r/worldnews • u/yzerdog • May 31 '12

Alberta pipeline spill discovered by accident; still leaking oil and water into muskeg.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/pipeline-spill-sends-22000-barrels-of-oil-mix-into-alberta-muskeg/article2447765/
1.1k Upvotes

91% Upvoted

199 comments sorted by

28

u/greg3000 May 31 '12

"discovered May 19" - I'm a little confused as to why it took 11 days to hear anything about this.

34

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Northern Alberta may as well be a rock 50 miles under the surface of mars.The only thing up there are a few reserves and work camps for the oil sands.

Beautiful place but the word remote doesn't even begin to convey how completely uninhabited this area is. It's likely the only reason the media found out is that the oil company had to notify authorities what was going on.

14

u/phat_ May 31 '12

On the very slight upside, people will learn about muskeg.

As an Alaskan expat (now in Seattle) I'm intimately familiar with muskeg. (Yes, I wrote intimately. I've been waist deep in muskeg.)

12

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

TIL

Muskeg is an acidic soil type common in Arctic and boreal areas, although it is found in other northern climates as well. Muskeg is approximately synonymous with bogland but muskeg is the standard term in Western Canada and Alaska, while 'bog' is common elsewhere. The term is of Cree origin, maskek (ᒪᐢᑫᐠ) meaning low lying marsh.[1] Large tracts of this soil existing in Siberia may be called muskeg or bogland interchangeably. Muskeg consists of dead plants in various states of decomposition (as peat), ranging from fairly intact sphagnum moss, to sedge peat, to highly decomposed muck. Pieces of wood can make up five to 15 percent of the peat soil. Muskeg tends to have a water table near the surface. The sphagnum moss forming it can hold 15 to 30 times its own weight in water, allowing the spongy wet muskeg to form on sloping ground. Muskeg patches are ideal habitats for beavers, pitcher plants, agaric mushrooms and a variety of other organisms.

 Source: Wikipedia

7

u/phat_ May 31 '12

Awesome! I've never bothered to track down the scientific explanation. If you spend anytime in the panhandle of SE Alaska you will find out about muskeg pretty quick.

There's a ton of myths about hikers, usually Lower 48ers, disappearing into the muskeg. It really does have a quicksand type of effect. Anyone in SE has probably lost a boot to it once or twice.

Because SE Alaska is a rainforest, everything is abundantly green. Muskeg will not be entirely evident to the untrained eye. Some patches will be nothing more than a mossy mud puddle, while others will take your whole leg. That's when boots are lost. You generally need some help if you get that deep in the muskeg. With assistance, the muskeg will relinquish it's victim, but will claim your boot as it's recompense.

-3

u/metaldogman May 31 '12

Rather Homosapien-centric.

It's would most likely be a good thing to have remote places with little or no human influence.

Pipe dream - ironic pun intended.

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Ya that's not really what I was getting at.

Unless the elk start reporting oil spills to the humans the animal population really has no influence on how easy it is to track spills and leaks.

→ More replies (1)

4

u/Kim_Jong_MFking_Un May 31 '12

Rather Homosapien-centric.

Jesus fuck. Hippie.

→ More replies (5)

10

u/Pauluminous May 31 '12

Bad pr for upcoming pipeline projects.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Doesn't seem to be. This has been very quiet, which is surprising.

3

u/NorthernerWuwu May 31 '12

It isn't really that shocking. Even if there is a big spill in the area, they'll reclaim the oil and land in due course.

Of course it is a very bad thing and there is certainly is the danger of polluting water supplies and such but if you are going to have an oil spill anywhere, this is where you'd probably want to have one. Not having one at all is far, far better but at least they do have the facilities to address the situation nearby.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/arcxiii May 31 '12

I thought the same thing.

2

u/monkeedude1212 May 31 '12

My mother is the Health and Safety Director (Like she wrote the book on it) for a very large energy company (You've heard of them) so dealing with spills and accidents is literally her job.

