Results 1 to 89 of 89

Thread: Peter Lougheed opposes Keystone pipeline

  1. #1

    Default Peter Lougheed opposes Keystone pipeline

    Lougheed always had the ability to see the long term implications where other's couldn't.

    In a radio interview yesterday a couple media people were critical of Lougheed's view saying upgrades only employ a couple hundred people when up and running. I sure got the impression that they only seemed to crave the short term gain without a thought to the long-term consequences of our reverting back to being just hewers and haulers.


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-keystone.html



    Here's another interview...

    http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/
    Wednesday September 14, 2011
    Deborah Yedlin - Keystone XL
    Our business commentator Deborah Yedlin offers her opinion on the proposed Kesytone XL pipeline.
    Last edited by KC; 15-09-2011 at 11:47 AM.

  2. #2
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    As usual the CBC anti-tarsands agenda is in full play.

    Lougheed does NOT oppose Keystone XL.

    He opposes not upgrading the bitumen here first and THEN shipping it via Keystone.

    But Lougheed opposes pipeline is so much better an anti-tarsands headline, and who really cares if that's misleading at best.
    ... gobsmacked

  3. #3
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    Regarding the media commentators statement that upgraders only employ a couple hundred people once they are operational, I am currently involved in a shutdown at Syncrude.
    This is not a major shutdown by Syncrude standards but there will be 2600 contract workers on site for about six weeks.
    I have mixed feelings regarding the Keystone pipeline. Many of the gulf coast refineries were built to handle heavy Mexican crude and can handle bitumin with relatively minor modifications. To insist that these customers buy upgraded synthetic crude would only mean they would look elsewhere for feedstock.
    There are hundreds of refineries throughout the U.S. and the world built to handle light conventional crude. These should be the market for Alberta upgraders. The key to penetrating this market is to make upgrading in Alberta economically competetive.
    The biggest impediment to this is the capital cost of building here, and the biggest factor in this is a shortage of skilled labor.
    I have a small crew at Syncrude, there are no large capital projects utilizing tradesmen from our industry taking place right now and I still had to fly in over half of my workers from the east coast.
    As long as Alberta neglects trades training and the trades themselves are looked down upon by large segments of society, (I wonder how many hundreds of derogatory comments towards "Joe Lunchbucket" have been made on this site alone)we will be uncompetetive in this business.

  4. #4

    Default

    ^ axe the unions and this province might become competitive.

  5. #5
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,428

    Default

    Is it the province neglecting trades training or the industry in the province? If Syncrude needs more skilled workers why aren't they apprenticing them instead of flying them in?

  6. #6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JJMorrocco View Post
    ^ axe the unions and this province might become competitive.
    Yes, please, deregulate even more.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  7. #7

    Default

    XL is very important for Alberta. It opens up the entire US (instead of just the east coast at the moment), which should improve prices. Interestingly, it also opens up Europe (as oil can be shipped from the Gulf of Mexico to there). As a new pipeline, it will have far lower enviromental risk than existing older pipelines, TransCanada has an excellent environmental record.

    Without XL, the oil will still need to get to the US, its just more of it will go on roads and rail, which have even higher environmental risks. There seems a naive belief by protestors in the US that if XL is stopped, the oil sands extraction growth will stop, but that is not going to happen, esp. with the less visably environmentally damaging SAGD techniques ramping up.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-09-2011 at 01:52 PM.

  8. #8
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    ... As long as Alberta neglects trades training and the trades themselves are looked down upon by large segments of society, (I wonder how many hundreds of derogatory comments towards "Joe Lunchbucket" have been made on this site alone)we will be uncompetetive in this business.
    To be fair, two very large issues are:

    1) the boom and bust cycle (and not sure we can have much influence over that), which makes it more attractive for Canadians outside Alberta to fly in than to re-locate and then not long afterwards get laid off; and

    2) the sheer size and scope of development in a jurisdiction of only 3 1/2 million.

    The province has expanded spaces at NAIT, etc and maybe could do more. But at near full employment (5.3%), I don't think there are a lot of people turning thier noses up at opportunities to learn a trade.

    I used to hear grumbling in some quarters about what was alleged to be union "featherbedding" in relation to apprecticeship training - but I'm not qualified to know if that was valid or hogwash. Possibly it's an issue too.

