That's a lotta comfort to the people that live in the neighborhood, I'm sure.
9.5 million litres of toxic waste spills in Northern Alberta
- Thread starter Tonington
- Start date
Does going overboard on speculation help any?Making jokes sure helps out, yeah.
They get hefty cheques to keep them comfortable. If those cheques were to stop, the outrage would be ten fold of that of a brine spill.
It is what it is and it is only a matter of time before it hits surface.. The Athabasca oilsands are testament to that. The worst ecological disaster at present on the face of the planet is the result of the planet puking-up this stuff.
Amazing how cash seems to expedite the healing process, eh?
And that is exactly what is happening right now. Scrounging for more money.
I went overboard on speculation?
Do they? You have the numbers? Even if they did each get money, what would they do with it? Buy chemical laden crap from supermarkets instead of hunting and whatnot? And spend gobs of money on shipping to get it to Zama? Or does the oil company and gov't have to spend gobs more money transplanting those people to a different location? Wouldn't it have been better all round to have just not done crap to fruck up the planet and those people in the first place?
Really? You have something other than opinion to offer?
Ah, sorry, the planet's been "puking-up this stuff" for a long time but at a slow rate and dealing with it. Not millions of liters within a month or three. Still don't get the time factor issue huh?
Last edited:
"According to the WEC, natural bitumen is reported in 598 deposits in 23 countries, with the largest deposits in Canada, Kazakhstan, and Russia."
Oil sands - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"The estimated worldwide deposits are more than 2 trillion barrels (320 billion cubic metres)"
Tar Sands Basics
... Tell me more about that time factor again
^-- Horsepucks.
Yeah, so? How fast would that stuff show up if people didn't dig it up?
Spose you have a oil leak from your oilpan. It drips at the rate of one drop every 12 hours. Not a big deal, right? Spose the oil plug falls out and your 4 or 6 liters of oil are all over your driveway in the space of a few minutes. Get the picture?
It's at surface in most places and the stuff in the ground has the aquifers running through it, into the rivers, lakes and oceans... Been this way for tens of thousands of years I'm guessing.
Multiply that number by all the vehicles driving the roads over the last 100 years.... The planet didn't esplode then, so why now?
I already said that.
Who said the planet would explode? Who said the planet is exploding?
I give up. I don't think you're going to get the idea behind the difference in time between a slow leak and a fast leak.
Oil is what lubes the economic engine. But sooner or later, all engines self destruct. When everything is about money, when money is the solution to everything, them money will also be the end of everything. You can't drink, eat or breath that crap and when our exploitation of resources causes a complete environmental collapse.. and it will... then what? I know, you clowns don't care because you won't be here to choke in your effluent. Phuque the grandkids, I want my money now! Those who live by rape and pillage will die by rape and pillage.
Food is #1 Cliffy. Oil is what put an extra 4 Billion people on the planet because it gives the opportunity to grow more food. Without it, billions die.
I wouldn't know. Seems to matter more to you....
FAR east too complicated for you in your Durry to slam anything easterly?
I'm always amused by the arguments when something like this happens because both sides get in their polarized little corners, doom cry and then something else grabs our attention and we forget all about the previous arguments.
As someone who grew up in an oil town and has spent his adult life working in the energy sector, I see validity on both sides of this one.
The producers and pipeline companies should have done more. The technology is out there for them to do more to monitor the condition of their lines but it might cost a couple thousand to buy and install it, so many project managers balk at the cost of something they don't understand and they won't be around to see function. The production operations personnel don't have the budgets that the construction groups do, and they have to prioritize what they spend money on... and usually they have other issues calling for attention too.
I had a boss who used to say "corrosion engineering is based on nothing happening" and he would go on to explain that this is why it is a hard sell to many engineering and operations VPs in the energy industry: many of them don't know if they are getting any return on investment until they stop spending the money and a failure and subsequent release occur. Then it becomes a big "oops" and they go into damage/spin control.
On the other side, the impact, even off the larger spills have more short term impact than anything else. They can be cleaned fairly quickly, and the producers do write cheques to make up for lost income etc. I remember 20-25 years or so ago, Amoco (before BP bought them) had a huge produced water (i.e. salt water) spill at Utikima Lake that killed off all the fish in the lake. There was a public outcry and Amoco had a big clean up, including paying commercial fishermen and aboriginal people who fished/trapped the area and had their livelihoods affected. 5 years later, the lake was being fished and the area was back to normal.
In short, its not a good thing when these types of leaks occur, and often, with engineering and operations groups that don't live with their collective heads up their arses, they can be avoided. But they aren't as catastrophic as some people play them out to be, and the ecosystems recover a lot quicker than many of us realize.
As someone who grew up in an oil town and has spent his adult life working in the energy sector, I see validity on both sides of this one.
The producers and pipeline companies should have done more. The technology is out there for them to do more to monitor the condition of their lines but it might cost a couple thousand to buy and install it, so many project managers balk at the cost of something they don't understand and they won't be around to see function. The production operations personnel don't have the budgets that the construction groups do, and they have to prioritize what they spend money on... and usually they have other issues calling for attention too.
I had a boss who used to say "corrosion engineering is based on nothing happening" and he would go on to explain that this is why it is a hard sell to many engineering and operations VPs in the energy industry: many of them don't know if they are getting any return on investment until they stop spending the money and a failure and subsequent release occur. Then it becomes a big "oops" and they go into damage/spin control.
On the other side, the impact, even off the larger spills have more short term impact than anything else. They can be cleaned fairly quickly, and the producers do write cheques to make up for lost income etc. I remember 20-25 years or so ago, Amoco (before BP bought them) had a huge produced water (i.e. salt water) spill at Utikima Lake that killed off all the fish in the lake. There was a public outcry and Amoco had a big clean up, including paying commercial fishermen and aboriginal people who fished/trapped the area and had their livelihoods affected. 5 years later, the lake was being fished and the area was back to normal.
In short, its not a good thing when these types of leaks occur, and often, with engineering and operations groups that don't live with their collective heads up their arses, they can be avoided. But they aren't as catastrophic as some people play them out to be, and the ecosystems recover a lot quicker than many of us realize.
That's not what I interpreted.
It appeared to me that one of your points had to do with the active extraction vs natural means. In the end, does that really matter? Here we have a trillion bbls world wide that are at (or damn near close) to surface with aquifers running through it (let alone surface run-off) that empty into the local environments (and global) and Gaia has been able to handle everything thrown at her... For tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of years
You tell me, is this an issue of 'what' is in the eco system or 'when' it is in the eco system?
Apparently the Dene are poised to starve to death in Zama Lake (I've been - the local stores are chalk-full of supplies) as they can't hunt
I guess that your standard MO having no basis for the stupid comment you made is coming back to haunt you as evidenced by the pathetic rebuttal.
Thanks for playing - lemme see if Vanna has a consolation prize for ya.
Id say thats a mark against oil, not for it. It will run out eventually and those billions will die eventually. It might have been better if they hadnt been born.
That seems to be the case with nearly every issue.