Husky spills 200k litres of crude into river

[jacee]

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.

A ban on leaky pipelines.

Get it together.

And a rethink and diversification of energy supplies.

.

[eyeball]

And a ban on blazing new pipelines through a 1000 fish-bearing rivers...especially under Ottawa's mismanagement. Its been proven over and over again that mega-projects of this scope are incapable of coming anywhere near salmon habitat without wrecking it. Again...especially when it's done with a big government's blessing and oversight.

Maybe if the pipeline boosters and their ilk could do something about the incompetence and mismanagement of official responsibilities in this god-forsaken country they wouldn't have such an uphill battle. Put a serious enough dent in the government's deplorable regulatory incompetence and I'd be quite open to the idea of even using nuclear power.

Just for the record, I burn around 300 litres of fuel everyday at work. I'm also subject to mandatory monitoring for compliance, sometimes with cameras, black-box data/GPS recorders and even human observers (on my dime) to protect Canadian's interest in conserving a valuable public (albeit privatized) resource...like fish.

The real trouble with boosters of large-scale industrial exploitation of natural resources is that they're also the biggest sycophants to power and wealth on the planet and will not lift a finger to truly promote real transparency and accountability at the top of the power/wealth pyramid. They never have and will only move in that direction kicking and screaming every inch of the way. Why exactly is that anyway? What the Hell's in it for them?

Edited July 30, 2016 by eyeball

[TimG]

The real trouble with boosters of large-scale industrial exploitation of natural resources

The "boosters", as you call them, are the only people that seem to understand how the economy works and, in particular, the Canadian economy works which is extremely dependent on natural resources (as shown by the recent drop in the Canadian GDP as a result of the FMM fires). When the housing bubble bursts the BC economy is toast because without the massive influx of Chinese money there is not much left to fuel growth without "industrial scale resource extraction".

The legions of people who think they can oppose anything that sounds dirty because they have a secure government paycheck are going to face a harsh awakening.

[eyeball]

No, what people are waking up to is the reality that much of the economy works on industrial scale deceit, with the governments complicity.

[Argus]

A ban on leaky pipelines.

Get it together.

Is that like a ban on tires that go flat or cell phones that lose signals?

[jacee]

Is that like a ban on tires that go flat or cell phones that lose signals?

When they do that too often, people don't buy from those companies anymore and they go out of business.

Are you saying that pipeline companies are not capable of better than the dollar-store quality performance we've seen to date?

People pushing back against poorly constructed, monitored and maintained pipelines has already had a huge effect on that industry.

And more to come.

.

Edited July 30, 2016 by jacee

[?Impact]

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.

Electricity is an extremely inefficient method of home heating.

I have no problem with discussing the need for building a diversified power grid, I am simply pointing out the tunnel vision of those that oppose renewable power, and use terms like 'green nonsense'.

Remember, we have only 3 power sources: Nuclear, Tidal, and Solar. Most of the other sources are simply exploiting solar.

Photovoltaic - solar with zero latency

Wind - solar with latency in hours/days

Hydro - solar with latency in days/weeks

Fossil fuel - solar with latency in hundreds of millions of years

Edited July 30, 2016 by ?Impact

[?Impact]

The "boosters", as you call them, are the only people that seem to understand how the economy works

The economy is an artificial construct, designed to benefit one group of people. If the economy doesn't benefit all, including future generations, then it is a farce.

[Argus]

The economy is an artificial construct, designed to benefit one group of people.

Which groups of people does the economy not benefit?

[jacee]

Which groups of people does the economy not benefit?

99%

.

[TimG]

The economy is an artificial construct, designed to benefit one group of people. If the economy doesn't benefit all, including future generations, then it is a farce.

Clueless nonsense. The economy is what keeps the lights on and shelves in stores stocked. Everyone who breathes benefits from the economy because without it everyone would starve to death. Look at Venezuela as an example of what happens when governments sacrifice the economy in the name of an ideology. Edited July 30, 2016 by TimG

[taxme]

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.

From what I have heard free trade was not so great for we the peasants. Only the elite globalists and their corporations apparently have done well from free trade deals. It would appear that just about all of our politicians are in the back pockets of corporations, banksters and special interest groups.

[TimG]

From what I have heard free trade was not so great for we the peasants.

How much did you pay for the computer/phone you are using to type the message? How much more would it cost if it was made entirely in Canada? In fact, it is unlikely that the advancements in technology that we take for granted would have even occurred if it was not for the the economies of scale created by globalization. While there are legitimate issues with free trade with states like China that conspire to keep foreign firms out of the market while having free access to ours that does not mean the principle of free trade is not good for everyone, at any income level, that needs to buy goods to live. Edited July 30, 2016 by TimG

[taxme]

Clueless nonsense. The economy is what keeps the lights on and shelves in stores stocked. Everyone who breathes benefits from the economy because without it everyone would starve to death. Look at Venezuela as an example of what happens when governments sacrifice the economy in the name of an ideology.

Our economy in Canada is suffering from programs and agendas like political correctness, multiculturalism, foreign-aid giveaways, and third world invasion by refugees and illegals. All suck taxpayer's tax dollars out of our pockets and the economy all because of the ideology of socialists and liberals who think that the taxpayer's tax dollars is there to be used and be given to anyone whom they say needs it even those who do not deserve it.

No clueless nonsense just common sense and logic ideology being used here. Works for me.

[taxme]

How much did you pay for the computer/phone you are using to type the message? How much more would it cost if it was made entirely in Canada? In fact, it is unlikely that the advancements in technology that we take for granted would have even occurred if it was not for the the economies of scale created by globalization. While there are legitimate issues with free trade with states like China that conspire to keep foreign firms out of the market while having free access to ours that does not mean the principle of free trade is not good for everyone, at any income level, that needs to buy goods to live.

