Redford calls Alberta oil spill an ?exception? as cleanup continues - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/redford-calls-alberta-oil-spill-an-exception-as-cleanup-continues/article4244706/)

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!

Cleanup of latest Alberta oil spill could take all summer (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-hit-with-another-oil-spill/article4241238/)

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.

By Friday morning, the situation had worsened. Oil clotted one of the province’s most crucial waterways and soaked nearby wetlands. He found a dead fish coated with oil and brought a tar-covered baby beaver to a wildlife refuge.

“My place is destroyed,” Mr. Johnston said, as he prepared to abandon his home and later head for a hospital to be treated for exposure to the fumes. “My whole life’s work is gone. I’ve pretty well lost it all here.”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) (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-hit-with-another-oil-spill/article4241238/)

Bad weather not cooperating with the cleanup. Nice mess.
Fresh water trucked in after oil spill (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fresh+water+trucked+after+spill/6758890/story.html)Oil spill worries Albertans - Calgary - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/06/09/calgary-sundre-oil-spill-update.html)

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

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.

+1

+2

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 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/alberta-hit-with-another-oil-spill/article4241238/))

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 (http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/Fresh+water+trucked+after+spill/6758890/story.html))

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. :)

Awwww! I'm special? :) :D

Awwww! I'm special? :) :D

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.

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

Redford calls Alberta oil spill an ?exception? as cleanup continues - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/redford-calls-alberta-oil-spill-an-exception-as-cleanup-continues/article4244706/)

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!

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.

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.

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.

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

..... 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.


Expect more to come of course.
Thank you. That's helpful.

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 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.

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.

Nor did I notice anyone stomping on Alberta.

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

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Not to mention that snide little thread title:

Ah what's a little oil spill anyway?

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.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

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.

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!

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.

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.
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.

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.

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?

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.

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 (http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/OFR_1973_23.html)

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.

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

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)

.

Alberta oil spill mostly contained, firm says - Calgary - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/06/10/calgary-oil-spill-update-sunday.html?cmp=rss)

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.

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 (http://www.ags.gov.ab.ca/publications/abstracts/OFR_1973_23.html)

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.

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

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.

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.

Redford visited the oil spill site Friday afternoon and said that risks come with economic development.

"We do always in Alberta want to ensure that we're balancing economic development, environmental sustainability and social outcomes. And there's no doubt that when we have economic development that there are certainly in some cases impacts."

Redford said Albertans and others should know these spills don't happen often and the province is equipped to deal with them.

"This incident will be investigated and the Ministers of Energy and Environment and Sustainable Resource Development will review the findings and take further action if required," she said.

"I want to assure residents living along the Red Deer River and Glennifer Lake areas that all necessary resources are being deployed to contain the leak and clean it up."

Alberta residents angry after oil spills into nearby lake - Calgary - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/06/08/calgary-sundre-oil-spill.html?)

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

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 (http://www.canada.com/business/energy%20resources/Province+rushes+contain+spill+Deer+River/6752399/story.html)

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

Seems the media only reported this story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/06/08/calgary-sundre-oil-spill.html) 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.

.

Seems the media only reported this story (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/06/08/calgary-sundre-oil-spill.html) 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.

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.

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.

^

Speaking of butt covering. :rolleyes:

^

Speaking of butt covering. :rolleyes:

And a massive stretch.

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 (http://issuu.com/capp/docs/oilsands-fact-book?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222)

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.

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

The Facts on Natural Gas (http://issuu.com/capp/docs/natural_gas_fact_book?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222)

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.

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

The Facts on Natural Gas (http://issuu.com/capp/docs/natural_gas_fact_book?mode=window&backgroundColor=%23222222)

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.

Thanks. I'll go over it.

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.

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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/10/alberta-oil-spill-plains-midstream-canada_n_1585084.html?utm_hp_ref=canada))

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.

As for environmental damage:



(HuffingtonPost.ca (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/10/alberta-oil-spill-plains-midstream-canada_n_1585084.html?utm_hp_ref=canada))
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.

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.

Alberta oil spill contained, drinking water safe: company | CTV News (http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120612/Company-monitoring-water-in-Alberta-river-after-oil-spill-120612/)

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?

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.

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?

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.
24271
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.
24272
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?

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

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

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...

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

Me too.

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?"

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

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.

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?