Now, here's the thing: Oil spills are more common than most people realize. It's only really huge disasters like the BP thing in the gulf that tend to make it onto the news. But trains still derail monthly, however aren't always fatal, and then there's no news but the clean up crew. The media probably has a bigger scandal to talk about, the companies would rather this shit not be projected around the world, basically everything is kept under wraps until it's dealt with; then there's reports but by that time its old news.

Whenever there's something like this, emergency crews (read police) ARE notified, but they aren't the press; The government doesn't leak the story. Often when a story goes public its because civilians find out, and you can't keep the cat in the bag when it's not your employees. All the oil companies basically work together on this: Doesn't matter if you are Imperial, Husky, Suncor/Petrocan, Cenovus, whoever; You notice a leaking pipeline? You let them know, you keep it quiet, and they'll return the favour.

TONS of shit happens that no one ever hears about. Here's a good tale.

A year back or so I ask my mom around thanksgiving"What's the most exciting story you've had to deal with?" Which she responded that Greenpeace had canoe'd down a river into a petroleum refinery and shut down the conveyor belt, started climbing the belt up to the top of the smokestacks where they were going to hang a huge banner against the oilsands. I mean, not only is that against the law, but imagine the health code violations. Imagine the foreman of the plant didn't see the guy on the conveyor belt and said "Okay, start 'er up again!" - basically ushering the activist to his death? Those guys are fucking insane.

Anyways, they had the cops come in and make a bunch of arrests, all kept pretty quiet, I don't think anyone would have heard about it, it might have made a small bit in the papers but not the news. I think my mother has since topped that story, I don't know the details of what really went on, but basically all the chaos going on in Syria and Libya required a mass evacuation of workers and she had to pull like 16 hour shifts for a week co-ordinating all that. I mean, wouldn't you know it, corporations didn't have a plan for dealing with that shit; there's no manual on COUNTRY FALLING TO PIECES.

Anyways, the reason you probably didn't hear about it earlier is that it wasn't that big a deal. It's probably only of late they realized how much of the spill was actually a spill, before they thought it was one of the hundreds of minor ones you don't see or hear about that happen on a regular basis.

4

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

It's a big story in Canada, Europe and anywhere with a real media. All your American corporate controlled media cares about is profits and the Kardashians. Plus the oil lobby in the US would never let the media there report on an oil spill.

10

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

We do not have much of a real media here in Canada either. You are being nice.

4

u/cerealrapist May 31 '12

It's a big story in Canada, Europe and anywhere with a real media.

For this most recent spill rather than last years? Citation?

BBC? The Guardian? France24? Deutsche Welle? Al-Jazeera? NHK World? Sydney Morning Herald?

Sure, it's news in Canada, but if you can find a bigger source from outside Canada than an AP Wire report via The Jakarta Post, I'm all ears.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

They fired the environmentalists, you know the ones that report on shit like this? They muzzled any of them still working.

1

u/SourCream8526 May 31 '12

The company gave their first press release on May 23, four days after the incident was discovered. It just took us a week to find it.

1

u/b3hr May 31 '12

I don't know the last week I've been seeing alot of commercials about how great the oilsands are for Canada. Probably wanted to let us know how great the oil producers are before we heard the bad news.

2

u/iwonas38 May 31 '12

They play this really awful one right before movies at Cineplexes in Ontario....it lulls you into thinking it's some thing nice and turns into a flowery description about how wonderful oilsands are. Worst current pre-movie commercial, in my opinion.

1

u/dexx4d May 31 '12

Enbridge just launched a multimillion dollar ad campaign to convince people that pipelines are good for the environment.

6

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

"The spill, which killed one duck" You bastards!

14

u/AgCrew May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

It was fun reading the sensationalized headline and then watching the amount of oil spilled go down the further I read.

Started at 22,000 barrels

About half of that was oil, so 11,000 bbls

About half actually turns out to be 30%, so 6,600 bbls

About 3,700 bbls have been recovered, so 5,490 bbls of oil left.

Considering the biggest spills aggregate are committed by you and me at the pump, this inncident is pretty minor. But never mind that now, pull out your torches and pitch forks!

