered CNRL to drain the lake near Janvier's home immediately._​
(HuffPo)

* a report from mid-August used a figure of 1.2-million litres - we're now six weeks beyond that date, with leakage continuing....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Canada’s top spy watchdog lobbying for Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline*

_Chuck Strahl, Chairman of the federal body which oversees Canada’s spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), has registered to lobby on behalf of Enbridge’s ‘Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership’.

Two weeks before the December 19, 2013 decision of the National Energy Board’s Joint Review Panel on the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project, Strahl and his firm – Chuck Strahl Consulting Inc.– registered as a B.C. provincial lobbyist and listed the Enbridge subsidiary as his client starting December 6._
* * *​_Strahl is a former Conservative Member of Parliament for the B.C. riding of Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon and was first elected in 1993. While in federal government, Strahl served as Minister of Agriculture, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Minister of Transport and Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons._
* * *​_...documents published by The Vancouver Observer in November 2013 revealed the extent to which the Harper government, CSIS and the RCMP monitored activists and organizations who opposed the Enbridge Northern Gateway Pipeline Project. At the same time, CSIS and the RCMP were cooperating with the private sector by holding ‘Classified Briefings for Energy and Utilities Sector Stakeholders’ at CSIS's headquarters in Ottawa.

The May 23, 2013 ‘classified briefing’ was sponsored by Enbridge and brought together federal agencies, spies, and private industry stakeholders with high level security clearances – which included officials from energy companies in the oil, natural gas, pipeline, petroleum refinery and electricity sectors.

Strahl’s registration for lobbying activities on behalf of Enbridge raise questions about conflicts-of-interest and ethics, lobbying legislation and also the collusion of private interests within Canada’s security apparatus. _​
(Vancouver Observer)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

saw this on twitter yesterday:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Already posted here:

http://www.ehmac.ca/everything-else-eh/94672-canadian-political-thread-1149.html#post1573049



CubaMark said:


> *Canada’s top spy watchdog lobbying for Enbridge Northern Gateway pipeline*
> 
> _Chuck Strahl, Chairman of the federal body which oversees Canada’s spy agency, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS), has registered to lobby on behalf of Enbridge’s ‘Northern Gateway Pipelines Limited Partnership’.
> 
> ...


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Gary Larson should sue this dude, not only for plagiarism, but also for possessing no sense of humour.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

not sure that humour was really intended in that one.

Good one CM.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*States Confirm Hundreds of Water Contamination Cases From Fracking, Drilling*

_Hundreds of cases of water pollution from oil or gas drilling have been confirmed by several states, according to data obtained by the Associated Press. The pollution comes from both hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and conventional drilling methods to extract petroleum and natural gas. Pennsylvania alone confirmed 106 instances of pollution out of 5,000 new wells drilled since 2005. Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia also confirmed pollution in reports of varying detail..._
* * *​_The report notes that beginning in 2011, "the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection aggressively fought efforts by the AP and other news organizations to obtain information about complaints related to drilling. The department has argued in court filings that it does not count how many contamination "determination letters" it issues or track where they are kept in its files."[/url]_

(Associated Press via Crooks & Liars)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Pretty good record that will only improve!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *States Confirm Hundreds of Water Contamination Cases From Fracking, Drilling*
> 
> _Hundreds of cases of water pollution from oil or gas drilling have been confirmed by several states, according to data obtained by the Associated Press. The pollution comes from both hydraulic fracturing (fracking) and conventional drilling methods to extract petroleum and natural gas. Pennsylvania alone confirmed 106 instances of pollution out of 5,000 new wells drilled since 2005. Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia also confirmed pollution in reports of varying detail..._
> * * *​_The report notes that beginning in 2011, "the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection aggressively fought efforts by the AP and other news organizations to obtain information about complaints related to drilling. The department has argued in court filings that it does not count how many contamination "determination letters" it issues or track where they are kept in its files."[/url]_
> ...


Incredible the level of hush hush keep all the information quiet so everyone thinks it's ok.

And the tracking fluid is deemed a company secret as to what's in it!


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> Gary Larson should sue this dude, not only for plagiarism, but also for possessing no sense of humour.


From the website:

_The Far Left Side (Originally entitled, believe it or not, "The Far Right Side") is the result of a progressive fervor that gripped me leading up to the mid-term elections of 2006. In my own small way I did what I could to influence public opinion away from the madness of the far right back to the soft and cuddly political center. 