    In the end, we will continue to need net-migration and immigration for many years to come.
    ... gobsmacked

  9. #9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    As usual the CBC anti-tarsands agenda is in full play.
    Funny, in the two days since the interview was aired, and with mounting interest in the interview from non-CBC news sources, there has been no "I was misquoted" clarification from Lougheed that I can find.
    I think of art, at its most significant, as a Distant Early Warning system that can always be relied on to tell the old culture what is beginning to happen to it. —Marshall McLuhan

  10. #10
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Likely because he wasn't mis-quoted. The lead however misrepresents his position. Torqued is the word that comes to mind.

    The Vancouver Sun headline is also a tad misleading - but at least it doesn't outright allege that Lougheed opposes a pipeline under, apparently, any circumstances.
    ... gobsmacked

  11. #11

    Default

    Here is an interesting wrinkle on the Keystone Pipeline issue: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/08/16/AsiaTarSands/

  12. #12
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Normally a company such as Enbridge wouldn't spend millions of dollars preparing an application for a pipeline only as a ruse to pressure the U.S. State Department into approving a different pipeline built by a competing firm.

    But maybe thier CEO was abducted by aliens and neurotransformed into an anti-capitalist double agent.

    I swear - the Borg gets more clever by the day ...
    ... gobsmacked

  13. #13

    Default

    ^agreed, its a very silly conspiracy theory, Enbridge and TransCanada are now competitors since TransCanada moved into Oil, they aren't going to help each other out like that.

  14. #14

    Default

    XL is fine if it isn't shipping raw bitumen down the line. We should be upgrading here.

    This is an important issue before we start shipping bitumen down the line because of restrictions in NAFTA. We shouldn't rush into anything before it's well thought out because of this reason.

    Article 605 - Proportionality Clause
    -This article means that once Canada sells a certain proportion of it's oil or natural gas to the United States, it can never sell less than that proportion. Resultantly, Alberta's oil from Canada's oil sands do not supply all of Canada (Quebec eastward imports from the Middle East). Currently we're selling around 50% of our oil and 65% of our natural gas to the United States. The Keystone pipeline will increase this proportion.

    Another important clause in this article prevents the Alberta government from demanding that pipes send upgraded oil if they are already sending down raw bitumen. So once it's decided to ship raw bitumen down, even if we want to upgrade it here later, we can't.

    Therefore, in my opinion it's important for the government to make the right decision for the long term. Using the Keystone pipeline to ship bitumen down to the States to be upgraded may be quite profitable for oil companies headquartered in Calgary, but it's not beneficial to the rest of the province.

    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    Last edited by mnugent; 15-09-2011 at 06:54 PM.

  15. #15

    Default

    If we are going to value add every once of natural resource here in Alberta... our gov't both federal and prov better get on the ball.. We will need a massive increase in workforce. To be blunt we don't have the human capital to build/run the infrastructure required to make Peter's request possible....

    Edmonton's population growth is already tough to keep up with..... I think at some point reality needs to trump wishes or "it be nice" dreams.
    Last edited by edmonton daily photo; 15-09-2011 at 03:25 PM.
    "Do you give people who already use transit a better service, or do you build it where they don't use it in the hopes they might start to use it?" Nenshi

  16. #16

    Default

    ^I don't understand your argument.

    It's difficult to find workers, so we should just give up and ship thousands of jobs down the pipeline?

    You are right that we haven't had strong leadership in this area. Harper actually tried to intervene in this matter at a Calgary luncheon with oil executives a couple years ago and was shut down. If Mar gets in I don't see him making an effort.

  17. #17
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,428

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    I agree. I'm tired of hearing about this so-called worker shortage. There seems to be plenty of workers available to continue expanding the mining operations to extract the bitumen to ship to the US. The workers need to be redeployed to refinery construction and mine expansion stopped until local refinery capacity is available.

  18. #18
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton (belevedre)
    Posts
    6,473

    Default

    Lougheed have been out of politics since 1985, I'm sure he knows that alberta have got through many changes since he left the office.
    Edmonton Rocks Rocks Rocks

  19. #19
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Strathearn, Edmonton
    Posts
    4,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Titanium48 View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    I agree. I'm tired of hearing about this so-called worker shortage. There seems to be plenty of workers available to continue expanding the mining operations to extract the bitumen to ship to the US. The workers need to be redeployed to refinery construction and mine expansion stopped until local refinery capacity is available.
    That doesn't really touch on the issue. There is spare capacity for upgrading and refining in the United States. Capital costs to build in Alberta are prohibitive when compared with altering existing refineries in the Deep South to accept raw bitumen. That said, all these capital projects appear to be paid off and producing profit after very few years of production albeit less per barrel than again what I noted above.