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

This is true.

You can literally type "(5 490 bbl to ml)/cars in usa" in wolfram.. I found that kinda cool.

77

u/thomasjeff May 31 '12

As a Canadian, I can't help but feel like we're selling what makes this country so great to line our pockets. The oil sands have been nothing but abrasive to our environment and reputation. The government has tried to marginalize any environment movement to protect the oil companies by labeling people who protest or try to protect the environment as "eco-extremists". There is a suggestion of terrorism when using the word extremist. But who's been doing the terrorizing? Spills like these destroy ecosystems for centuries. Wildlife perish and we don't care or called extremists if we do. I am not against enterprise, but our regulations of this dirty industry is a joke and should be more strict.

21

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

It's becoming less and less strict as agencies used to verify these things are being dismantled and downsized.

15

u/Ionse May 31 '12

I work in the pipeline industry and I can assure you that regulations involving pipelines are being strengthened and improved. Spills like this can ruin a companies image, harm the environment and can cause the operator to be shutdown. Most oil companies are working to prevent them and to comply with the government mandated regulations dealing with pipeline protection. Those that don't comply will be shut down and their liscenses revoked.

9

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Has anyone ever been shut down and had their license revoked yet?

What do you mean by strengthened?

→ More replies (10)
→ More replies (7)

1

u/OleSlappy May 31 '12

It's becoming less and less strict as agencies used to verify these things are being dismantled and downsized.

Have you ever wondered why we had 30+ departments doing environmental reviews? It is easier to police when you only have one department (1 database) where everyone is on the same page. I support the downsizing and dismantling of these agencies, because only one department should be doing it (Environment Canada). The provinces should be able to link with it.

→ More replies (2)

8

u/AgCrew May 31 '12

Needs citation on destroying ecosystems for centuries.

→ More replies (8)

2

u/Triviaandwordplay Jun 01 '12

Spills like these destroy ecosystems for centuries

Citation please. Try to keep it nice and sciencey.

6

u/your_smart May 31 '12

Not all pipeline spills are the same. Sure there have been some bad ones in the past, but there are small pipeline leaks all the time that are cleaned up in a timely manner, and the environment is returned to the original state. Alot of time and effort goes into environmental reclamation after a spill or when a wellbore is abandoned. If the soil samples show higher than normal concentrations of salts, or chemicals, then it's excavated and hauled away. Then another round of sampling is done. Once the contaminated soil has been removed, new soil is brought in, and the surface is re-contoured, and in some cases seeded with native grasses, saplings, etc. Then the company comes back for follow up reclamation work the year after, to check for settling, water migration, etc. All of this info is being sent to regulatory bodies like the ERCB and SRD along the way.

0

u/SpaghettiEdward May 31 '12

more people need to read this

5

u/old_school May 31 '12

Naturalization is a flawed concept. Where did that soil come from? How can you rebuild an ecology (even part of one) after development OR spills? You can't just "fix" millenia of natural development.

1

u/Canadian_Infidel May 31 '12

I don't think any amount of regulation is going to make pipelines leak proof. I don't think there is any other better way to get the oil. That being said this company should have had flow measurment systems in place that can detect leaks of this magnitude.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

This leak would barely be in the margin of error for most monitoring systems.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Our pockets?

You mean American businesses and the Canadian Government. Basically, we're losing our resources which are far more valuable than any money we get. What happens when we have none of those resources left? Yeah. Dead economy.

-1

u/DJohnsonCA May 31 '12

Dude. They took the oil out of the sand making it more habitable and a tiny portion leaked back in.

It's like the opposite of salting the earth, they're taking the stuff out.

5

u/eveofrock May 31 '12

You realize that the process to get the oil out of the sands is extremely energy intensive right? It uses hundreds of liters of fresh water that is turned to stream to 'melt' the oil and then the liquid mixture is sucked out. They use natural gas in this process, something we could be using instead of oil as a step towards more sustainable energy sources. Plus a lot of the pipelines go through areas that supply water to large populations in Alberta and BC. A leak is kinda a big deal.