The initial idea for the strip came from one single gag that had been bouncing around in my brain for the past several years, and you can see it here in the very first Far Left Side comic. 

As you can see I was using Gary Larson's opus creation, The Far Side, as thematic fodder. I didn't rip off Mr. Larson's originals so much as re-imagine them in a left-wing sense. Basically, I used Mr. Larson's style as a template, much to the obvious distress of a handful of Larson purists, but I've more recently begun rendering the comics in a style more resembling my own though a faint resemblance to the original yet remains. It is safe to say, though, that anyone who confuses the current cartoons with Mr. Larson's works could use a few lessons in cartoon art history.

*I should add that I recently received an email from Mr. Larson's legal eagles. Basically it said they were fine with the strip but that I should be more careful about borrowing art verbatim. Since I'd never actually copy/pasted any old Far Side art, only very carefully re-drawn a few panels, this wasn't a problem for me.*

After the 2006 elections I kind of slacked-off a bit, generating only a handful of comics in the whole of 2007. (It didn't help that I was like crazy-busy.) But one day, in early 2008, I checked the log files for the site and, lo and behold, I discovered that people were reading these things. Lots of people! That's when I decided to take the strip "full-time" and since January of 2008 it's been a regular three-times-a-week feature.

Currently, the site is delivering about four million pages a year and that number is on the increase. If you happen to be among that number let me just say that I worry about you. Please don't have children.

This modest comic will never equal the original works of Mr. Larson, as that creative lightning strikes but once, but I hope those of you with a foot in reality's door enjoy it anyway. 

I could go on and on about this stuff, and it seems like I have already, but I think it's clear that we shouldn't trust a Republican candidate or legislator closer than we can comfortably spit out a rat. And there are plenty of rats these days.

=Lefty= _​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I said that they _should_ sue him, not that they would. Redrawing the panels is certainly grounds for that, but what kind of damages could they ask for--the proceeds from syndicated sales of his work?" The only place I've seen these mirthless little panels is wherever you place them.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Pipeline rupture report raises questions about TransCanada inspections*










_A CBC News investigation has unearthed a critical report that the federal regulator effectively buried for several years about a rupture on a trouble-prone TransCanada natural gas pipeline.

On July 20, 2009, the Peace River Mainline in northern Alberta exploded, sending 50-metre-tall flames into the air and razing a two-hectare wooded area.

Few people ever learned of the rupture — one of the largest in the past decade — other than the Dene Tha’ First Nation, whose traditional territory it happened on.

* * *

Final reports are typically published by the investigative bodies, either the NEB or the Transportation Safety Board, but this report wasn’t released until this January when the CBC obtained it through an access-to-information request.

The NEB said the delay was caused by an “administrative error” when an employee left without transferring the file over.

TransCanada did not respond to a CBC request for an interview._

(CBC)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

An event that happened almost five years ago and it becomes news now? :yawn:


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

SINC said:


> An event that happened almost five years ago and it becomes news now? :yawn:


Don - I'm surprised by your reaction. Did you not see the first line of the story?

_*A CBC News investigation has unearthed a critical report that the federal regulator effectively buried for several years...*_​
So apart from the issue of pipeline safety, do we believe the government's excuse that a 'clerical error' is to blame for the suppression of this report?


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

SINC said:


> An event that happened almost five years ago and it becomes news now? :yawn:


Plus look a the amount of damage in a very remote area. Two hectares in vast wilderness? 

Sorry that is nothing to write home about when it happens in an unpopulated area that will/does not affect wildlife or humans and will be over grown again in a relatively short period of time.

Natural events such as lightening strikes and forest fires cause far, far much more damage.

See, the Left always wants there to be no risk involved with anything and that effectively means doing nothing because nothing is risk free. Literally nothing. 

But they are want to cite such minor incidents as being something of real significance when they are not.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

CubaMark said:


> Don - I'm surprised by your reaction. Did you not see the first line of the story?
> 
> _A CBC News investigation has unearthed a critical report that the federal regulator effectively buried for several years..._​
> So apart from the issue of pipeline safety, *do we believe the government's excuse that a 'clerical error' is to blame for the suppression of this report?*


The NEB is *not* the government. Get your facts straight, it seems sometimes they don't matter to you.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Jimbo posted a link to that in the Canadian Political thread here this morning.