    These multinationals are purely about maximizing profit and making sure each asset is running to max capacity.

    There is so much working coming down the pipe, It's not going to be possible to staff it with professionals and craft locally. They will be coming from all over the world.

  20. #20
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    Normally a company such as Enbridge wouldn't spend millions of dollars preparing an application for a pipeline only as a ruse to pressure the U.S. State Department into approving a different pipeline built by a competing firm.

    But maybe thier CEO was abducted by aliens and neurotransformed into an anti-capitalist double agent.

    I swear - the Borg gets more clever by the day ...
    Unbridle will not build the pipeline unless they have a commitment from the oil companies. They put their capacity up for auction and were over ascribed first time so increased the capacity of the pipeline before they even started design. It is not for them to find a market only to supply a demand. This is article has no credibility.
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  21. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    What makes you think upgrading and refining it first is the most profitable way? Given the enormous cost do build more capacity, it clearly isn't, it makes more sense to send excess capacity to where there is excess capacity (i.e. US). Its more environmental as well to use the assets that exist to capacity first (be they in Canada or the US) before spending more resources building new ones. This will bring more royalties for more investment in our universities / health care, etc (with more than 300 years of supply, we don't need to greedily hoard the resource under our beds, it isn't going to run out anytime soon). There will still be more than enough jobs in Alberta, we are already entering a critical labor shortage.
    Last edited by moahunter; 15-09-2011 at 08:53 PM.

  22. #22
    C2E Continued Contributor
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    St. Albert
    Posts
    1,987

    Default

    In reality there isn't a whole lot more work coming down the pipe as far as upgrader construction goes.
    CNRL is going to build Horizon phase 2, Suncor Voyageur will eventually get built and the Heartland upgrader will probably go. (both Suncor and Heartland have subtantial portions already complete)
    After these, the only upgrader work that may come would be Syncrude UE2 but that is only a rumor.
    Shell was burnt so bad with the Scotford expansion that they have shelved their expansion plans indefinately.
    The next wave of oilsand development will be SAGD or variations of that technology. These projects are far easier to build than mines and upgraders. There will be lots of smaller facilities whose production alone won't justify upgrading on site. This means merchant upgraders like the Heartland will be the way Alberta can upgrade this production.
    This being the case. we simply must find a way to make these upgraders competetive or the work will go somewhere else.

  23. #23

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    What makes you think upgrading and refining it first is the most profitable way? Given the enormous cost do build more capacity, it clearly isn't, it makes more sense to send excess capacity to where there is excess capacity (i.e. US). Its more environmental as well to use the assets that exist to capacity first (be they in Canada or the US) before spending more resources building new ones. This will bring more royalties for more investment in our universities / health care, etc (with more than 300 years of supply, we don't need to greedily hoard the resource under our beds, it isn't going to run out anytime soon). There will still be more than enough jobs in Alberta, we are already entering a critical labor shortage.
    True true. The misunderstanding people have is that the oil will either be refined in the US or here, so we should "insist" that it happens here.

    Not exactly correct: it is attractive to refine it in the US because of existing refining infrastructre that has spare capacity (i.e. it's free!) and it is not attractive to build new refining capacity in Alberta, especially since lots of people are already against the industrial development already occurring in the province.

    So you either need to build i) a pipeline, or ii) refining/upgrading capacity here and then still a pipeline to export the finished products. Which do you think is more cost effective?

  24. #24
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    4,342

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ralph60 View Post
    In reality there isn't a whole lot more work coming down the pipe as far as upgrader construction goes.
    CNRL is going to build Horizon phase 2, Suncor Voyageur will eventually get built and the Heartland upgrader will probably go. (both Suncor and Heartland have subtantial portions already complete)
    After these, the only upgrader work that may come would be Syncrude UE2 but that is only a rumor.
    Shell was burnt so bad with the Scotford expansion that they have shelved their expansion plans indefinately.
    The next wave of oilsand development will be SAGD or variations of that technology. These projects are far easier to build than mines and upgraders. There will be lots of smaller facilities whose production alone won't justify upgrading on site. This means merchant upgraders like the Heartland will be the way Alberta can upgrade this production.