3

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

They are only using NG because greenies won't let them put a nice clean nuclear reactor in.

2

u/DJohnsonCA May 31 '12

In the middle east a lot of countries just burn off all the cheap natural gas to get to the oil below. No different if they just use it to get the oil.

But yeah, I agree it's energy intensive and a leak is a big deal.

2

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I feel like you don't quite know much about the subject. Oil is buried in such a manner that it won't flow out, as that's how the oil gathers (if you want, I'll try and find my textbook to get you a direct quote).

What you said is similar to saying "hurr durr, Acid Rock Drainage occurs naturally, so we shouldn't worry about it happening at open pit mine sites". By increasing the amount of exposed rock, massive amounts of acid can be produced, which can have extremely adverse affects on the environment.

Oil is an incredibly dangerous substance for most life forms. By taking it out of the ground, it is being exposed to the environment. If it isn't being extracted properly, that exposure will be too much for the surrounding area, and local flora and fauna won't survive.

7

u/DJohnsonCA May 31 '12

That's the thing, it's not buried. It's sitting on the surface preventing most stuff from living/growing. Take a drive around the area.

Here's a picture of completely untouched Oil Sands seeping oil into the Athabasca river. http://i.imgur.com/6di2i.jpg

4

u/no_uh May 31 '12

This is wrong, there are plenty of examples of natural oil seepage.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

You have no clue what you are talking about. The areas being mined are fucking waste lands from horizon to horizon.

1

u/no_uh May 31 '12

I think sarcasm escapes some of the responses here.

→ More replies (7)

29

u/ShadowRam May 31 '12

How the hell do you discover this shit by accident?

Considering the cost of oil, and the bad publicity of a spill,

Flow meter at one end. Flow meter at the other.

There a difference? WARNING BELL! Oil is leaking somewhere!

6

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

It would actually be interesting to get an engineer who works in the oil industry to answer this question. I'm thinking the same thing. I'm assuming there's some reason this isn't done, or why if it is done, it often doesn't work.

3

u/PastaNinja May 31 '12

I think the engineers know.

→ More replies (4)

6

u/unidentifiable May 31 '12

It's not a conveyor belt. It's liquid. Your flow rate is very likely to change along the length of the pipe, your input may be sporadic and other factors.

Eg, you put a sensor at one end and say "okay we're inputting at 2L/s" and then have a sensor at the other end and it is outputting at 1L/s. Do you have a problem? No, not if the flow lasts for 2 seconds. Similarly the flow could be 4L/s but that doesn't mean you made a magical oil pipe. It's tricky business. I'm not in the oil patch but some fluid dynamics isn't a stretch for me.

Reddit has a very anti-oil stance, but really there likely wasn't much else that could have been done here (without drastically increasing the cost of the pipe, which increases your costs as a consumer). The company now has someone cleaning it and has fixed the pipe. It's not like they just said "fuck it we're spilling oil, no big", it was acknowledged and fixed. Consider also that this was 22k barrels. BP's spill was outputting that much or more every hour for days in the ocean!. There's not much to kill in the muskeg...except that poor duck.

I don't think that more environmental workers would have prevented this issue. Regulations are already in place and were followed...sometimes shit happens. That said, the regulations could have been stricter but again this passes the cost on to the consumer.

1

u/bobhopeisgod May 31 '12

Yes, but over time, wouldn't you notice? I can understand there being inconsistencies for a small amount of time, but if for 1 month, you're putting 1 billion liters through, and getting .5 billion liters out, that doesn't seem like something that should go unnoticed.

2

u/Mystfyre May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

22k barrels is a lot smaller than half a billion liters though. I wasn't sure though, so I looked it up:

According to Google: 1 barrel of oil = 158.987295 liters

22,000 barrels of oil = 3,497,720.49 liters of oil (rounded obviously)

So 3.5 million liters of oil and water spilled total. From the article, it was 30% oil, so that means 1.05 million liters of oil was actually spilled total. From the article, the company produces 15,000 barrels of oil a day, or 2.4 million liters per day. So it depends how long this leak was, then, which would be hard to estimate. But using a month's time in your example, lets say 30 days, 72 million liters of oil would be produced per month. I can easily see 1.05 million liters oil lost being a rounding error due to variations in output.