I posted my response here.

Quoted below:



FeXL said:


> While not letting TransCanada off the hook, the first question I'd ask is why is this just getting questioned by the Dene now, 4-1/2 years after the event?
> 
> Aside from TC officials & staff, they're largely the only ones who knew. Why hasn't it become a matter of public record prior to this?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, it's a non issue and a paltry, tiny little spot that has zero effect on anything near it. Making mountains out of molehills anyone?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

screature said:


> Plus look a the amount of damage in a very remote area. Two hectares in vast wilderness?
> 
> Sorry that is nothing to write home about when it happens in an unpopulated area that will/does not affect wildlife or humans and will be over grown again in a relatively short period of time.





SINC said:


> Yep, it's a non issue and a paltry, tiny little spot that has zero effect on anything near it. Making mountains out of molehills anyone?


*Pipeline rupture: Alberta resident unaware of 2009 blast*

_A Northern Alberta woman says she didn't learn about an explosion on a TransCanada natural gas pipeline that travels under her town until CBC News unearthed an investigation of the rupture this week.

"I was very, very angry that nothing about the pipeline, the dangers pertaining to anything about the pipeline, wasn't' made public to the people," Eileen Tecomba, a member of the Dene Tha’ First Nation of Chateh, told CBC News.

"I was overwhelmed and I was very emotional, thinking about my family and the risk we are taking living close to the pipeline," she said._

* * *​
_The explosion, which sent 50-metre-tall flames into the air, razing a two-hectare wooded area, occurred at a section of the Peace River Mainline about 50 kilometres from her community._

* * *​
_She lives 1,500 metres away from a section of the pipeline that runs through town. She is concerned about her and her family's safety _​
(CBC)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

CubaMark said:


> *Pipeline rupture: Alberta resident unaware of 2009 blast*
> 
> _A Northern Alberta woman says she didn't learn about an explosion on a TransCanada natural gas pipeline that travels under her town until CBC News unearthed an investigation of the rupture this week.
> 
> ...





> The explosion, which sent 50-metre-tall flames into the air, razing a two-hectare wooded area,...


This doesn't sound like a small thing.

The whole hush hush thing doesn't sit well. If it's really such a small thing why keep quiet about it? Reminds me of that major spill in the states where they wouldn't allow photographers in to take pictures. Really?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> A Northern Alberta woman says she didn't learn about an explosion on a TransCanada natural gas pipeline that travels under her town until CBC News unearthed an investigation of the rupture this week.
> 
> "I was very, very angry that nothing about the pipeline, the dangers pertaining to anything about the pipeline, wasn't' made public to the people," Eileen Tecomba, a member of the Dene Tha’ First Nation of Chateh, told CBC News.


It was 30 freakin' MILES away from where she lived!! It was apparently in an area so remote that nobody from her community ever goes there. Does the fact that one person was "hurt and angry" make this any more newsworthy than when you posted it before?


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> It was 30 freakin' MILES away from where she lived!! It was apparently in an area so remote that nobody from her community ever goes there. Does the fact that one person was "hurt and angry" make this any more newsworthy than when you posted it before?


Way to minimalize, MF. She lives 1.5k from the pipeline. In the event of an explosion / fire / leak, it's a very real possibility that she and her community could be affected.

I simply wanted to point out that the 'vast wilderness' where a rupture would have 'zero effect' wasn't quite so depopulated as others have jumped in to portray it.

The way you guys go on, one would expect a pipeline explosion in your own back yard wouldn't cause you the least concern, nor would you be upset with government coverups of safety reports nor call for increased inspections, because, hey, business gotta do their biz, right?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

It's always easier to wave your hand and declare it no big deal, when you don't have pipelines that close to your house that had 50 meter flames shoot out further down the pipe. Who says a rupture doesn't occur next to human beings? 

Some cosmic law somewhere we don't know about??


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There are gas lines everywhere. If you think they need more oversight, there's a democratic process for that. I accept that power lines, natural gas lines and rail, roads and many other services imply a certain risk that will never be reduced to zero. Don't expect me to be sympathetic every time you cry: Eek! A mouse!"


