Sycrude: It was the Ducks' Fault

[Bar Sinister]

This is an interesting defence. Oil giant Syncrude maintains that it was not at fault in the case of 1600 ducks dying in their hazardous waste pond due to the fact that it was the ducks who foolishly chose to land in the ponds; ponds which Syncrude had a perfect right to maintain.

Lovely, not only does Syncrude display an arrogant lack of concern over the death of hundreds of wildfowl, but also appears completely unconcerned over what such an attitude communicates to the public. Apparently many Syncrude executives studied at the the same schools attended by senior members of Goldman-Sachs.

Syncrude to ask judge to dismiss all charges

 

[CDNBear]

Thank gawd we have a legal system that is run on the rule of law, not peoples emotions...

As was indicated by Syncrude lawyer Robert White.

"These sections of the statutes were passed to deal with the leakage of hazardous substances out into the environment, where it comes into contact with animals in the natural environment and does them damage, "

And I can't find anything in that article that would substantiate the heart felt rhetoric and hyperbole expressed in the OP.

 

[Walter]

If you feel for the ducks, stop using oil.

 

[Praxius]

White said Syncrude has been charged with violating statutes by allowing hazardous waste material to come in contact with ducks, but "what has happened is the ducks contacted the hazardous substance."

"These sections of the statutes were passed to deal with the leakage of hazardous substances out into the environment, where it comes into contact with animals in the natural environment and does them damage, " White said.

" These sections that we're charged with are not designed to deal with a situation which occurs when wildlife comes into contact with hazardous material that is being stored in accordance with a government licence."

^ That pretty much says it there.

They were following procedures and had the waste in designated areas. Let's also not forget that they do have other precautions in place to deter animals from landing in the area. It isn't going to be 100% effective all the time and considering that it hasn't happened since then (to our knowledge) I'd think the system is pretty good for what it is.

Perhaps having some method of covering the areas with a net or some sort of screen could be implemented, but other then that, they technically didn't do anything wrong and if they followed procedure and did what they were supposed to, then they can't be charged with a crime, especially the one they're being charged with, since none of the material "Leaked"

 

[CDNBear]

They were following procedures and had the waste in designated areas. Let's also not forget that they do have other precautions in place to deter animals from landing in the area. It isn't going to be 100% effective all the time and considering that it hasn't happened since then (to our knowledge) I'd think the system is pretty good for what it is.

I would agree, that any counter measure is like not going to be 100% effective, especially on something that's the size of 640 football fields. But it would appear that the upper brass felt thinning the counter measures team, was a good idea. This combined with a late snow and the birds early return, culminated in this sad event.

Perhaps having some method of covering the areas with a net or some sort of screen could be implemented, but other then that, they technically didn't do anything wrong and if they followed procedure and did what they were supposed to, then they can't be charged with a crime, especially the one they're being charged with, since none of the material "Leaked"

Again, I agree, somewhat. As was noted in this article, which is also parroted in several others on this event, that I have read. The decision was made to thin out the team that was responsible for the deployment of the countermeasures. They were hampered by the fact they had no boat, one truck and many of the rafts that were to be used, had sunk, been stolen or were otherwise incapable of holding the weight of the countermeasures.

This is further compounded by the fact that they had not been properly collating the data on the effectiveness of the countermeasures, oft found to be incomplete, shoddy or otherwise ignored. In some cases they even excluded birds that were found some distance from the pond, but still covered in the toxic goo.

There is a huge issue here, but using the law for emotional retribution, is just silly, as I already note in my first reply in this thread.

 

[MHz]

Wasn't it lack of maintaining those systems that lead to the ducks deaths, failure to keep them in operating condition is not something the ducks are responsible for.

 

[CDNBear]

Wasn't it lack of maintaining those systems that lead to the ducks deaths, failure to keep them in operating condition is not something the ducks are responsible for.

Already addressed in this thread, so your point is?

 

[MHz]

Already addressed in this thread, so your point is?

You were still on the ignore list. lol

With all that 'clean sand' that is also a 'waste product' why couldn't the both 'waste products' be blended so they end up with a semi-solid product over a liquid one?

 

[CDNBear]

You were still on the ignore list. lol

:roll:...I guess when you can't answer questions, hiding your head in the sand is a justifiable act. And that still doesn't answer the question as to what your point was. Especially since it was addressed in the article itself.

With all that 'clean sand' that is also a 'waste product' why couldn't the both 'waste products' be blended so they end up with a semi-solid product over a liquid one?

Because the process in which the product is extracted is water based, and the alternatives are cost prohibitive.