Tar sands oil spill ugliness---

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

This sh7t isn't oil-- it's tar that's been diluted with solvents so it could be pipelined...  it's worse, much-much worse than just crude.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3iIdWGGlBP8

[youtube=425,350]3iIdWGGlBP8[/youtube]

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

 

[pieces o nine]

How many of these disasters must occur before the people making these decisions stop acting like desperate junkies (or desperate plutocrats) and start thinking and acting rationally?

Also:care to bet how many days before talking heads are back on the teevee demanding more tar sands "drilling" and the elimination of "out-of-control, trade-destroying government regulations"?

How terrible for those losing their homes to this.

[Opsa]

It is very upsetting. Haven't we had a bunch of wake-up calls about oil dependence all ready? It spills, it kills, it pollutes, it is inefficient and it is depleting, anyway.

[Swatopluk]

But it does not spoil the palaces and gardens of the profiteers, so nothing real will be done.

[Opsa]

How about if we stop using it?

[Swatopluk]

It's not for our use, almost all of it is for export.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I had a thought:  all the ruined topsoil and creek-bottom mire should be picked up, placed into long-haul dumptrucks (with tarps-over) and taken to the personal houses of all the CEO's of whoever owns the pipeline.  And dumped into their pools first, then onto their front lawns--preferably close to the front doors & directly underneath all the windows.

If there is any left-over after that?  Dump it onto the lawns of the owners of the company digging up the tar-sands.

After that?  Dump it onto the politicians (and former) who made this possible, by putting special exemptions into the various laws & regulations.

I bet we'd >>still<< have muck leftover... 

[Opsa]

I wonder if even that would stop them! 

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I wonder if even that would stop them! 

They have multiple houses, true.  But if we keep hitting them in their pocketbooks, they might pay attention.

[pieces o nine]

I had a thought:  all the ruined topsoil and creek-bottom mire should be picked up, placed into long-haul dumptrucks (with tarps-over) and taken to the personal houses of all the CEO's of whoever owns the pipeline.  And dumped into their pools first, then onto their front lawns--preferably close to the front doors & directly underneath all the windows.

If there is any left-over after that?  . . .

Don't forget their private offices, the passenger sections of their corporate jets, the passenger compartments of their chauffeured cars, the private members' areas of their country clubs, their yachts...

*Any* repercussions against (employees) who decline to clean this up for them will result in the executive being taken into custody and confined to an area with an open pit of the stuff -- until the public areas have been cleaned at corporate expense.

[Aggie]

I wish they'd stop lying to us about pipeline projects.  Pipelines break.  It's a foreseeable outcome, especially over a long-distance line, and sooner or later a spill will occur.  I wish the pipeline companies would just be up front about the odds of it happening, and about the typical spill volumes instead of trying to say it's an impossibility.

From what I've seen, small-diameter flow lines in older oilfields are the worst... some of the clients I've worked for had multiple breaks per year, although they were typically fairly small volumes with cleanups that only required several hundred thousand dollars and a decade or so of ongoing management to remediate.  It's difficult to keep up on kilometers of old rusting lines.  The larger main lines get pigged with million dollar high-tech inspection pods that check for weak spots and breaks. Needless to say, these sorts of inspection (and chemical treatments to keep the lines from corroding) cost big money, so there's temptation for the companies to cut costs by minimizing their inspection and anti-corrosion programs.

A spill like that, considering the amount of affected wetlands and the residential area, will cost millions and millions and never get cleaned up back to pre-spill conditions. It's pretty much an impossibility given the nature of the environment and the contaminant.

This sh7t isn't oil-- it's tar that's been diluted with solvents so it could be pipelined...  it's worse, much-much worse than just crude.

That's.... arguable. The solvents in dilbit, assuming they are condensate based, can be quite nasty in terms of BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes) and sometimes polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), but will tend to flash off after a spill.  Around homes, this means that there's a serious risk of breathing the stuff in. The light-end stuff is also much more soluble in water and will find its ways into aquifers more easily (or get carried on the surface of open and moving water), but also will tend to dilute out faster. The heavier end bitumen is less acutely toxic, but very persistent in the environment as it doesn't vapourize and doesn't dissolve.  I've dealt with condensate frequently and heavier end hydrocarbons occasionally, but never had to address a mix of the two. I'd expect that in a spill, you'd have a very smelly, flammable and toxic fluid to start with that after a few weeks would 'dry' into a sticky and impossible to remove mess. The crews hosing the spill down with (apparently) water are accelerating this and making the condensate spill worse by flushing the light ends down the drain and into the local waterways; however, it should lessen the hazard to homeowners.