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Macfury said:


> There are gas lines everywhere. If you think they need more oversight, there's a democratic process for that. I accept that power lines, natural gas lines and rail, roads and many other services imply a certain risk that will never be reduced to zero. Don't expect me to be sympathetic every time you cry: Eek! A mouse!"


Well let us know macfury when we see 50 meter flames popping out of the power lines and gas lines into our houses k? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

groovetube said:


> Well let us know macfury when we see 50 meter flames popping out of the power lines and gas lines into our houses k? :lmao:


It certainly is a rare thing, considering they crisscross the GTA.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I have a natural gas pipeline that goes through my property and the gas company holds the rights to dig it up any time they wish. It is a main trunk line to feed the subdivision.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

SINC said:


> I have a natural gas pipeline that goes through my property and the gas company holds the rights to dig it up any time they wish. It is a main trunk line to feed the subdivision.


SINNNNNNNNNC! It could explode at any second. Get out of there now!


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Just checking in SINC. Now that I KNOW there's a pipeline running through your property, I'll require 15-minute updates from you.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

since what the article was about, was that no one even knew about the rupture, I'm guessing SINC that if it did rupture or similar, you'd at least like to know what happened.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

50 metres, SINC!!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Enbridge Line 9: W5 uncovers unreported spills, alarming communities along 830-km pipe*










_An aging Enbridge pipeline that runs across Ontario has had at least 35 spills — far more than reported to federal regulators — but many municipalities along its route have never been informed of the incidents, a CTV W5 investigation reveals.

The National Energy Board, which regulates pipelines in Canada, has records of seven spills, while Enbridge told the investigative program there had been 13.

But W5’s analysis of information from the energy board, the company and Ontario’s Ministry of the Environment showed 35 spills associated with the 830-kilometre Line 9. 
(The Quebec government refused to provide W5 with any information).

The company is seeking federal approval to increase and reverse flow on the 38-year-old pipeline and use it to transport, in part, diluted bitumen from Alberta’s oilsands.

“It’s quite alarming,” said Brian McHattie, a city councillor in Hamilton, where seven leaks over the years have released nearly 3,000 litres of crude oil at company facilities northwest of the city._

(TorontoStar)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Whoa mama! No more fossil fuels for me!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Nexen pipeline leak in Alberta spills 5 million litres*









(image via Edmonton Journal)​
One of the largest leaks in Alberta history has spilled about five million litres of emulsion from a Nexen Energy pipeline at the company's Long Lake oilsands facility south of Fort McMurray.

The leak was discovered Wednesday afternoon.

Nexen said in a statement its emergency response plan has been activated and personnel were onsite. The leak has been stabilized, the company said.

The spill covered an area of about 16,000 square metres, mostly within the pipeline corridor, the company said. Emulsion is a mixture of bitumen, water and sand.

The pipeline that leaked is called a "feeder" and runs from a wellhead to the processing plant.

"All necessary steps and precautions have been taken, and Nexen will continue to utilize all its resources to protect the health and safety of our employees, contractors, the public and the environment, and to contain and clean up the spill," the company said in the statement issued Thursday.​
(CBC)


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Yah, that's not gonna help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

Brutal. An area of 400 feet by 400 feet. Less than 2 city blocks...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

FeXL said:


> Brutal. An area of 400 feet by 400 feet. Less than 2 city blocks...


Yeah, send it by rail next time and all we would get would be another Lac-Mégantic. Most of this one can be sucked up.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The apocalypse is upon us!


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

So how big does a spill need to be before you consider it to be bad for the environment?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You're bad for the environment just because you're alive, fjn. The question is what I consider a reasonable level of error on a pipeline. This is OK, provided it is quickly cleaned up.



fjnmusic said:


> So how big does a spill need to be before you consider it to be bad for the environment?
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

For the record the standard measure for oil is the barrel which contains roughly 158 liters. So this spill was a bit under 32,000 barrels. Not major but $1,000,000 worth of oil is not insignificant. 

I do notice that alarmists always resort to liters in an attempt to inflate the damage. As most things related to oil refer to barrels it makes things appear to be 160 times worse than they are.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

eMacMan said:


> For the record the standard measure for oil is the barrel which contains roughly 158 liters. So this spill was a bit under 32,000 barrels. Not major but $1,000,000 worth of oil is not insignificant.
> 
> I do notice that alarmists always resort to liters in an attempt to inflate the damage. As most things related to oil refer to barrels it makes things appear to be 160 times worse than they are.