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 (http://geonb.snb.ca/ong/)

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 (http://www.canadiannaturalgas.ca/across-canada/new-brunswick)


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Certainly the wrong thing to do is this:
Research on oil-sands impact cost centre its funding, scientists say - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/research-on-oil-sands-impact-cost-centre-its-funding-scientists-say/article4266918/)

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

A step backward that I am very concerned about.

Certainly the wrong thing to do is this:
Research on oil-sands impact cost centre its funding, scientists say - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/research-on-oil-sands-impact-cost-centre-its-funding-scientists-say/article4266918/)

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

A step backward that I am very concerned about.


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 (http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=6652349)

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.

Enbridge Elk Point Spill Pumps About 230,000 Litres Of Heavy Crude (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/19/enbridge-elk-point-spill-_n_1610613.html)

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.

"I don't think anybody in the county, at this point, has been notified," he said.

Asked if he should have been contacted by Enbridge, Upham said: "I would have thought so. Or Alberta Environment, because they would be notified, I think. We've heard nothing from anybody."

(HuffingtonPost.Ca (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/06/19/enbridge-elk-point-spill-_n_1610613.html))

230,000 Litres Of Heavy Crude

23 cubic metres. One 10th of a boxcar.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

The spill was reported to the appropriate agencies on Monday, said ERCB spokesman Darin Barter.

“It does take some time to assess the site, get our field folks on-site, determine the extent of the spill, talk to the company and see what they estimate the volume at,” Barter said. “This one is significant enough that we issued a news release on it.”

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 (http://www.edmontonjournal.com/news/Point+pipeline+spill+releases+litres+heavy+crude+E nbridge/6808820/story.html)

23 cubic metres. One 10th of a boxcar.

230 cubic meters

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.

230 cubic meters

Yes, of course.

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 (http://www.puretechltd.com/products/smartball/smartball_oil_gas.shtml)

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.

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.

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.

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

0nu6iY4eozM

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

Findings into the Enbridge Kalamazoo spill released today :

Enbridge failed to fix cracks in leaking Michigan pipeline - Calgary - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/07/10/enbridge-oil-spill-michigan.html)

"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.

Findings into the Enbridge Kalamazoo spill released today :

Enbridge failed to fix cracks in leaking Michigan pipeline - Calgary - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/07/10/enbridge-oil-spill-michigan.html)

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.

Findings into the Enbridge Kalamazoo spill released today :

Enbridge failed to fix cracks in leaking Michigan pipeline - Calgary - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/07/10/enbridge-oil-spill-michigan.html)

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

Lookin' good Harper.

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

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!

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.

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!

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....

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.

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.

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

Yep just a little delusional...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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! :)

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

excellent! Then we'll get on famously.

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

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

Most definitely...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The irony, the irony......

Ottawa takes new interest in the health effects of wind energy - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-takes-new-interest-in-the-health-effects-of-wind-energy/article4409322/)

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. :mad:

The irony, the irony......



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. :mad:

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

The irony, the irony......



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. :mad:

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.

Well there's always hope....
Calls for Alberta pipeline safety review grow louder - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/calls-for-alberta-pipeline-safety-review-grow-louder/article4410744/)

And the opposition gets organized -
B.C. NDP Leader Adrian Dix mobilizes to nix Northern Gateway - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/bc-ndp-leader-adrian-dix-mobilizes-to-nix-northern-gateway/article4414406/)

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

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.

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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.

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?

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:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_gl2p-sKpvZ0/TSUfQ77wpXI/AAAAAAAACkQ/zgCnnBFcL0g/s1600/burgman-650-executive.jpg

or this:

http://travelandtourworld.com/UserFiles/Image/Qantas-Airlines.jpg

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.

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.

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.

Hume: Citizen Marsh calculates the odds of a Northern Gateway oil spill (http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Hume+Citizen+Marsh+calculates+odds+Northern+Gatewa y+spill/6933149/story.html)

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:

The mathematical chance of an oil spill at sea is 18.1 per cent. The mathematical chance of a spill of up to 10,000 litres at the Kitimat terminal is 47.8 per cent and of a spill of up to a million litres is 15.6 per cent.

There is a 30.8-per-cent chance of a spill of up to a million litres in the southern Alberta uplands section of the pipeline route and a 34.5-per-cent chance of a similar spill in B.C.’s Interior Plateau.