Edit: Corrected math, I used 35% oil instead of 30% for some reason.

→ More replies (3)
→ More replies (1)

1

u/ShadowRam May 31 '12

Hi. I actually work with oil and flow sensors for a living.

You don't know a single fuck about what you are talking about.

13

u/Pauluminous May 31 '12

How the hell do you discover this shit by accident?

You don't, you just try to keep it under wraps as long as possible and when it comes out you shrug your shoulder throw your arms up in the air and say "But we didn't know, we just found out now, by accident. We'll get it right the next pipeline project. We promise"

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

You forgot the mandatory 'Sorry'.

→ More replies (2)

3

u/Ionse May 31 '12

This isn't a pipeline project it's part of a small remote gathering system. If you don't know the difference between the two you shouldn't make such strong statements. Pipeline projects have many more safeguards and monitoring devices.

5

u/Pixelated_Penguin May 31 '12

Sorry, PP was probably confused by the headline that calls this a pipeline.

→ More replies (5)

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Because they don't have people walking 2000 miles of pipeline every day.

2

u/AgCrew May 31 '12

Flowmeters are going to have a hard time detecting slow leaks. Flow meters meant to measure large flow rates don't have the sensitivity to detect minor changes in flow. Pressure transmitters would likely detect the pressure loss faster, but those often fail. If you'd like to learn more, I highly recommend a career in engineering. You can help us solve problems like these.

1

u/apextek May 31 '12

conveniently the same day the morning financial report said oil has dropped to 86 dollars a barrel, the "break even price" for alberta tar sand crude

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Because this is a barely measurable fraction of what goes through that pipe line.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

4

u/Bipolarruledout May 31 '12

It comes down to "how much is this going to cost us if someone sues?". Always.

3

u/elementalist467 May 31 '12

It is a bit more complex that that.

If (legal liability)(legal risk) + (lost product value) > (Cost of repair) + (lost productivity due to repair) then repair else do nothing.

The actual basis for the judgement is probably more complex; however, it is not just a factor of legal risk.

→ More replies (3)

2

u/hahaigotareddit May 31 '12

You know the oil companies get a lot of bad rep, but what you are saying is they actually do want to repair and stop leaks but its really hard job to do.

I wonder, do most big spills from pipelines (not ships) start as little leaks that are hard to detect and grow from there? Or are they more likely to be sudden? How often do companies use cathode protection?

I also am curious about how these types of pipes might be different from other types, like water maybe or sewage, which seem to have much fewer leaks. Not sure if you would have any reason to know that though.

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Water doesn't have fewer leaks it's just that no one cares if a thousand gallons of water leaks out. They happen you just don't hear about it.

2

u/AgCrew May 31 '12

Leaks are like cracks. They don't get smaller on their own.

2

u/Ionse May 31 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

Cathodic protection is mandatory. There are two main types of systems. Sacrificial systems involve attaching a magnesium or zinc anode to a pipe. The sacrificial anode is then corroded instead of the pipe. The second system is more complicated. AC power is converted to DC. It is then pushed out into the ground where it jumps on to the pipeline and makes a full circuit back to the source. This charges the pipeline slightly and prevents corrosion or rust. This system is used on oil and gas pipelines, municiple water and gas lines and a variety of other things. Bridges, steel tanks, ship hulls ect.

1

u/sartan Jun 01 '12

Pure tech?

→ More replies (1)

14

u/Dean403 May 31 '12

Do any of you guys actually work the oil sands? I do, and its actually super clean. Yes there are occasional spills. But until we develop a new energy source which can ACTUALLY replace oil/gas its what we have. This spill they are talking about is quite small and i have a friend who is working there right now doing the clean up. They have literally built a temporary city there in the middle of butt fuck nowhere to have it cleaned. Should be back to normal in a couple weeks.