I would think the goal should be ZERO liters, barrels or whatever spilled if you want to make a good impression.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chimo (Jun 9, 2008)

While I acknowledge that the oil industry uses barrels as a unit of measure, I don't think the average Canadian thinks in barrels because they do not usually use that specific unit of measure for day-to-day activities. 

Personally, I would prefer to see spill volumes expressed in cubic meters. Then it's pretty easy to visualize the coverage because the spill area is usually expressed in square meters. So this one's about 1/3 of a meter deep on average.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

chimo said:


> While I acknowledge that the oil industry uses barrels as a unit of measure, I don't think the average Canadian thinks in barrels because they do not usually use that specific unit of measure for day-to-day activities.
> 
> Personally, I would prefer to see spill volumes expressed in cubic meters. Then it's pretty easy to visualize the coverage because the spill area is usually expressed in square meters. So this one's about 1/3 of a meter deep on average.


They don't think in barrels but most information relating to the industry is given in barrels, and those are the numbers they are used to hearing. Therefore using liters does tend to inflate the perception of the size of a spill by a factor of ~160. 

BTW Barrel is an historical measure and by no means 100% consistent, I have seen it vary from <100 liters to about 200 liters/barrel, but 158.2 is the currently accepted conversion factor


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

fjnmusic said:


> So how big does a spill need to be before you consider it to be bad for the environment?


Several orders of magnitude worse than this, that's for sure.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

fjnmusic said:


> I would think the goal should be ZERO liters, barrels or whatever spilled if you want to make a good impression.


That is the goal. But it isn't realizable.

Did you know, for example, that _10 per cent_ loss is considered very good for a water pipeline system?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Macfury said:


> That is the goal. But it isn't realizable.
> 
> Did you know, for example, that _10 per cent_ loss is considered very good for a water pipeline system?


Just like flying. There is gonna be a crash every so often. Nothing is foolproof.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Macfury said:


> That is the goal. But it isn't realizable.
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know, for example, that _10 per cent_ loss is considered very good for a water pipeline system?



A water pipeline system? But water would just evaporate if some were lost along the way. Oil, not so much. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## chimo (Jun 9, 2008)

eMacMan said:


> They don't think in barrels but most information relating to the industry is given in barrels, and those are the numbers they are used to hearing. Therefore using liters does tend to inflate the perception of the size of a spill by a factor of ~160.
> 
> BTW Barrel is an historical measure and by no means 100% consistent, I have seen it vary from <100 liters to about 200 liters/barrel, but 158.2 is the currently accepted conversion factor


Since the industry is probably well aware of the incident, I would suspect the news reports are more for the general population. 

As you note, since the barrel unit has fluctuated, even more reason to go for cubic meters. I believe the triggers for the government's spill reporting metrics are in litres. 

For me, 5000 cubic meters is easier to visualize than 31,605 barrels or 5,000,000 litres.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It isn't the destructiveness of the water, but an illustration of how incredibly tight oil pipelines are compared to water lines.



fjnmusic said:


> A water pipeline system? But water would just evaporate if some were lost along the way. Oil, not so much.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Here is a comment I read on the Montana trail derailment spill yesterday that kind of puts things in perspective:



> People writing that rail is safer because this spill was only 132,000 liters versus 5 million in AB, but what they fail to recognize is that Canada ships about 477,000,000 liters of Oil through pipelines safely every 24 hours, or about 174,000,000,000 liters safely every year. That spill in AB amounts to about 2/10,000 s of 1%.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

SINC said:


> Here is a comment I read on the Montana trail derailment spill yesterday that kind of puts things in perspective:



Sure. Try that kind of logic on the people who live a short distance away. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

fjnmusic said:


> Sure. Try that kind of logic on the people who live a short distance away.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Spin is spin. In some cases it isn't how much you spill but what you spill. Then you need to consider it may not be what you spill but where you spill it.

The bottom line is we use oil, and regardless of its environmental impact ( noting it has been around for millions of years and used for thousands ) we currently do not have a reasonable and viable alternative .... So the question is what is the safest way to transport it? To date, I'm thinking that would be pipelines.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Rps said:


> Spin is spin. In some cases it isn't how much you spill but what you spill. Then you need to consider it may not be what you spill but where you spill it.
> 
> The bottom line is we use oil, and regardless of its environmental impact ( noting it has been around for millions of years and used for thousands ) we currently do not have a reasonable and viable alternative .... So the question is what is the safest way to transport it? To date, I'm thinking that would be pipelines.