    This being the case. we simply must find a way to make these upgraders competetive or the work will go somewhere else.
    I do not understand all of this angst over whether or not up graders are built here or the bitumen is upgraded else where. The biggest factor is the price differential between synthetic oil and heavy oil. Right now the gap is not that large so upgrading it here is not that lucrative. Right now there is a demand for heavy oil so better to fill the demand before someone else does. Eventually the price differential will get to the point that building up graders here will make economic sense.
    For years we have been exporting crude oil to the states and no one said anything now it is a huge issue
    “Canada is the only country in the world that knows how to live without an identity,”-Marshall McLuhan

  25. #25
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,279

    Default

    The Athabasca Oilsands contains more oil than all other known world reserves combined. Enough to last the world at todays consumption rate for 200 years. Sell, sell, sell and take the money because before all the oil is sold it will be obsolete and worth nothing, also by refining at the gulf we will take less heat for pollution caused by the refining process. imho

  26. #26

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by McBoo View Post
    As usual the CBC anti-tarsands agenda is in full play.

    Lougheed does NOT oppose Keystone XL.

    He opposes not upgrading the bitumen here first and THEN shipping it via Keystone.

    But Lougheed opposes pipeline is so much better an anti-tarsands headline, and who really cares if that's misleading at best.
    But that IS Keystone - it's essentially a bitumen pipeline. It means we lose the 'value-added' component, we lose global market access as we're lock that production into sales to the US, we loose pricing control, we loose the longterm benefits of creating higher level jobs at home, etc. And I'm guessing that we set a precedent, an infrastructure precedent - meaning more such pipelines can be built to do the very same thing.

    Note: I forget the name of it, but in the 1970s Alberta had a natural gas act that restricted the burning of natural gas in power plants etc. vs cracking / upgrading it for plastics, fertilizers, etc. (Hence in Fort Saskatchewan, we have one of the largest petrochemical complexes in the world. Much of the value added has been taking place here now rather than in Texas. )

    I'm ignorant of how royalty rates are determined (seems very political - jobs, profits, political donations vs just good old "fair market value" FMV ) but one huge advantage I could see coming out of the Keystone and other is improved pricing transparency. That should scare the heck out of the Alberta industry as it might allow everyone to better reverse engineer the fair market value pricing and determine what a fair royalty rate would be for bitumen.

    On the premise that we have set the royalty rates too low (below FMV) as a compromise for "job creation" and local oil company profits in the home province as well as across Canada, then currently Albertans are recovering some of that loss. However, just dig-and-dispatch and much of that lower-than-fair-market-value-subsidy is being transferred to the US.

    It's very kind of us to make such a large donation to the USA.


    Now, I'm just a layman, so I hope people like Lougheed come out and clarify the business risks for us all.
    Last edited by KC; 17-09-2011 at 10:02 AM.

  27. #27

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    The Athabasca Oilsands contains more oil than all other known world reserves combined. Enough to last the world at todays consumption rate for 200 years. Sell, sell, sell and take the money because before all the oil is sold it will be obsolete and worth nothing, also by refining at the gulf we will take less heat for pollution caused by the refining process. imho
    Man, who cares about the media spin on the pollution. That isn't going to change. This is a business issue about where the profits go. Do we capture them for ourselves or ship potential profits south. That may be good if it off-loads the various risks as well (investment risk, environmental risk, employment risk, etc.) but does it? How? Sickening as it is, as a province we need to grab as many synergies and profits for at home as possible all the while laying off downside investment risk to 'out of province' investors, etc.

    In other words, we want to do what makes the most sense for wealth creation and quality of life at home. Note: wealth creation is not just job creation. Quality of life is not just personal income.

  28. #28

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Here is an interesting wrinkle on the Keystone Pipeline issue: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/08/16/AsiaTarSands/
    Byers view on the oil sands is already well known.
    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/fe...7-8597e7c2c48f

    The fact that he writes this, and for The Tyee, seems more about him getting his view across than actual facts.