Bitumen itself is literally asphalt (type 'bitumen' into wikipedia - it redirects to asphalt), so I would not be overly concerned by the staining left on the streets. We are surrounded by bitumen. Then again, the oil that is (used to be? depends on where you live) sprayed on dirt roads to control dust is typically horrible stuff, basically waste oil from industrial processes.

Crude oil still contains the whole range of nasties (more or less) as dilbit, but it's concentrated more around middle-weight hydrocarbons. It's more toxic than bitumen in itself, but less persistent.  There's hope that a crude oil spill in soil will clean itself up in a few hundred years.   Bitumen won't.  Crude oil properties are highly variable depending on the deposits they are from, so it's a bit hard to generalize. 

On the front lines of a cleanup, I'd rather be dealing with heavy-end hydrocarbons in terms of safety and predictability. Sour heavy hydrocarbons are extremely unpleasant to work with (odours); however, sour condensate is worse.  Sour condy smells like putrid meat mixed with paint thinner and makes me want to vomit.  I think I've got benzene sensitivities from working around light ends; exposure to condensate always made my sinuses feel like I was getting a cold.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Thanks for the information, Aggy-- it's hard to know whom to believe out there.  Gratifying to hear from someone who's actually experienced it directly.

The saddest part, is that it'll likely be tied up on courts for years before people get compensation.  The only winners will be the lawyers, and of course, the top execs who will no doubt get generous bonuses.

... don't they always get bonuses, regardless?

[Swatopluk]

The most perverse thing is that the corporation might not have to pay a penny for the cleanup since the stuff in the pipeline was officially labelled not as crude but as diluted tar, WHICH IS EXEMPT from the law dealing with compensation for spill.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Where is Batman when you need him?

_{(are you telling me that he was a shareholder of the pipeline...?)}

[Opsa]

Where is Batman when you need him?

_{(are you telling me that he was a shareholder of the pipeline...?)}

In that case, we'll have to arrange a tar spill on stately Wayne manor.

[Aggie]

The most perverse thing is that the corporation might not have to pay a penny for the cleanup since the stuff in the pipeline was officially labelled not as crude but as diluted tar, WHICH IS EXEMPT from the law dealing with compensation for spill.

It's not tar, despite the fact that the media insists on labeling it as such. Maybe they should just tell everyone that it's chocolate pudding so the problem goes away completely.   

A friend of mine reckons that all the public resistance to pipelines will result in moving more oil by rail, as it's much easier to expand existing rail capacity than get a new pipeline route established. This is NOT a good environmental alternative.  Rail-based spills happen with frightening frequency but are rarely reported unless the contents cause a big mess (unlikely for a grain spill, etc). The spills are potentially smaller, but even a couple of oil tanker cars would be a big, ugly spill.

[Swatopluk]

They will play the shell game until the usual suspects (certain courts and far too many politicians and administrative officials) get them off the hook either completely or reduce the fine to pocket change and then give them extra subsidies and claim that this is necessary to keep them competitive and to deter them from hiking the prices (which they will still do ).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

The most perverse thing is that the corporation might not have to pay a penny for the cleanup since the stuff in the pipeline was officially labelled not as crude but as diluted tar, WHICH IS EXEMPT from the law dealing with compensation for spill.

It's not tar, despite the fact that the media insists on labeling it as such. Maybe they should just tell everyone that it's chocolate pudding so the problem goes away completely.   

A friend of mine reckons that all the public resistance to pipelines will result in moving more oil by rail, as it's much easier to expand existing rail capacity than get a new pipeline route established. This is NOT a good environmental alternative.  Rail-based spills happen with frightening frequency but are rarely reported unless the contents cause a big mess (unlikely for a grain spill, etc). The spills are potentially smaller, but even a couple of oil tanker cars would be a big, ugly spill.

I dunno if I can agree with your assessment, even though you're more of an expert than I.

The problem lies, I think, in how quickly the first responders get to the site of a pipeline rupture-- clearly, in Arkansas, it was days before anyone did anything useful.   That much outflow, to me, says days of the pumps still running full-tilt... after the break happened.

At least with a train?  There's just a few cars-worth to deal with, and typically only involving the right-of way land (which is often graveled anyway)  but more to the point, someone notices right away if a train car goes over.  That being the nature of trains--someone has to drive, at least.   Even if it's remote-controlled, the controller will notice that it's not moving, and send someone to investigate. 

If.

If pipelines were made in such a way that any leak was detected before a problem arose?  Using sophisticated monitoring equipment?  Then I'd agree with you-- the pipeline is buried, out of sight, more efficient, etc.