You could triple the price of oil and perhaps reduce the spill incidence to half. Not much of a bargain.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Rural Sask. residents wait for water after Husky spill, and for answers about compensation - Saskatoon - CBC News

Husky oil spill began when pumping resumed through pipeline expansion project - Saskatchewan - CBC News

Husky admits crews missed leak night of Saskatchewan oil spill - Saskatchewan - CBC News

Husky Energy emails are ineffective in wake of oil spill, says expert - Saskatchewan - CBC News


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Husky oil spill: Oil spills common in Saskatchewan, though usually small | Globalnews.ca


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

CM is fighting oil with his wind, SINC!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Alabama, Georgia declare state of emergency after pipeline spill*









(Image via CNN Money)​
Gov. Robert Bentley issued an executive order Thursday declaring a state of emergency in Alabama over concerns about fuel shortages in the wake of a gasoline *pipeline spill *that released about* 250,000 gallons of gasoline* south of Birmingham and shut down a major pipeline connecting refineries in Houston with the rest of the country.

* * *​
The executive orders will allow fuel delivery truck drivers in each state to work longer shifts and exceed maximum hour limits established by the U.S. Department of Transportation in order to prevent gasoline outages.

The orders apply only to trucks that are transporting fuel to areas served by the pipeline. 

In addition, some suppliers have begun shipping refined gasoline by water to New York from Houston while the pipeline is shut down. 

The pipeline has been shut down since Friday and normally transports 1.3 million barrels per day of refined gasoline and other petroleum products from refineries in Houston to the south and eastern seaboard. The pipeline terminates at New York Harbor.​
(AL.com)


One of the appealing characteristics of solar lies in its "localness". A solar plant doesn't require the ridiculous extension of pipelines, transport trucks, tankers, refineries, dealers, service stations, etc., to take the free energy provided by the sun and deliver it to end-users.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thank goodness they kept the gas station resupplied while they fixed it!


----------



## macintosh doctor (Mar 23, 2009)

how did I miss this
largest disaster to the environment since the BP spill 

Methane leak pumping out 70,000 lbs. of gas an hour into Southern California town - CBS News


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

macintosh doctor said:


> how did I miss this
> largest disaster to the environment since the BP spill
> 
> Methane leak pumping out 70,000 lbs. of gas an hour into Southern California town


Yep, that one was spewing uncontrolled from (at least) October 23rd, 2015, through February 18th, 2016. One reason that it received so little attention: the leak was only visible to infra-red cameras. 










The last figure I've seen for emissions was dated February 1st, by which time over 91,000 metric tonnes of methane gas had been emitted.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Oregon Standoff Leaders Acquitted On The Same Day Dakota Pipeline Protesters Were Arrested (Romper.com)

BREAKING: Cops Mass Arrest and Brutally Pepper Spray 83 Native Americans Who Were Praying For An End To The ILLEGAL Dakota Access Pipeline (Indigenous Network)

Dakota Access Pipeline: 141 Activists Arrested in Tense Clash With Police (NBC News)

Live updates from Dakota Access Pipeline protests: "It will be a battle here" (The Seattle Times)

As Standing Rock Protesters Face Down Armored Trucks, the World Watches on Facebook (Wired)

Dakota Pipeline Was Approved by Army Corps Over Objections of Three Federal Agencies (Inside Climate News)


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Thank goodness there's a little justice left in the world!


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

CubaMark said:


> (Inside Climate News)


It should be noted that the ones threatening violence in Oregon were the Feds. Not only that, but Levoy Finnicum was unarmed when the feds gunned him down. They knew he was unarmed as an FBI informant had jumped out of the SUV at the first stop and he was well aware that all in the SUV were unarmed. Obviously the ambush set down the road would have considered that information vital and it is inconceivable that it was not passed along to them.

Having said that my sympathies are with the Sioux. Hell I would even support returning the Black Hills of SD to the Sioux. The feds motive in Oregon was to trample grazing rights of various ranchers. In ND they seek to steal by force what belongs to the Sioux by treaty.

Still police state fans must love what has been happening in Nevada, Oregon and North Dakota. Sieg Heil!