  29. #29
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Drumbones View Post
    The Athabasca Oilsands contains more oil than all other known world reserves combined. Enough to last the world at todays consumption rate for 200 years. Sell, sell, sell and take the money because before all the oil is sold it will be obsolete and worth nothing, also by refining at the gulf we will take less heat for pollution caused by the refining process. imho
    Man, who cares about the media spin on the pollution. That isn't going to change. This is a business issue about where the profits go. Do we capture them for ourselves or ship potential profits south. That may be good if it off-loads the various risks as well (investment risk, environmental risk, employment risk, etc.) but does it? How? Sickening as it is, as a province we need to grab as many synergies and profits for at home as possible all the while laying off downside investment risk to 'out of province' investors, etc.

    In other words, we want to do what makes the most sense for wealth creation and quality of life at home. Note: wealth creation is not just job creation. Quality of life is not just personal income.
    But.... one major problem with building the upgraders and refineries here is the shortage of manpower to do so and also the huge cost to oil companies that already have major refining capabilities in place they can utilize to the south.

  30. #30
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DoyleG View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by ajs View Post
    Here is an interesting wrinkle on the Keystone Pipeline issue: http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/08/16/AsiaTarSands/
    Byers view on the oil sands is already well known.
    http://www.canada.com/topics/news/fe...7-8597e7c2c48f

    The fact that he writes this, and for The Tyee, seems more about him getting his view across than actual facts.
    I predict with the loss of Jack Layton and the possibility of Justin Trudeau leading the Liberal Party the NDP will be relegated back to a 3rd or 4th place party. A bunch of wing nuts federally and provincially imo. In future I am sure there will be less NDPers than polar bears.

  31. #31
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Edmonton area.
    Posts
    6,279

    Default

    Sort of the way the NDP in Alberta went after Grant Notleys tragic accident.

  32. #32
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Small clarification, Keystone is a pipeline - not a bitumen pipeline.

    Yes, it will initially carry (diluted) bitumen plus lighter oil from the Bakken play in Montana and North Dakota in the Excited States of America.

    In future, if more upgraders are built in Alberta (and they will), Keystone will carry some (diluted) bitumen, some upgraded to synthetic crude oil and oil from the Bakken play.

    In fact, if all bitumen was upgraded to synthetic crude in Alberta, we'd still need Keystone to get it to market.
    ... gobsmacked

  33. #33

    Default

    ^are you referring to Keystone, an already completed pipeline, or Keystone XL?
    Last edited by moahunter; 20-09-2011 at 04:55 PM.

  34. #34
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Canada
    Posts
    5,476

    Default

    Whoops, sorry - XL
    ... gobsmacked

  35. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Lougheed always had the ability to see the long term implications where other's couldn't.

    In a radio interview yesterday a couple media people were critical of Lougheed's view saying upgrades only employ a couple hundred people when up and running. I sure got the impression that they only seemed to crave the short term gain without a thought to the long-term consequences of our reverting back to being just hewers and haulers.


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmont...-keystone.html



    Here's another interview...

    http://www.cbc.ca/eyeopener/
    Wednesday September 14, 2011
    Deborah Yedlin - Keystone XL
    Our business commentator Deborah Yedlin offers her opinion on the proposed Kesytone XL pipeline.
    ...
    Quote Originally Posted by moahunter View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by mnugent View Post
    Our oil is not going anywhere, there's no need to get rid of it in a hurry. We should sell it in the most profitable way possible.
    What makes you think upgrading and refining it first is the most profitable way? Given the enormous cost do build more capacity, it clearly isn't, it makes more sense to send excess capacity to where there is excess capacity (i.e. US). Its more environmental as well to use the assets that exist to capacity first (be they in Canada or the US) before spending more resources building new ones. This will bring more royalties for more investment in our universities / health care, etc (with more than 300 years of supply, we don't need to greedily hoard the resource under our beds, it isn't going to run out anytime soon). There will still be more than enough jobs in Alberta, we are already entering a critical labor shortage.




    Seems things are never black and white... "Partial upgrading... "could not only be economically viable in the province, but also generate substantial gains in employment, labour income, exports and government revenue. " see articles below.

    Aso, for those about to jump on the NDP and say, " but they raised the big company corporate taxes", realize that corporate taxes are only after expenses. The more any remaining profitable Alberta companies spend the less tax they pay. So they can decide where to spend it, or let the Province decide where to spend it.


    bolding is mine
    Opinion: Partial bitumen upgrading could boost Alberta's economy
    by Kent Fellows, Robert Mansell and Jen Winter, January 20, 2017, Calgary Herald


    excerpt:

    "Politicians often speak of the need to “add value” to our oilsands bitumen. They advocate upgrading it here to create jobs in Alberta. Upgrading is the process by which very viscous raw bitumen is processed into a lighter “synthetic crude oil.”