I would rather pay a little more for my toys if it meant keeping Canadians employed with decent wages and benefits. And with all of the mass immigration going on in Canada these days especially coming from the third world, this only helps to keep wages down and poverty high, and helps keep Canada's unemployment rate at approx. 7% or over 2 million people unemployed. Corporations benefit, not we the sheeple.

[TimG]

I would rather pay a little more

I am not talking about a 'little more'. I am saying that many of the features of modern life you have become accustomed to would simply not exist at any price because the Canadian market is too small the finance their development. If you still think you can import new inventions then explain how would you generate the foreign currency needed to pay for them if other countries decided that they don't want Canadians taking jobs away from their citizens.

[taxme]

I am not talking about a 'little more'. I am saying that many of the features of modern life you have become accustomed to would simply not exist at any price because the Canadian market is too small the finance their development. If you still think you can import new inventions then explain how would you generate the foreign currency needed to pay for them if other countries decided that they don't want Canadians taking jobs away from their citizens.

Businesses can and will adapt. All it takes is for the government to think about Canada and Canadians first and not the rest of the world. We blow more tax dollars on useless liberal and socialist programs and agendas. Trudeau is a rest of the worlds man. As more third world immigration goes on, like I already said, wages will stay low, and poverty will rise. Costs still keep going up. Corporations make lots more money from paying people low wages. Look at who is taking all the jobs from Canadians in cities like Vancouver, Toronto and Montreal, and other big cities. If people were paid a decent salary than we could afford to pay higher prices. But today we are paying low prices for some goods but yet Canadians are billions in debt even with all those low prices. The only people that benefit from low wages are the banksters and the corporations. Life is not hard, it is the politicians that make life hard. Everything just as to be difficult with them. It helps them to keep their non hard working salaries, and helps keep them employed.

[Argus]

99%

.

I can only assume you have no idea what an economy is.

[The_Squid]

Don't worry... this was a small spill. Otherwise, bad things might have happened!

Drinking water could be unsafe for months, Saskatchewan government cautions

http://www.620ckrm.com/2016/08/02/planning-group-says-drinking-water-from-north-saskatchewan-river-may-have-to-be-treated/

But officials in Prince Albert, North Battleford and Melfort must now figure out how to access clean, potable water if the river remains contaminated when winter arrives in three months.

Prince Albert’s city manager says when the cold weather arrives, “we can’t be above ground with what’s providing our safe, potable water.”

http://www.rcinet.ca/en/2016/08/02/husky-oil-spill-saskatchewan-solutions-sought/

[Spiderfish]

Don't worry... this was a small spill. Otherwise, bad things might have happened!

Despite the hysteria that water may be unsafe for months, over 900 water samples have been taken and all have been determined to be safe per Canadian drinking water guidelines. There were 5 samples taken prior to July 24th from the point of entry that did not pass the standard, however subsequent tests at the spill location have come up clean.

http://www.paherald.sk.ca/News/Local/2016-08-03/article-4605958/River-water-tests-clear-since-July-24/1

Yet all we seem to hear from the media is how winter is coming and there will be no way to pipe water from the South Saskatchewan.

Edited August 4, 2016 by Spiderfish

[poochy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ICLXQN_lURk

This is how the clean energy crowd shows its true concern for birds, somehow when they auto ignite it isnt important so long as no oil is involved.

[eyeball]

This the first time anyone as far as I know of has heard about birds bursting into flames and you're just automatically concluding the clean energy crowd isn't or won't be concerned about it in the least?

That seems a little snide don't you think?

[BillyBeaver]

On 7/22/2016 at 2:52 PM, bcsapper said:

It's a big deal. It's a bigger deal to burn a town to the ground. If the product is to be moved, pipelines are the best way to move it.

Pipelines are the cheapest. Best is relative, pipelines contain dilbit up to 30% effluent (usually naphtha or some other benzene/toluenes)which is some toxic shit. If we were moving oilsands peakbit (needs heating) by rail, the cost would be marginally more and any accidents would have next to no effect on the environment. The States wants pipelines for our water in 20 years. It's amazing how little has been spent by Big Oil and the last 3 governments on rail infrastructure and planning.

 

Moving peakbit is the only solution that is little to no risk of environmental damage. Thanks Big Oil Lobbyists for pushing pipelines on us.

[?Impact]

7 hours ago, BillyBeaver said:

Moving peakbit is the only solution that is little to no risk of environmental damage.

I'm unfamiliar with the term peakbit, but what I think you are talking about is moving undiluted bitumen which needs to be heated in order to flow at any substantial rate. Now that will require considerable energy to both fill and empty the containers but it does provide better protection in the case of an accident along the way. I wouldn't say there is no risk of environmental damage, but certainly cleanup should be easier. There might be a case made for modified shipping containers (e.g. top load/unload) to enable the transport all the way from the oilsands to the refinery, not just by rail but also by sea. It would have the added benefit of leveraging existing transportation infrastructure. I am making the assumption that these containers would also float in the case of an accident at sea, I believe that undiluted bitumen is slightly less dense than water but I'm not sure if that makes up for the iron that would encase it.

[BillyBeaver]

yes, peakbit= bitumen without diluent. Yes it needs to be heated, yes it needs special railcars and loading procedures. It's nearly 100% inert as it would just solidify if a breach in the container occurred, it wouldn't flow and permeate the top soil like dilbit does. It's the only environmentally safe solution for transporting it over long distances. I have  no clue as to it's density at sea but i don't see it being an issue.