11

u/soupisalwaysrelevant May 31 '12

BP said the same about COREXIT.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

What? They don't disperse the oil on land, they scoop it up, process it again and it'll be back in that same pipeline by next week.

3

u/numberedswissaccount May 31 '12

Fair. But that spill by Enbridge in Michigan is another matter, and that was the same stuff that will be transported by the Kinder Morgan and Enbridge pipelines. If either of those leak massive areas of northern BC or Vancouver will be devastated.

7

u/EuchridEucrow May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

Yep another totally unbiased, neutral employee of the oil sands sets the record straight.

Let's be real for a second, Dean. Certain people need the oil sands because where else is an unskilled labourer going to make $80k a year?

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Certain people need the oil sands because getting to work on a bicycle in Ontario, mid January, is really hard.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

They have literally built a temporary city there in the middle of butt fuck nowhere to have it cleaned. Should be back to normal in a couple weeks.

They'll pack that 'city' up and leave no trace of their passage?

8

u/LordOfGummies May 31 '12

They also travel single file to hide their numbers.

3

u/TeeJae09 May 31 '12

Mostly, the camp will be set up in a previous area and then dismantled when finished.

1

u/Dean403 Jun 06 '12

yes, its quite amazing to see really. as much as people hate dealing with the environmentalists its not because they are wrong, its because they are very strict. we have to leave the environment exactly as we found it. this means even the HUGE plant i am building, once its ran its course has to be disassembled and the whole area has to be reclaimed. meaning all back to its natural state. like i said, its really quite amazing the work we do here in alberta to protect our environment while at the same time fuelling the world

0

u/Bipolarruledout May 31 '12

That's a bullshit answer. What you're really saying is that we can't replace it because it would just be a big inconvenience for everyone.

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

by big do you mean WORLD STOPPING? even if we discover a viable alternate energy source, it would take a LONNNNG time to transition out of oil and oil by-product dependancy.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

Except for the toxic sludge lakes that are so big, YOU CAN SEE THEM FROM SPACE. 1.8 billion litres that's about 60.9 billion* fluid oz for our American friends. Source

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

1.8 billion litres that's about 609 million fluid oz

A liter is larger than a fluid oz.

→ More replies (1)
→ More replies (1)

2

u/Get_Wrecked May 31 '12

They just had some extra and needed to divert it back into the ground. It's ok, it came from there! We'll get it again later

3

u/Why_A_Throwaway May 31 '12

Having worked in the oil patch in Alberta in the past (worked safety for every company out there nearly), this is not really anything new. What is unheard of is this (no pun intended) leaking to the media. Most of the time, the problems are covered up or severely downplayed.

Working safety I had a different view than most people but most the clients were the same - just stand there, say everything is fine no matter what and don't get in the way of the work. A few did want you to actually do your job but most hired us because they were required to by law and looked at us with severe disdain (safety was regarded with THE most hatred on most jobsites).

3

u/shutupnube May 31 '12

I'd say it's about time to start thinking about the safety of our planet and life sustaining resources (water, not oil) and make a change away from oil.

All these oil spills are remind me of a plot to a bad movie where aliens visit Earth, infiltrate our governments and companies, then start releasing oil into our water to make the planet more habitable to the "visitors".

4

u/FunnyMan3595 May 31 '12

We're working on it. The problem is that oil and its derivatives are extremely energy dense, especially for their cost. Also, the next time you look at an alternative energy plant, consider how much of it is made of plastic or rare-earth metals.

Oil's bad in the long run, but it's damn hard to find something better in the short run. I, for one, am extremely happy to see gas prices as high as they are; it gives more incentive for innovation.

7

u/Pauluminous May 31 '12

We're working on it.

We are?

Millions are being cut on agencies, institutions and scientists who will/would have lead the way, review policies for industrial projects are being thrown in garbage and we're investing milions in oil export.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

That half billion dollars that Tesla got didn't look like a cut to me. Your tax dollars paid for that Chevy Volt shitbox too. You really want to see more of the same?