    While the higher value for synthetic crude is an argument for full upgrading, one must recognize the costs of this. Unfortunately, those costs are higher than the gain in value. As such, investment in new upgraders is not currently commercially viable. Suncor cancelled its Voyageur upgrader in 2012 and, in 2016, CNOOC suspended its upgrader at ...


    Does this dash the Alberta dream of increased domestic processing? Perhaps not. Emerging partial upgrading technologies could not only be economically viable in the province, but also generate substantial gains in employment, labour income, exports and government revenue.

    Partial upgrading brings bitumen to something resembling a medium or heavy crude, and at a lower cost per barrel than full upgrading. The Alberta Royalty Review Advisory Panel recognized gaps in several North American refineries that could be filled by this partially upgraded Alberta oil.

    A partial upgrader serving that less-competitive market not only appears to hold the potential for investors to make attractive returns in the long term, it would also provide important benefits to Alberta.


    First, since partially upgraded crude can be shipped via pipeline without diluent (the product used as a diluting agent), producing it in Alberta would free up pipeline capacity. Diluent also...




    http://calgaryherald.com/opinion/col...bertas-economy








    Field upgrading is making it possible to pipe bitumen without thinning agents
    The energy industry may be able to move beyond diluent
    BY DARREN CAMPBELL, April 01, 2014

    Moreover, since one barrel of dilbit (diluted bitumen) is made up of three parts bitumen to one part condensate, this means a low utilization of pipeline capacity. “You’re moving an awful lot of diluent around for no real gain or benefit other than to move this heavy oil,” says Joseph Kuhach, Ivanhoe Energy’s senior vice-president, upstream technology and integration. “If you can move this heavy oil without diluent, now you eliminate that cost and you’ve got the ability to transport [bitumen] and you’ve got a lot more capacity in your pipeline.”
    ...
    Bitumen production is projected to increase dramatically from the current 1.9 million barrels per day (bpd) according to several recent studies. The Canadian Energy Research Institute forecasts oil sands production to reach 3.1 million bpd by 2020. Looking further out, Houston-based consultancy IHS CERA and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers see production reaching 3.8 million bpd and 4.5 million bpd by 2025, respectively. While the numbers vary, all the forecasts point to major oil sands production increases and, by extension, significant volumes of diluent will be needed to make make the bitumen “pipelineable.”
    ...
    Partial upgrading is a technological Holy Grail for the oil sands industry because it enables producers to achieve considerably more value for their bitumen at much lower cost than through full upgrading. Full upgrading ..."


    https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2...eyond-diluent/


    Partial upgrading of oilsands could fetch additional $10-15 per barrel: report
    Jesse Snyder | January 5, 2017 5:06 PM ET
    http://business.financialpost.com/ne...-barrel-report

    Canadian oil sands producers could fetch up to $15 more per barrel with this technology
    Cecilia Jamasmie | Jan. 10, 2017

    The report notes that even one partial upgrader, churning out 100,000 barrels per day, could boost Alberta's annual GDP by $505 million and create 179,000 person-years of employment.

    "Full upgraders have proved uneconomical without substantial public subsidies, but partial upgrading offers a potentially economical middle ground," the authors wrote. ...

    About 60% of Alberta’s current oil sands output is shipped in its raw form, which requires ...


    http://www.mining.com/canadian-oil-s...is-technology/
    Last edited by KC; 20-01-2017 at 11:18 AM.

  36. #36
    I'd rather C2E than work!
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton (Norwood)
    Posts
    4,428

    Default

    Piping diluent around has never made sense to me. In addition to the cost, you are creating the ideal way to get sticky goo into places where it will be very difficult to get out in the event of an accident. Either process it into something that will flow on its own, or load it into rail cars neat.

  37. #37

    Default

    Another story from January:


    Partial bitumen upgrader could boost Alberta GDP by $505M, study says
    University of Calgary research paper touts emerging technology as economical 'middle ground'
    CBC News Posted: Jan 05, 2017 5:54 PM MT Last

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...umen-1.3923061

    Excerpt:


    partial bitumen upgrading has the potential to pump hundreds of millions of dollars into the provincial economy, a University of Calgary study says.

