-DLC- Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 November 29, 2014 6:17 pm RED EARTH CREEK, Alta. – The Alberta Energy Regulator says close to 60,000 litres of crude oil have spilled into muskeg in the province’s north. An incident report by the regulator states that a mechanical failure was reported Thursday at a Canadian Natural Resources Limited (TSX:CNQ) pipeline approximately 27 kilometres north of Red Earth Creek. READ MORE: Crude Awakening The report says there are no reports of impact to wildlife and that a cleanup has begun. Red Earth Creek is over 350 kilometres northwest of Edmonton. Carrie Rosa, a spokeswoman for the regulator, says officials have been delayed reaching the scene due to poor weather in the last few days. No one from Canadian Natural Resources could be reached on Saturday for comment. http://globalnews.ca/news/1699902/alberta-pipeline-spills-60000-litres-of-crude-into-muskeg/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Just remember ladies and gentlemen. If you set up a tent outside of a store and refuse to leave until you can stampede and trample your fellow man in your rush for a new 4K TV. You're a good consumer If you set up a tent in a neighbourhood next to a conservation area to protest a pipeline expansion You're a dirty hippy that must be maced and or jailed. This is the world you now live in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Warhippy Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 http://globalnews.ca/news/1699902/alberta-pipeline-spills-60000-litres-of-crude-into-muskeg/ Won't even make the front page of most sites. In Oct 600k litres of oil and condensate/dilbit spilled in Alberta, only 1 was even mentioned in the news. Yay progress! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Trees can be replanted. Oil spills result in permanent damage when speaking in terms of what volumes are expected to move. And as stated most people against pipelines share the same opinions of open mines. Yes, the time to reforest a clear cut is how long? Probably the same amount of time as any other industrial use of land that's no longer needed for industry. Most people against pipelines probably drive cars and use electricity and natural gas. What's your point about coal mines have to do with anything I have said? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Yes, the time to reforest a clear cut is how long? Probably the same amount of time as any other industrial use of land that's no longer needed for industry. Most people against pipelines probably drive cars and use electricity and natural gas. What's your point about coal mines have to do with anything I have said? You brought up mines. I realize deforestation is an issue but at the very least the earth is still "alive" and the reforested areas can be there for future generations. The same cant be said for a spoiled coastline as a result of a significant spill. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Western Red Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Yes, the time to reforest a clear cut is how long? Probably the same amount of time as any other industrial use of land that's no longer needed for industry. Most people against pipelines probably drive cars and use electricity and natural gas. What's your point about coal mines have to do with anything I have said?These 'people' need to live in order to help bring about a better future. So yes, under the current system, we have to do what is necessary, absolutely no choice. There is a choice though, a choice to stay on a death course and kill our mother. That is a choice being made FOR us, not BY us.Reforestation is open to interpretation. Standing timber becomes viable at around 40 yrs. In 5 years it becomes a buffet and haven for animals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 You brought up mines. I realize deforestation is an issue but at the very least the earth is still "alive" and the reforested areas can be there for future generations. The same cant be said for a spoiled coastline as a result of a significant spill. I brought up mines to make the point that how they look is about the same as tar sands mines. I agree that an oil spill can have a negative environmental impact - but that eco system can recover. "The resulting environmental and economic situation in the Gulf is undoubtedly dreadful—the shrimp-fishing industry has been badly hit, for example. Yet the Deepwater incident is not the first time that a massive oil spill has devastated marine and terrestrial ecosystems, nor is it likely to be the last. In fact, the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) deals with approximately 300 oil spills per year and the Deepwater catastrophe—despite its extent and the enormous amount of oil released—might not be as terrible for the environment as was originally feared. Jacqueline Michel, a geochemist who has worked on almost every major oil spill since the 1970s and who is a member of NOAA's scientific support team for the Gulf spill, commented that “the marshes and grass are showing some of the highest progresses of [oil] degradation because of the wetness.” This rapid degradation is partly due to an increased number of oil-consuming microbes in the water, whose population growth in response to the spill is cleaning things up at a relatively fast pace (Hazen et al, 2010). It therefore seems that, however bad the damage, Nature's capacity to repair itself might prevent the unmitigated disaster that many feared on first sight of the Deepwater spill. As the late social satirist George Carlin (1937–2008) once put it: “The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas, a surface nuisance[.] The planet will be here for a long, long—LONG—time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, because that's what it does, it's a self-correcting system.”" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3024133/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 These 'people' need to live in order to help bring about a better future. So yes, under the current system, we have to do what is necessary, absolutely no choice. There is a choice though, a choice to stay on a death course and kill our mother. That is a choice being made FOR us, not BY us. Reforestation is open to interpretation. Standing timber becomes viable at around 40 yrs. In 5 years it becomes a buffet and haven for animals. LOL - sorry, there is no "death" course - you make it sound like these companies are purposely trying to destroy everything. No, we made the choice. That's the problem with some protester types - they always blame others for the mess WE created. "The planet is fine. Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We’ve been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we’ve only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years. Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the CONCEIT to think that somehow we’re a threat? That somehow we’re gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that’s just a-floatin’ around the sun? The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us. Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles…hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worlwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages…And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet…the planet…the planet isn’t going anywhere. WE ARE!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
riffraff Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Just remember ladies and gentlemen. If you set up a tent outside of a store and refuse to leave until you can stampede and trample your fellow man in your rush for a new 4K TV. You're a good consumer If you set up a tent in a neighbourhood next to a conservation area to protest a pipeline expansion You're a dirty hippy that must be maced and or jailed. This is the world you now live in. Im on mobile but check this out Black Friday Zombie Shoppers 2014: http://youtu.be/WfJezF8diUg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Bookie Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Yes, the time to reforest a clear cut is how long? Probably the same amount of time as any other industrial use of land that's no longer needed for industry. 25-50 years for most reforestation projects, although as someone else mentioned they serve other purposes much sooner. Not looking so good for the sands http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rebuilding-land-destroyed-by-oil-sands-may-not-restore-it-researchers-say/article552879/ “Wetland reclamation is hugely complex.” Wetlands have been forming either artificially or naturally on oilsands leases for years. The results, said Ms. Bayley, are not encouraging. She and her colleague Rebecca Rooney compared 20 reclaimed oilsands wetlands that were an average of 16 years old to 25 undisturbed sites in the area. The scientists found 70 per cent of the reclaimed sites were in poor ecological health: lower biodiversity, less-productive plants and more land exposed to erosion. Those findings echo Mr. Moreno-Mateos's research. He found plant communities and carbon cycling in reclaimed wetlands around the world averaged about three-quarters of what they would if undisturbed — even after a century. And the colder the climate, the slower the recovery. “Alberta is so cold,” he said. “Things will take a lot more time.” As for spills, they're still predicting decades to centuries before full recovery from Exxon Valdez in 89. (and I do consider a spill an inveitability - they couldn't do a simple drilling survey without screwing up). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebuddy Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 No one is disputing their right to protest but the media is giving way too much attention to 100 or 200 protestors. Everry single day the media was at the site showing the police carrying away protestors. These people are the vocal minority who happened to scream the loudest. If the media were not present they would go away. You could always go there and counter-protest the protestors and show your support for the pipeline. The National Post would probably put your picture on the front page, and you could make a nifty avatar out of it for CDC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 25-50 years for most reforestation projects, although as someone else mentioned they serve other purposes much sooner. Not looking so good for the sands http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/rebuilding-land-destroyed-by-oil-sands-may-not-restore-it-researchers-say/article552879/ As for spills, they're still predicting decades to centuries before full recovery from Exxon Valdez in 89. (and I do consider a spill an inveitability - they couldn't do a simple drilling survey without screwing up). "And the colder the climate, the slower the recovery." - so I guess Global Warming is good for the environment after all! What do trees help do? They absorb carbon dioxide. How much carbon dioxide isn't absorbed by a deforestation project in 25 - 50 years? That's what I'm getting at. Yes, it will take a long time for nature to put back the land that the oil companies made a mess of - probably the same amount of time as the open pit mines in BC... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebuddy Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Exactly. These protesters act like they live in the woods and don't use oil in any way. Its very possible to do that. People like Willie Nelson drive cars that don't run on gas, he's been doing it for years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Its very possible to do that. People like Willie Nelson drive cars that don't run on gas, he's been doing it for years. What's his car run on? Coal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-DLC- Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 "And the colder the climate, the slower the recovery." - so I guess Global Warming is good for the environment after all! What do trees help do? They absorb carbon dioxide. How much carbon dioxide isn't absorbed by a deforestation project in 25 - 50 years? That's what I'm getting at. Yes, it will take a long time for nature to put back the land that the oil companies made a mess of - probably the same amount of time as the open pit mines in BC... So it's a tit for tat deal for you? A two wrongs are right? And ftr protestor "types"? What "type" do you suppose they are? In that big lump you've put them into? (Try teachers and authors and scientists and parents) Earth just fixes itself? Is that what you believe? Except that the things you've listed are all mostly natural occurrences and not man made/induced disasters. I'm a little surprised that you're so short sighted with this and a little harsh as well....we all have our beliefs, so allow for that? Mine happens to be that we should take care of this Earth, not that it'll magically go away if when something does happen. My type is proactive and tries to prevent something before it happens, not wait for it to. Sure I drive. And, as stated before...I also like a glass of wine on occasion....doesn't mean I have to become a full blown alcoholic or drink and drive. I like to be responsible and consumption is something to think about...I don't think it's a reason to justify not caring or turning a blind eye on the negative aspects of things. I think that's a lame argument actually. The protestors I know aren't there to blame anyone, they're there to take action against something they're opposed to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 So it's a tit for tat deal for you? A two wrongs are right? And ftr protestor "types"? What "type" do you suppose they are? In that big lump you've put them into? (Try teachers and authors and scientists and parents) Earth just fixes itself? Is that what you believe? Except that the things you've listed are all mostly natural occurrences and not man made/induced disasters. I'm a little surprised that you're so short sighted with this and a little harsh as well....we all have our beliefs, so allow for that? Mine happens to be that we should take care of this Earth, not that it'll all magically go away. Because George Carlin said so. Sure I drive. And, as stated before...I also like a glass of wine on occasion....doesn't mean I have to become a full blown alcoholic or drink and drive. I like to be responsible and consumption is something to think about...I don't think it's a reason to justify not caring or turning a blind eye on the negative aspects of things. I think that's a lame argument actually. Why do you think I'm short sighted? I never said that we don't need to take care of the earth - I was making a comparison. I take care of the earth as much as I can. I buy environmentally products as much as possible and have been lucky enough to buy a place with enough land so that I can live more off the land instead of relying on others. No, it's not tit for tat - I just find it funny how people get swept up with someone else garbage when they have plenty of their own. I try to look at this from a big picture point of view - and everything I see says pipelines are better for the environment than other modes. I also agree that there needs to be tighter restrictions and better infrastructure to support and protect the environment for all energy resources. Oh, I said "some" protesters - not all. So look at the big picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freebuddy Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 What's his car run on? Coal? http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Nelson_Biodiesel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 The "God" thing was intended to be a personal jab, a very poor one at that. I think it's a good example of the BC "my crap doesn't stink" attitude. But hey, it's not my province she's trying to run into the ground, so it's all good here. Why do you have to make this about provinces? It's not about that - please stop. I live in BC, and am not against pipelines. Last time I checked, a "pro pipeline government" was voted in ( I didn't vote for them funny enough). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Nelson_Biodiesel Definitely "cleaner" but still has a carbon foot print/impact on the environment.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heretic Posted November 30, 2014 Share Posted November 30, 2014 Why do you have to make this about provinces? It's not about that - please stop. I live in BC, and am not against pipelines. Last time I checked, a "pro pipeline government" was voted in ( I didn't vote for them funny enough). Because others have - that was my point - people complaining about the tar sands when there are things affecting the environment in every Province and every nation.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.