But the fact is, the people running the damn thing don't do that, do they?  They've stripped any and all expensive monitoring equipment away, or relegated it to 3rd parties who only come along rarely, if at all.    So days go by after a break, and whole counties get trashed with gunk... especially if the break is deep underground, in a rural area such that nobody notices right away...

No, I cannot agree with your assessment-- I'd much rather deal with a couple of tank-cars spilling their guts, than a pipeline busting and pumping millions of gallons for days on end...

... remember the Gulf spill?  It took them months to stop the flow... all because they had cut safety systems to the bone and beyond.

At least with railroads, they have to placate the unions with regards to the people-safety in the engines...

[Aggie]

I'll concede that small leaks underground often become big problems.  From what I know of major pipelines, there are fairly frequent substations that use remote monitoring equipment to detect changes in pressure indicative of leaks in the line. These can shut a large line down fairly quickly in the case of a major break, although there's still a lot of product in whatever section of the pipe actually breaks.

There may be differences in operating standards between the US and Canada, but the operators here are too damned greedy to waste oil, let alone pay cleanup costs. Good environmental practices are considered good business by the big players.

In terms of a major spill happening in your backyard, breaks will happen, there's no doubt about it. However, the odds of a break happening at a particular location along a long-distance pipeline are quite low.  It's like a big lottery draw....  your odds of winning are low, but someone's going to win it sooner or later.  

(hmm, need Lindorm's perspective on frequency and severity of rail upsets - all I know is that co-workers who were assigned to the rail companies were constantly attending small and occasionally not-small spills)

FWIW, this is what a large rail-based oil spill into a lake looks like:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wabamun_Lake#Oil_spill

Rail cars can hold up to 600 barrels of oil, and a 600 bbl spill is not a pretty sight. I suppose it's a matter of perspective... is it better to have a few large spills or many smaller ones? Rail is one way of creating a 'virtual pipeline' that most locals will not think twice about. Rail is a 'known' technology that we are more comfortable with than giant chemical pipelines.  

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

I wish the US companies were a bit more foresighted as your Canadian ones are; they seem quite willing to play the lottery, and risk a major spill on their watch.

I blame the revolving door that is so common at the highest levels in most companies-- the top execs don't stick around long, and are willing to risk long-term disaster for short-term gain--as they plan on being elsewhere when the other shoe drops.

Couple that with the "nevermind next week, how can we increase profit >>today<<" mentality that is so rampant in US companies.  So safety systems get cut to the bone and beyond--such that when things break, they typically break in a big way, and nobody has a real plan on how to deal with it-- that was for someone else to worry about...

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Actually, this is one of those cases where Big Government is needed, that is, big regulations and big enforcement, I'm sure that if the regulations in Canada were as lax as in the US they would be seeing the same disregard for safety there. So long the oil lobby keeps control of a large portion of 'elected' representatives, no major changes will happen (wait, are regulations that more serious after the gulf? No? Quelle surprise!!).

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

Actually, this is one of those cases where Big Government is needed, that is, big regulations and big enforcement, I'm sure that if the regulations in Canada were as lax as in the US they would be seeing the same disregard for safety there. So long the oil lobby keeps control of a large portion of 'elected' representatives, no major changes will happen (wait, are regulations that more serious after the gulf? No? Quelle surprise!!).

Yeah.  Sickening is what it is.

Just look at how many new firearm regulations got passed after the last child-massacre...

... that's right:  none.

Here in the USofA, our lovely government has more regulations controlling a woman's vee-jay, and cold remedies, than we have concerning guns....

... that's right.

[Aggie]

I wish the US companies were a bit more foresighted as your Canadian ones are; they seem quite willing to play the lottery, and risk a major spill on their watch.

Actually, this is one of those cases where Big Government is needed, that is, big regulations and big enforcement, I'm sure that if the regulations in Canada were as lax as in the US they would be seeing the same disregard for safety there. So long the oil lobby keeps control of a large portion of 'elected' representatives, no major changes will happen (wait, are regulations that more serious after the gulf? No? Quelle surprise!!).

Most of them are American companies. The regulatory environment is the difference; there are serious repercussions for repeat offenders.  A couple of unaddressed environmental problems can literally get an oil company shut down - as in, zero production allowed.  This rarely (if ever) actually happens, but a major is certainly not going to face the wrath of the ERCB and risk millions of barrels per day of production loss. That's a bigger stick than any set of fines or lawsuits.  Safety is another place where we seem to be ahead of the US; there is a significant sense of communal loss in Alberta when someone gets killed on the job, since everyone knows someone who works in the patch.  The (American and Canadian) majors have safety programs in place that are almost overly onerous; some sites require up to two (paid) hours daily of safety meetings and assessments before work starts. Some of it ties back to regulatory costs here too...  I've heard it reckoned that even a modest injury can have behind-the-scenes costs of up to $1,000,000 for a bigger company.

