Suncor Slapped with Environmental Fines

[Albertabound]

Poor Suncor has been fined $675,000. This company had a net earning of $3 billion dollars in 2006. Who ever is in charge of these fine amounts really has to take a second look at what they are charging for F' up's to this planet. Do you really think it is going to be a lesson well learned with a mere $675,000 fine.....I don't think so.

Suncor, Canada's No. 2 oil sands producer, will pay C$675,000 for failing to install pollution control equipment at its Firebag steam-driven oil sands operation near Fort McMurray, Alberta, and then keeping that information from provincial environmental authorities.

Suncor slapped with environmental fines in Alberta: Scientific American

The Calgary-based company recorded net earnings of $3 billion in 2006, compared to $1.2 billion the previous year. Cash flow rose from $2.5 billion in 2005 to $4.5 billion last year.

The Calgary Sun - Suncor profit dips

suncor income statement
SU Annual Income Statment - Suncor Energy Inc. Annual Income Statment

 

[captain morgan]

Poor Suncor has been fined $675,000. This company had a net earning of $3 billion dollars in 2006. Who ever is in charge of these fine amounts really has to take a second look at what they are charging for F' up's to this planet. Do you really think it is going to be a lesson well learned with a mere $675,000 fine.....I don't think so.

Careful what you wish for. It's a small step between what you are looking for and having all fines like bylaw infractions or speeding tickets being based on your reported income.

 

[petros]

$675,000 fine.....I don't think so.

$675K is far cheaper than proper methods.

Careful what you wish for. It's a small step between what you are looking for and having all fines like bylaw infractions or speeding tickets being based on your reported income.

If they don't pay who does the time in jail for defaulting? No-one. So don't even try to compare corporate crap to civil populus.

 

[captain morgan]

$675K is far cheaper than proper methods.

The fine doesn't absolve Suncor from dealing with it, does it?

If they don't pay who does the time in jail for defaulting? No-one. So don't even try to compare corporate crap to civil populus.

When was the last time you went to the clink for an unpaid parking ticket?

 

[Tonington]

When was the last time you went to the clink for an unpaid parking ticket?

A corporation is not the same as a person. It's a pseudo-person. They get the benefits of being a person (can own property) without the liability (as Petros said, how do you send a person that doesn't exist to jail). Why do you think this is the most advantageous form of business, besides the ease of raising capital in comparisons to sole-proprietorship or partnership?

 

[petros]

When was the last time you went to the clink for an unpaid parking ticket?

Sask Motor Vehicle Act
8.6.2
If any person who contravenes or fails to comply with any of these regulations for which a specific penalty is provided, and fails to pay the sum specified within the time allowed under Section 8.6.1 hereof, then the sum shall be recoverable and enforceable by summary conviction proceedings before a Judge of the Magistrates' Court, Provincial Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, and upon default of payment, a person so convicted may be committed to gaol for a period not exceeding thirty (30) days

Default on a parking Ticket is 30 days.

 

[Albertabound]

All I am stating is that considering it is the environment $675k is small change. Whether you are suncor or not. However, since it is suncor and the fact that they DO make 3 billion clear. Is it really going to be a deterant for doing it again?

Hell, you go to jail for driving drunk on your second offence. Sometime on your first, whether you harm anyone or not. Government doesn't have a problem with making those laws stiff enough to deter you from doing it, but when it comes to the hand that feed you, the gov't sure doesn't want to bit it.

 

[Albertabound]

George, who will become the new CEO of a merged Suncor-Petro-Canada, made about $7.5 million in 2008 compared with the $9.2 million in salary and incentives Brenneman took in as Petro-Canada's chief executive. In addition, Brenneman took in another $9.6 million worth of shares and deferred share units for serving on Petro-Canada's board of directors.

Suncor CEO trails rival for income

I mean really. One person alone is paid that kind of money from this company for one years work. But a lifetime of devastation is only worth $675k.

 

[Spade]

Alberta - Freedom to create. Spirit to achieve. Licence to pollute!

 

[captain morgan]

All I am stating is that considering it is the environment $675k is small change. Whether you are suncor or not. However, since it is suncor and the fact that they DO make 3 billion clear. Is it really going to be a deterant for doing it again?

Government doesn't have a problem with making those laws stiff enough to deter you from doing it, but when it comes to the hand that feed you, the gov't sure doesn't want to bit it.

The tailing ponds are/were part of the approved plan that Suncor proposed prior to development. It's not as if they exist illegally. In addition, they installed a form of deterrent to try and prevent this sort of incident... Obviously, it was ineffective for that event.

That said, can someone point to the actual law that Suncor broke?

