Husky spills 200k litres of crude into river

jacee · July 29, 2016

Except don't have any real alternatives at this point in time. EVs are on the horizon but they can't replace convenience, cost and power of ICEs and, more importantly, depend on a electrical grid that will need to be powered by fossil fuels in most locations for the foreseeable future.

It's not an either/or issue.

EV's may not be for everyone, but for some.

Reduction in consumption of fossil fuels to sustainable levels is the purpose.

.

poochy · July 29, 2016

I'm sure electric vehicles will replace the internal combustion engine - some day. They're not at that point, yet, however, so we still need oil and gas and still need pipelines to carry it.

As if that was the only use for it anyway.

poochy · July 29, 2016

This coming from a climate change denier is a bit rich...

If being wrong about one thing means you can't be right about something else I suppose none of us are ever right about anything, except of course, you select few.

poochy · July 29, 2016

The spill has reached 500km downstream.

But don't worry... it's a small spill. A small spill that will take months of cleanup.

You mean cuz oil floats on water? And this is a river, damn, why didn't they think of turning the river off? There won't be a real cleanup, unless there is heavy oil on the shoreline near the spill or on the bottom, it will be carried off and diluted, clean water will take it's place. I heard there are places in the west where oil literally leeches out of the ground and into rivers all on it's own, has for thousands of years, some of that water ends up in this dirty mud puddle..what's it called, o yea, Great Slave Lake, you wouldn't like it.

taxme · July 29, 2016

poochy poochy poochy

(I like your name)

I use olive oil, occasionally canola.

I have a can of WD40.

I walk, ride a bike, occasionally a city bus, greyhound or plane.

I'm not a big oil user at present.

But ... you miss the point.

It's not a question of either/or.

It's a question of how much.

It's a question of adding more renewable energy sources to the menu of choices we have, not being limited to fossil fuels and also reducing consumption of them to levels that reduce environmental destruction to sustainable levels.

There is no reason to get het up about it.

Fill your tank.

Drive your ... truck?

Enjoy.

Some of us have cut down on that ... but some of us are more able to than others.

I don't commute 3 hrs/day anymore ... but I did.

We do what we have to.

Pipeline safety is a separate issue: Why can't they get that right yet?

You'd better hope so.

.

It is costing the taxpayers of this country billions of tax dollars just to keep up with all the rules and regulations that the environmentalists have been shoving down our throats for decades. We have done enough of our fair share of trying to keep Canada squeaky clean from pollution.What the environmentalists should be doing is going after countries like China, India and the Middle East where pollution runs rampant. But of course the environmental movement knows that would be an exercise in futility so let's just keep hammering Canada for more rules and regulations. Pathetic.

Argus · July 29, 2016

The solution is simple. Stop the corporate welfare. The oil companies can put up a $100 trillion environmental security bond, and then we can talk about getting oil to market.

Another guy who makes no use of oil or gas to power his car or heat his home... or to truck in the food he eats to the supermarket.

Argus · July 29, 2016

I walk, ride a bike, occasionally a city bus, greyhound or plane.

I'm not a big oil user at present.

So you don't need to work for a living. Others aren't as fortunate.

And do you eat? Do you wear clothes? Everything you buy at every store you visit was trucked in from somewhere else. There is also oil in every piece of plastic or rubber in every device you own, from your toaster to your computer.

Edited July 29, 2016 by Argus

Peter F · July 29, 2016

All that? Even without a pipeline through BC?

msj · July 29, 2016

All that? Even without a pipeline through BC?

But but but, how are the Chinese going to make tupperware on the cheap if they don't get Alberta oil piped to them? :lol:

poochy · July 29, 2016

But but but, how are the Chinese going to make tupperware on the cheap if they don't get Alberta oil piped to them?

This is precisely the sort of juvenile attitude that seems to pervade BC

jacee · July 29, 2016

So you don't need to work for a living. Others aren't as fortunate.

And do you eat? Do you wear clothes? Everything you buy at every store you visit was trucked in from somewhere else. There is also oil in every piece of plastic or rubber in every device you own, from your toaster to your computer.

I'm quite aware that we will continue to use some oil.

I'm not the one naively making this some kind of 'all or nothing'issue.

Apparently you are.

.

Edited July 29, 2016 by jacee

?Impact · July 29, 2016

What the environmentalists should be doing is going after countries like China, India and the Middle East where pollution runs rampant.

Absolutely, free trade is trading away our future so some rich guy with the politicians in his back pocket can make another billion. Put import duties of 10000000000% on everything.

eyeball · July 29, 2016

But but but, how are the Chinese going to make tupperware on the cheap if they don't get Alberta oil piped to them?

You manufacture Tupperware in Alberta. The place is already lousy with TFW's so the high price of labour shouldn't be an issue.

Bonam · July 29, 2016

Except don't have any real alternatives at this point in time. EVs are on the horizon but they can't replace convenience, cost and power of ICEs and, more importantly, depend on a electrical grid that will need to be powered by fossil fuels in most locations for the foreseeable future.

Modern combined cycle power plants can reach up to 60% efficiency while ICEs are typically about 20% efficient. Battery charging and discharging, power distribution, and electric motors are all very efficient steps, percentage wise. So by using electric vehicles, you still consume about half the fossil fuels, even if all the electricity needed to power them is from fossil fuel power plants. But the other thing to consider is that electric vehicles are precisely the thing the grid needs in order to allow more renewables: with large adoption, they would represent a considerable amount of distributed grid energy storage.

Bonam · July 29, 2016

But the other thing to consider is that electric vehicles are precisely the thing the grid needs in order to allow more renewables: with large adoption, they would represent a considerable amount of distributed grid energy storage.

In fact, thinking about the numbers associated with this...