“Using the appropriate mathematical formula, the probability that at least one of the locations will experience a medium-sized [up to a million litres] leak or spill over the 50-year proposed project is 77.54 per cent. Combining everything, the risk of one or more medium or large spills over the 50 years is about 87 per cent,” Marsh observes.

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 (http://arcticready.com/social/gallery)

http://arcticready.com/sites/default/files/styles/ad_preview/public/memes/17b317f11d51155fbeed51634ae5515a_0.jpg
http://arcticready.com/sites/default/files/styles/ad_preview/public/memes/4fb1227b3b1fd2aa102a8a2a7e9cc8d2_0.jpg

(Shell: ArcticReady (http://arcticready.com/social/gallery))

Another Enbridge spill in Wisconson this time.

Enbridge shuts large Canada-US pipeline after spill - The Globe and Mail (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/enbridge-shuts-large-canada-us-pipeline-after-spill/article4446520/)

No spills in BC so far though.

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.

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.

Enbridge Oil Spill: U.S. Officials Block Company From Reopening Pipeline After Wisconsin Incident (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/01/enbridge-pipeline-oil-spill-wisconsin_n_1726736.html?utm_hp_ref=canada)

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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/08/01/enbridge-pipeline-oil-spill-wisconsin_n_1726736.html?utm_hp_ref=canada))

Seem like reasonable demands...

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 (http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/01/NTSB-Flays-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 (http://thetyee.ca/News/2012/08/01/NTSB-Flays-Enbridge/))

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

TGIF? Federal announcement gives long weekend plans new meaning (http://blog.wwf.ca/blog/2012/08/03/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 (http://blog.wwf.ca/blog/2012/08/03/tgif-federal-announcement-gives-long-weekend-plans-new-meaning/))

^

Ah yes, an unbiased opinion indeed.

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?

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

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.

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.

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 (http://thecanadian.org/item/1654-dilbit-enbridge-testimony-stephen-harper-doesn’t-want-heard-jrp-miranda-holmes)

2% of capacity a week???? :eek:

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 (http://thecanadian.org/item/1654-dilbit-enbridge-testimony-stephen-harper-doesn’t-want-heard-jrp-miranda-holmes)

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?

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.

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 (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/08/10/pol-the-house-oil-spill-report-missing-northern-gateway-hearings.html)

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

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.

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!

Makin' friends in Texas!
Texas farmer fights Keystone XL route - Business - CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2012/08/10/transcanada-keystone-texas-hearing.html)

Yeah...misinformation!

Cheering for your own posts now jimbo....;)

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.

this is just too much :

http://sou.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/EnbridgeV2.jpg

Tell Enbridge to pull its misleading ads. | SumOfUs (http://sumofus.org/campaigns/enbridge/?sub=fb)

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!

this is just too much :

http://sou.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/EnbridgeV2.jpg

Tell Enbridge to pull its misleading ads. | SumOfUs (http://sumofus.org/campaigns/enbridge/?sub=fb)

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.

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?

...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.

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.

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.)

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.

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.

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 (http://rabble.ca/news/2012/06/retired-sea-captain-dont-be-fooled-harpers-pipeline-plans#.UC54Vc6nhuk.facebook)

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?

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!

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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

Yes it does. History shows that.

The end. ;)

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.

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

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.

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 (http://rt.com/usa/faa-zone-exxon-employee-306/)

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

Enbridge breaks safety rules at pump stations across Canada (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/05/pol-enbridge-breaks-neb-safety-rules.html)

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.

On top of that, Enbridge disclosed that 83 of its pump stations were missing emergency shut-down buttons.

But the NEB admits that it has only just started to concentrate inspections on regulations covering backup power and shut-down systems. The regulations are anywhere from 14 to 19 years old.

"Enbridge would never knowingly operate outside of regulatory requirements. In fact, we do more than ask people to trust us, we say look at the evidence. We say look at our record, which is better than the industry average," said Enbridge spokesperson Graham White.

He added that the minimum for Enbridge is compliance with NEB regulations, but said at the vast majority of facilities the company goes above and beyond.

In the case of backup power, that rule has been on the books since 1999. The emergency shut-down button has been a must since at least 1994.

White said Enbridge's non-compliance is a problem of interpretation.

(CBC (http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2013/05/05/pol-enbridge-breaks-neb-safety-rules.html))

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 (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/industry-news/energy-and-resources/enbridge-ordered-to-fix-emergency-shutdown-gear-at-pump-stations-by-2016/article11741957/)

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.

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.