(For those that will rush head-long to lambaste me on behalf of the ducks or the inevitable save-the-planet-fanatics wishing to jump down my throat for the sake of the environment - I am not assuming a position that excuses or justify's the event, in any way shape or form. The point is that the 675k fine is intended by the gvt to be symbolic and placate the rabid masses that see fit to excuse duck-deaths in wind-turbines let alone the thousands of ducks that are blasted from the sky by hunters)

 

[Spade]

(For those that will rush head-long to lambaste me on behalf of the ducks or the inevitable save-the-planet-fanatics wishing to jump down my throat for the sake of the environment - I am not assuming a position that excuses or justify's the event, in any way shape or form. The point is that the 675k fine is intended by the gvt to be symbolic and placate the rabid masses that see fit to excuse duck-deaths in wind-turbines let alone the thousands of ducks that are blasted from the sky by hunters)

Heard the exact same quote from a CBC call-in listener yesterday. Hey, Captain?

 

[Tonington]

Suncor had to file an Environmental Impact Assessment. They eventually were approved. Part of that approval is a limit to what can be released.

Specifically, Suncor is charged with:
Prohibited release where approval or regulation
108(1) No person shall knowingly release or permit the release of a substance into the environment in an amount, concentration or level or at a rate of release that is in excess of that expressly prescribed by an approval, a code of practice or the regulations.


The company who runs that camp for Suncor, were charged with failing to report the incident.

 

[Albertabound]

That's just it. It is purely symbolic. Now, if they fined them 5 million dollars, that would be 5 million in the gov't coffers that they don't have right now.

For me, this has nothing to do with ...save the duck, but we do all know what a toxic catastrophe the oil sands have become.

 

[captain morgan]

Heard the exact same quote from a CBC call-in listener yesterday. Hey, Captain?

Not me Spade. although I support the sentiment. That said, I do believe that the events at the Suncor plant was an easily preventable event and the dead ducks is a terrible waste. But let's also put this in perspective in terms of the number of birds that are (needlessly) killed as a byproduct of industry (wind fams, airports loss of habitat due to residential development) as well as hunting.... Why vilify one participant in sector and turn a blind eye to the rest?

 

[captain morgan]

That's just it. It is purely symbolic. Now, if they fined them 5 million dollars, that would be 5 million in the gov't coffers that they don't have right now.

For me, this has nothing to do with ...save the duck, but we do all know what a toxic catastrophe the oil sands have become.

I appreciate your opinion in this AB-Bound. My issue resides in the notion that the law (and therefore the fines) should be applied equally to any instance where someone (or company) has broken the law. It should not be based on what their reported income or profits are.

 

[Spade]

I believe you, Captain. And, I agree that this is old news for the province. But it was the turn of phrase that caught my attention yesterday, and your repeating it almost word for word is a remarkable coincidence!
Cheers,
Cousin Spade

 

[petros]

(wind fams, airports loss of habitat due to residential development) as well as hunting.... Why vilify one participant in sector and turn a blind eye to the rest?

That doesn't fly.

 

[petros]

It should not be based on what their reported income or profits are.

Why not? Ever heard of "paying your debt to society"? If they had no profits it would be okay to dump waste? If you or I didn't have the money we'd do time or have to work it off in labour.

 

[captain morgan]

Suncor had to file an Environmental Impact Assessment. They eventually were approved. Part of that approval is a limit to what can be released.

Specifically, Suncor is charged with:
Prohibited release where approval or regulation
108(1) No person shall knowingly release or permit the release of a substance into the environment in an amount, concentration or level or at a rate of release that is in excess of that expressly prescribed by an approval, a code of practice or the regulations.

Failing to report is an egregious infraction and for that they should pay the piper... But the 675k is waaayyy beyond that infraction.

In terms of the environmental impact assessment, Suncor was also required to provide (and receive approval for) a Phase I, II, and III reclamation plan that dealt with the entire scope of issues, including the tailing-ponds

In terms of section 108(1), Suncor knowingly released contaminants (being hydrocarbon-based effluents) that were not only well known to the AEUB, AEP, et al, but were expected elements of their entire process. Suncor did not add-in anything (unknown and in approx qualtities) that was barred by the aforementioned groups. Put simply, this was an entirely expected byproduct of their process.... If Suncor fights this (and they won't for PR reasons) they'd beat the rap hands-down.

 

[captain morgan]

I believe you, Captain. And, I agree that this is old news for the province. But it was the turn of phrase that caught my attention yesterday, and your repeating it almost word for word is a remarkable coincidence!
Cheers,
Cousin Spade

Have a good weekend Spade!