US energy consumption is 5 billion MWh/yr. That's 15 billion kWh/day.

A general purpose electric car will have a ~100 kWh battery. If all cars in the US (250 million) were electric cars, that's an energy storage capacity of 25 billion kWh. So if all cars were electric, you'd have 1-2 days worth of energy storage connected to the grid (cars are only driven 4% of the time on average and are parked the rest of the time, during which time they could be connected to the grid).

This would allow the day/night cycle of solar to be smoothed over, for example, enabling renewables to contribute much more than the 10-20% of grid capacity that is otherwise feasible.

TimG · July 29, 2016

This would allow the day/night cycle of solar to be smoothed over, for example, enabling renewables to contribute much more than the 10-20% of grid capacity that is otherwise feasible.

I understand the math but we can't get to that model without a critical mass of EVs AND the widespread infrastructure that would allow for charging no matter where the car is parked. To get to that critical mass we will have to greatly expand our traditional generating capacity (something that is near impossible to do because of environmentalist roadblocks). Once the critical mass is reached the benefits you state will allow some of infrastructure to be closed and replaced with renewables. Edited July 29, 2016 by TimG

jacee · July 29, 2016

Update:

/pipeline-whistleblower-calls-public-inquiry-after-husky-alters-oil-spill-report

Former pipeline engineer and whistleblower Evan Vokes is calling for a public inquiry into the operations and engineering of all Canadian oil and gas companies after Husky Energy altered a report about its response to the Saskatchewan oil spill.

Vokes, who blew the whistle on TransCanada in 2012, said Canadians deserve answers about why pipelines are leaking and blowing up, despite industry claims that its infrastructure is safe. He said an inquiry could help shed light on some of the mysteries, much like the recent public hearings in Quebec held to root out corruption in the construction industry.

Calgary-based Husky Energy initially reported it had detected the pipeline leak that spilled around 1,572 barrels of oil into the North Saskatchewan River about 14 hours before responding to the disaster and informing provincial authorities. On Thursday, it submitted a new report saying it only discovered the leak about 30 minutes before it notified the provincial regulator.

Cripes how stupid do they think we are?!

We already saw the '14 hours' report in the news.

Then they changed it to 30 minutes in their report?!

.

Edited July 29, 2016 by jacee

The_Squid · July 29, 2016

Is Husky Oil paying for Lloydminster to tap into a new water supply after theirs was polluted by the oil spill? Or is this being paid for by taxpayers?

http://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/prince-albert-sask-could-have-new-water-supply-this-weekend-after-husky-oil-leak-1.3008173

The province estimates that the shutdowns due to the Husky spill have affected the water supply to about 62,000 people in the area.

Bonam · July 30, 2016

I understand the math but we can't get to that model without a critical mass of EVs AND the widespread infrastructure that would allow for charging no matter where the car is parked. To get to that critical mass we will have to greatly expand our traditional generating capacity (something that is near impossible to do because of environmentalist roadblocks). Once the critical mass is reached the benefits you state will allow some of infrastructure to be closed and replaced with renewables.

I'm not sure about the roadblocks to increasing traditional generating capacity. Brownouts due to not enough power basically don't happen in prosperous areas, meaning that the needed generating capacity exists, and has kept up with demand over the preceding decades to the present day. If demand exceeded generating capacity and we had power rationing and brownouts start to happen in major cities in North America, I think we can be fairly sure that the demand for additional power would be louder than environmental complaints.

Argus · July 30, 2016

I'm quite aware that we will continue to use some oil.

I'm not the one naively making this some kind of 'all or nothing'issue.

Apparently you are.

.

No, I'm pointing out how hypocritical your position is. Wanting a ban on pipelines while continuing to use oil and oil byproducts.

You know, according to the economists our GDP took a huge hit last quarter, worse than expected, all because a fire cut oil product down in one area of Alberta.

If you had your way all the western Canadian oil would stay in the ground and we'd be in a depression.

Of course, you'd still demand your government cheques.

TimG · July 30, 2016

I'm not sure about the roadblocks to increasing traditional generating capacity.

Building a new nuclear/coal/gas plant faces endless opposition in this country (Site C is still being challenged in the courts). California is facing brown outs because it closed a perfectly good nuclear plant: http://dailycaller.com/2016/07/28/california-closing-nuclear-plant-that-kept-lights-on-during-summer-heat-wave/

Green nonsense has already put the UK grid at risk of brown outs: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3275091/National-Grid-warns-brown-outs-supplies-prevent-potential-total-black-outs.html

We may not be facing brown outs yet in Canada but it is a matter of time given the naivety of the public.

I agree that once they start happening they public outcry would trigger change but they have to start happening for any change to occur.

?Impact · July 30, 2016

Green nonsense

Yes, a very interesting article that points out that wind and heat waves are incompatible. It conveniently however forgets to mention that solar and heat waves are extremely compatible. You should consider the sources you read first.

TimG · July 30, 2016

It conveniently however forgets to mention that solar and heat waves are extremely compatible.

Except solar is of limited use in northern latitudes. It also does not change the fact that our society needs power that can be guaranteed to be there when we need it. Renewables can't provide that no matter what their proponents say and the grid will collapse if new dispatchable and base load sources are not added as demand increases and/or existing plants reach the end of the lives. Edited July 30, 2016 by TimG

?Impact · July 30, 2016

Except solar is of limited use in northern latitudes.

Heat waves are limited in northern latitudes as well.

TimG · July 30, 2016

Heat waves are limited in northern latitudes as well.

In the UK there were more worried about losing power during cold snaps which is much more deadly. Why can't you simply acknowledge that new base load needs to be built and that base load is going have to be fossil fuel or nuclear. Edited July 30, 2016 by TimG