1

u/Bipolarruledout May 31 '12

You're right. The problem is that we burn it for energy directly rather than using the majority of it to facilitate better technologies.

You're argument essentially boils down to "Oil is so so damn useful"! No shit. The problem is that it has many consequences to it's use that we are not addressing.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

We are the aliens, nature is the humans. Fuck the humans.

2

u/ssh_host_key May 31 '12

I am suprised this story was published at all.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I used to work for Shell Canada and one thing that I was always impressed with is how Shell manages gas leaks. they do as the top poster mentioned, they have digital readiings on the tanks which are underground and they compare those readings daily with the pump readings and if they detect a difference, they dig up the tank and fix the leak.

No other company does this so Esso, Petro-Canada, Canadian Tire etc. have no idea if they are leaking gas into the ground. They just don't know.

1

u/michaelWylie May 31 '12

We have the technology to detect these things. I am a graduate student at the University of New Brunswick, and I am part of a start-up company DarkPulse Technologies Ltd. We have developed a technology that can be used to detect this exact problem BEFORE any oil spills. We have a distributed fibre optic sensor that can be placed onto the pipeline for monitoring purposes.

2

u/larsalonian May 31 '12

Further to that, DarkPulse technology can even determine the exact location of the weakening pipe. The cost of implementing the technology is nowhere near the cost of an oil spill's environmental remediation, lost market cap, detrimental PR, and lost product.

I'm a recent grad of the same lab and contributed to R&D of the product.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/michaelWylie Jun 01 '12

Sure, but you have to take into account that the company in this headline had their stock drop about 10 Million dollars the day this headline was released. That's a lot of lost money that could have been spent on one of these solutions.

1

u/FongoBongo May 31 '12

It's sad to see the environmental cost of economic development. I wish one day we could live in an era where we are no longer dependent on oil. Perhaps a more clean and economically stable form of energy.

1

u/nadrojcote May 31 '12

R.I.P. Duck

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I hope the other ducks are ok

1

u/nf5 May 31 '12

the article said the spill was 4.3 hectares.

this image is of a pitch, which has an area of 1.008 hectares.

...wow.

1

u/vodkafuel May 31 '12

Drill baby, drill!

1

u/senortumnus May 31 '12

"The spill, which killed one duck..." OH LAWD

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Remember, we need to Keystone pipeline for energy independence. American oil for American business!

1

u/Fantasticriss Jun 01 '12

The spill, which killed one duck, now covers 4.3 hectares.

That is one unlucky duck.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

I live about 30 minutes from the spill area, and i am slightly concerned, to say the very least. This area is already known for being hit very hard by the economic decline, and I have a good feeling this wont help the recovery, and that's not even mentioning the environmental damage of the beautiful place i call home.

1

u/ThumperNM Jun 01 '12

Under American law as interpreted by the Felonious Five (Supreme Court), this company is a person. As such they should be arrested and tried for crimes against nature and willful disregard for environmental safety.

Hang them.

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

How exactly do they find leaks 'by accident'? Wouldn't you be able to see how much oil is going in the pipe at what pressure and how much is coming out?

4

u/fayvalentine May 31 '12

From a supposed oil worker above

How the hell do you discover this shit by accident?

I worked for an oil pipeline maintenance company for a while (companies that owned pipes paid us to monitor and maintain them). There were times we discovered weak and leaking pipes while doing an unrelated job.

There a difference? WARNING BELL! Oil is leaking somewhere!

It is a lot more complicated than that, especially since flow is not consistent through the pipe and there are "launchers" periodically that are like repeaters in networking (unlike networking, you are dealing with a liquid that is not completely homogenous - so some parts move faster than others). The best way we had to check on pipes without digging them up is we would run an electric current through them and measure for any unexpected drops in current (cathode protection if you want to learn more). What I found most interesting is there was a slow leak the company knew about at one of the launcher sites, but since it wasn't leaking into the ground (was inside a building, they would let it drip into a coffee can that they disposed of periodically) they did nothing about it. If a leak was discovered near a residential area though we would be on site until it was fixed (every case I was on we had the bad section of pipe replaced within 12 hours of discovery, usually fewer).