BTW shooting a 15 year old kids pony is about as low as it gets and which ever piece of $#!t did that deserves far worse punishment than is likely.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Yup. Gotta love them pipelines....*

*Alabama gas line explodes, several injured*










A gas line explosion in Shelby County has left at least seven people severely burned and 10 acres of land are on fire. Nearby residents have been evacuated without incident, but two pipeline contractors are still missing.

An explosion on a Colonial gas pipeline occurred as “eight or nine” subcontractors were trying to flush one of the lines on Monday, the Birmingham News reported. So far, seven have been reported to be injured and two workers are possibly missing. The fire’s intense heat has hindered the search.​
[ame]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rFxHf1R2Ng[/ame]

(RT)


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Ah yes, typical anti-pipeline rhetoric. Blame the pipeline instead of reading the story and blaming the human error involved in creating the explosion. Kinda like blaming the car for jumping the stop sign.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Map Displays Five Years of Oil Pipeline Spills*

On June 14, a natural gas pipeline ruptured and burst into flames near Cuero, Texas, releasing an estimated 165,000 pounds of toxic volatile organic compounds into the air. Nearby residents evacuated their homes, but no one was injured. Still, the accident serves as another reminder of the dangers of transporting natural gas and other hazardous materials.

ince 2010, over 3,300 incidents of crude oil and liquefied natural gas leaks or ruptures have occurred on U.S. pipelines. These incidents have killed 80 people, injured 389 more, and cost $2.8 billion in damages. They also released toxic, polluting chemicals in local soil, waterways, and air. 

Over 1,000 of these incidents occurred on pipelines carrying crude oil. High Country News, a nonprofit news organization in Colorado, mapped these spills:










According to the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, these spills and ruptures released over 7 million gallons of crude. Individual leaks ranged from a few gallons to hundreds of thousands of gallons. One of the largest spills happened in North Dakota in 2013 when lightning struck a pipeline, which leaked over 840,000 gallons of crude onto a wheat field.

Much of this crude originates in the oil fields of Texas and North Dakota. But accidents frequently occur with pipelines that just transport crude through states to refineries. Thus, states not directly involved in the oil fracking boom still face substantial risks to public safety and the environment from crude transport.​
(ForEffectiveGov.org)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

(Standing Rock on Google)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)




----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

SINC said:


> Ah yes, typical anti-pipeline rhetoric. Blame the pipeline instead of reading the story and blaming the human error involved in creating the explosion. Kinda like blaming the car for jumping the stop sign.


That's the real disconnect. Older pipes leaking is a big reason why newer pipes with better technology need to be built. If you stop new pipelines from being built, you are directly causing new spills.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

heavyall said:


> That's the real disconnect. Older pipes leaking is a big reason why newer pipes with better technology need to be built. If you stop new pipelines from being built, you are directly causing new spills.


 But... that seems to assume that old pipelines are built, then left to decay. Is there no maintenance performed? Rusted pipes replaced? Seems like an odd business model.


----------



## heavyall (Nov 2, 2012)

CubaMark said:


> But... that seems to assume that old pipelines are built, then left to decay. Is there no maintenance performed? Rusted pipes replaced? Seems like an odd business model.


The newer sensor and pressure control systems are end to end. Replacing old sections in existing lines can help some, It's not nearly as effective as putting in a brand new line.


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Trudeau cabinet approves Trans Mountain, Line 3 pipelines, rejects Northern Gateway*







Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and his cabinet colleagues signed off on two major pipelines today, projects that will pump nearly a million more barrels of oil a day from Alberta's oilsands to global markets, if they are constructed.

Ottawa gave the green light to Kinder Morgan's Trans Mountain pipeline and Enbridge's Line 3, while it rejected Northern Gateway.

The prime minister said production from Alberta's oilsands is increasing, and current pipeline infrastructure will soon be at capacity.

"The decision we took today is the one that is in the best interests of Canada," Trudeau said in announcing his government's support for the two major projects. "It is a major win for Canadian workers, for Canadian families and the Canadian economy, now and into the future."​





In a largely expected move, cabinet killed the Enbridge-backed Northern Gateway, a proposed 1,177-kilometre pipeline that would have carried oil from Bruderheim, Alta., to an export terminal in Kitimat, B.C.