Junior and some midsize oil companies are often not so diligent, so there are plenty of problems still happening here, but the environmental regulations in AB were some of the better in Canada, despite a population that is pro-oil and not very interested in the environment, generally speaking. Some of the more egregious problems that get pointed to with regards to the oilsands (such as giant holding ponds) are grandfathered practices from the 70's that are 40 years out of date and would not be allowed in the current environment.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Beware of King Harper and his minions, you may soon find yourself in a 'less onerous regulatory environment' and guess what happens next.

I've heard it reckoned that even a modest injury can have behind-the-scenes costs of up to $1,000,000 for a bigger company.

That makes sense, when the state is the one footing the bill for healthcare, it is reasonable to fine those responsible for the injuries, which would be my guess in this case.

[Aggie]

Beware of King Harper and his minions, you may soon find yourself in a 'less onerous regulatory environment' and guess what happens next.

Environmental regulations in Canada are generally under provincial jurisdiction (provided messes don't cross borders), so Harper can't gut them directly. In AB, I think that farmers and ranchers have kept a significant amount of pressure on keeping private-land cleanups a priority. Landowners can be anti-oil, and the ones that aren't expect to be paid reasonably (lease payments, for the duration of the disturbance) and for the oil companies to show some progress on cleaning up messes. Off-lease messes get top priority.

Oil producers in AB tend to be fairly supportive of tight environmental regulations provided they are clear-cut; with the larger companies, you get the feeling that management actually does seek to keep a good environmental record. I suspect that part of this may be that larger companies tend to have the resources to carry out a solid environmental program, while smaller producers may not be able to keep up due to a lack of resources or specialized staff. This means that larger companies can retain a competitive advantage in a highly regulated industry, even while spending more on EH&S. For oil service companies, a poor safety record can easily stop your company from getting work.  Big oil has moved to using certification services to check up on contractor safety standards; compliance with one or more of these programs has become practically mandatory to get work in the industry.

Since atmospheric emissions have trans-national impact, those regulations are federal. With regards to AB, there's little fear of global warming in a province that is below 0^oC most of the year.

That makes sense, when the state is the one footing the bill for healthcare, it is reasonable to fine those responsible for the injuries, which would be my guess in this case.

The Workers Compensation Board (provincial body) is the point of contact for on-the-job injuries.  They have a reputation for being a bit stingy towards hurt workers, but also one of being very fierce towards businesses who allow employees to get hurt. It's not linked to the medical system, but takes care of paying out a stipend to injured workers who cannot work.

While the Alberta Workers' Compensation Act (WCA) establishes a no-fault insurance scheme for workers, which is funded collectively by all employers, it also includes a significant "user-pay" component designed to promote injury prevention and disability management.

This element of the WCA scheme is most aggressively applied through a number of measures which the Alberta Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) describes as "performance pricing." The two primary means through which the WCB ensures that poor performers pay more in premiums is the experience rating plan and the poor performance surcharge.

Under the experience rating plan, the WCB will adjust an employer's premiums up to a maximum of ± 40 per cent based on the employer's performance as measured against the industry average. Employers with claims costs that exceed the industry average by 80 per cent or more will receive the maximum experience rating surcharge (ERS) available under the experience rating plan.

The WCB will also imposes a poor performance surcharge (PPS) on top of the ERS if an employer has been assessed the maximum ERS for two or more consecutive years and consistently has a high number of claims on its experience account. The maximum PPS is 25% per cent in the first year it is applied against an employer. However, this surcharge increases exponentially with each consecutive year it is applied, resulting in a maximum PPS of 200 per cent for an employer who has received the maximum ERS for five or more consecutive years. Thus, an employer's individual claim experience can have a dramatic impact on its WCB premiums. In the event of a workplace accident, the general rule is that the WCB claim costs will be charged against the experience account of the injured worker's employer.

http://www.cos-mag.com/Legal/Legal-Stories/wcbs-cost-relief-policy-offers-claims-costs-reduction-option.html

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Pity something like that not only doesn't exist this side of the border, but it has a very, veeeery low probability of ever being implemented.

Then again you bloody Canucks aren't precisely a model to follow.

[Bob in a quantum-state-of-faith]

What Zono said.

Here in the good'ol'boy Land of the Corporate-overlords?

All that seems to matter, is the bottom line this week-- next week can take care of it's self...

[Aggie]

Then again you bloody Canucks aren't precisely a model to follow.

No, we are usually stuck following the US model; lately it's been the combo of tax cuts for big business and bellyaching about of a lack of funds for social services.