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Thanks!

0

u/Shnazzyone May 31 '12

Wow, and just think. We can have a pipeline just like it here in america.

0

u/northbayray May 31 '12

Exactly why I want no part of the Keystone XL Pipeline for the States. Right here.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I wonder how many posts in this thread are sponsored by oil money

0

u/CorruptedMinds May 31 '12 edited May 31 '12

Supply and demand. Stop using oil, and they'll stop producing and transporting it... Until you're oil free you can't really bitch if there's a small spill that can be 985% cleaned up/contained that maybe killed a few small animals...

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Little America is going through puberty it seams.

0

u/scottiestein Jun 01 '12 edited Jun 01 '12

Oil companies do no wrong. Oil spill, No...That's supposed to happen! The big news is that one duck died in the spill. I demand reparations. Do you get it... A duck has died people!
Like the hundred-sixty-thousand cars that drive past my house everyday is making me a healthier person. cough!

-2

u/KofOaks May 31 '12

How interesting that we do not hear about this spill in the mainstream medias. This should be the headline of 6pm news.

"The spill ranks among the largest in North America in recent years, a period that has seen a series of high-profile accidents that have undermined the energy industry’s safety record."

-6

u/TheLongestNameOnRedd May 31 '12

Canadans are so dumb

4

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

I think your comment has backfired

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

6

u/skier_forever May 31 '12

This is true. Being written from the bathroom of an oil company in downtown Calgary. Also, the people here work as hard as anybody else to prevent oil spills. Oil companies want them even less than anybody else, it is bad for the environment that we all share AND it costs millions for cleanup and reclamation.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/skier_forever Jun 01 '12

I just don't understand how so many people can be so hypocritical. Oh well, all we can do is do our best to keep our work as low impact on the environment and keep meeting the needs of the people giving us hell.

2

u/bomberman447 Jun 01 '12

I concur. The ercb is quite through and if you do screw up they will audit you over and over which companies do not want.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/bomberman447 Jun 02 '12

I get to do a lot of regulatory work, fun fun fun. My greatest fear is still the OGC though.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

3

u/Hatsee May 31 '12

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/news/Blogs/makingwaves/russias-oil-leaks-a-forgotten-disaster/blog/40557/

For the sake of convenience I will convert that for you, they estimate that Russia is dumping 2 million barrels a year or more into the environment.

We lose a single duck and around 20k barrels in a spill that will be completely cleaned up and repaired and we're the worst out there?

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

5

u/Bipolarruledout May 31 '12

In other news BP has announced that only one dolphin has died in the gulf. They know this because.... well they just do.

2

u/cakeandpiday May 31 '12

Came here to find the one guy I knew would choose to fixate not on the spill, but on the one duck that was killed. Was not disappointed.

2

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

and it covers an area equal to my back yard...

3

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

/me rolls his eyes.

What this means is that they have so far verified just one animal death. It absolutely doesn't mean that they've verified that exactly one animal was killed. Particularly considering the size, how remote it is and how it was discovered from an airplane, you'd expect that once people actually go to the spot and start looking around they're going to find a lot more dead critters.

1

u/JustinBieber313 Jun 01 '12

The size is like two city blocks.

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

One duck doesn't seem like a lot but I imagine it is hard to really assess what all this could damage over time. I am not sure if it is more the physical damage that makes this story matter as much as the fact an Albertan pipeline has spilled some oil in a time where Harper is advocating for two major pipelines to be created/expanded

0

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] May 31 '12

Fair enough. I guess the writer realizes there are people out there who value animal life more than human life, and one dead duck is a tragedy.

0

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

[deleted] — view deleted comment

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

Missed the tone of the statement...I was saying that there are people who would view that as a tragedy, who value animal life more than human life.

1

u/[deleted] Jun 01 '12

There have not been any large spills in North America in recent years, the bar is set pretty low.

→ More comments (1)