"It has become clear that this project is not in the best interest of the local affected communities, including Indigenous Peoples," Trudeau said, describing the local area as the "jewel" of B.C.

"The Great Bear Rainforest is no place for a pipeline and the Douglas Channel is no place for oil tanker traffic."

The Federal Court had previously overturned the Harper government's approval of the $7.9-billion project, as it found Ottawa had not adequately consulted First Nations along the project's route. Trudeau opted Tuesday not to pursue further consultations.

Interim Conservative Leader Rona Ambrose said she was disappointed to see the government take the project off the table and "kill 4,000 jobs," suggesting the terminal could have been moved farther north toward Prince Rupert.​
(Full story at: CBC)


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*B.C., Alberta methane pollution higher than disclosed, reports suggest*










Methane emissions from oil and gas facilities in Alberta and B.C. are much higher than previously thought and are being under-reported, according to two new environmental reports. 

The David Suzuki Foundation teamed up with St. Francis Xavier University to conduct the first study of its kind in Canada. 

They found that methane pollution from oil and gas facilities in northeastern B.C. is 2.5 times higher than what is currently being reported by the industry and the B.C. government.

"Our peer review research shows the true magnitude of Canada's emission problem is much bigger than previously estimated by industry and government," said Ian Bruce, director of science and policy for the David Suzuki Foundation. 

A team of researchers spent two field seasons in 2015-16 in both summer and winter driving 8,000 kilometres with a methane sniffer mounted to a vehicle. They drove past 1,600 different well pads and facilities developed by more than 50 different operators to test for methane leaks.

They found methane escaping from a wide variety of sources.

"This methane was venting and leaking from oil and gas pipelines and connections, well sites for oil wells, and for fracked gas wells as well it was coming from oil and gas processing plants," said Bruce in an interview with CBC News.

"The findings are quite staggering."

The report estimates that 111,800 tonnes of methane is escaping uncontrolled into the atmosphere from the Montney formation, the province's busiest oil and gas production area.

That's equivalent to adding two million cars to the road every year. The researchers compared their findings with the overall oil and gas sector methane emissions in B.C. of 78,000 tonnes. There are no regional breakdowns for methane pollution.

(Read more at CBC and the Report)​


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

Folks in Atlantic Canada were rather unimpressed when they heard that BP (responsible for the largest accidental oil spill in history, after the Gulf War intentional actions by retreating Iraqi forces) was going to look for black gold in the fertile fishing grounds off of the Nova Scotia coast.










Lots of environmentalists raised the alarm, calling for the government to reject outright the proposal or put the operation under a microscope.










*Prediction: *a_nother disaster._

The government, of course, said nah, they're cool.

And BP didn't take long to cause their first spill... admittedly minor, but forgive us for having a jaundiced perspective on these rat bastards....


----------



## CubaMark (Feb 16, 2001)

*Supreme Court of Canada says bankrupt energy companies must clean up old oil, gas wells before paying off creditors*

When energy companies go bankrupt, the cleanup of their old oil and gas wells must take priority over paying off creditors, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Thursday.

Though centred in Alberta, the 5-2 decision sets a precedent across Canada, empowering provincial governments to stop defunct companies from off-loading their messes onto other companies or the public.

“Bankruptcy is not a licence to ignore rules,” wrote Chief Justice Richard Wagner in the court’s decision.

The case revolved around the failure of Redwater Energy, a small oil and gas company that went bankrupt in 2015 amid the global oil price collapse.

[....]

Under Alberta law, the move wouldn’t be allowed — money from the sale of Redwater’s assets should be used to return the company’s well sites to a natural state, the AER argued. However, that provincial law conflicts with a federal bankruptcy law, which gives priority in such cases to lenders.

Two lower courts found the federal law took priority over the provincial one and sided with the receiver. The Supreme Court heard the appeal, led by the AER, last February.

In the end, the Court decided there’s no conflict between the two laws, as the federal law doesn’t allow trustees of a bankrupt business to walk away from the company’s environmental liabilities. (The two dissenting judges disagreed and found the two laws are inconsistent.)

Though widely hailed as a victory by environmental groups, some noted that the decision doesn’t solve broader issues caused by insolvent companies’ environmental obligations.

(The Star)​


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

They need to post a bond commensurate with the amount of drilling they're doing. If they do a nice, clean job they can get most of that money back when they leave.


----------