    A push to accelerate development of the technology — which would turn oilsands bitumen into medium-grade crude —was one of the recommendations made by the royalty review panel in 2015.

    A report released Thursday by the U of C's School of Public Policy argues that even one partial upgrader, churning out 100,000 barrels per day, could boost Alberta's annual GDP by $505 million and create 179,000 person-years of employment.

    "Full upgraders have proved uneconomical without substantial public subsidies, but partial upgrading offers a potentially economical middle ground,"


    http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgar...umen-1.3923061
    Last edited by KC; 05-04-2017 at 12:31 AM.

  38. #38

    Default

    Opps...


    TransCanada Keystone pipeline leaks 795,000 litres of crude oil in South Dakota
    Pipeline shut down Thursday morning between Alberta and Oklahoma
    http://www.cbc.ca/news/indigenous/tr...kota-1.4406159

    Keystone pipeline leak days before Nebraska expansion ruling
    PIERRE, S.D. (AP) — http://nebraska.tv/news/local/keysto...ing-11-17-2017
    TransCanada Corp.'s Keystone pipeline leaked an estimated 210,000 gallons of oil onto agricultural land in northeastern South Dakota, but state officials don't believe the leak polluted any surface water bodies or drinking water systems.
    State officials and pipeline operator TransCanada Corp. disclosed the leak Thursday, and the company shut down the pipeline.
    TransCanada said it activated emergency response procedures after detecting a drop in pressure resulting from the leak south of a pump station in Marshall County. The cause was being investigated.
    Discovery of the leak comes just days before Nebraska regulators are scheduled to announce their decision Monday whether to approve the proposed Keystone XL oil pipeline, an expansion that would boost the amount of oil TransCanada is now shipping through the existing line, which is known simply as Keystone. The expansion has faced fierce opposition from environmental groups, American Indian tribes and some landowners.
    Brian Walsh, an environmental scientist manager at the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources, said the state has sent a staff member to the site of the leak in a rural area near the border with North Dakota about 250 miles (402 kilometers) west of Minneapolis.
    "Ultimately, the cleanup responsibility lies with TransCanada, and they'll have to clean it up in compliance with our state regulations," Walsh said.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  39. #39
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,150

    Default

    5000 barrels doesn't sound big enough? Quick, use liters in the headline instead!

    But seriously, terrible timing for TransCanada.

  40. #40

    Default

    The official unit of measurement in Canada for fuel and oil is litres since 1979. Please get used to it.

    i see the US news used gallons too, not teaspoons. Billions and billions of teaspoons....

    Rather than minimizing the fact of the leak, would you mind if I came by your house and did a demo of the mess a single barrel of crude would do to your front lawn?
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 17-11-2017 at 12:02 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  41. #41
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    The official unit of measurement in Canada for fuel and oil is litres since 1979. Please get used to it.


    No disagreement, but news headlines about production, pipelines, tankers etc most frequently use barrels or barrels per day. But every time there's a small spill, instead they'll use litres because it sounds much worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Rather than minimizing the fact of the leak, would you mind if I came by your house and did a demo of the mess a single barrel of crude would do to your front lawn?


    I'm not attempting to minimize it. I'm pointing out how media outlets can and often do tweak headlines to catastrophize events and make them seem much worse than they actually are. It's not unique to oil spills by any means, but I often notice it in particular.

  42. #42

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post

    No disagreement, but news headlines about production, pipelines, tankers etc most frequently use barrels or barrels per day. But every time there's a small spill, instead they'll use litres because it sounds much worse.
    Kinda like when they do a drug bust at a lab/grow op & use the final street value after it's gone through however many layers of people & their markups versus the actual value the operation would see themselves passing it along down the chain.
    Giving less of a damn than ever… Can't laugh at the ignorant if you ignore them!

  43. #43

    Default

    Barrels are much easier than litres to visualize when you're talking about volumes like this. litres might be a larger number, but it's also pretty meaningless to most people.
    There can only be one.

  44. #44
    C2E Posting Power
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Beaumont, ab
    Posts
    634

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    5000 barrels doesn't sound big enough? Quick, use liters in the headline instead!

    But seriously, terrible timing for TransCanada.
    What convenient timing? What? 3 days before Nebraska votes? We'd all be pretty naive to think this wasn't sabotage.....

  45. #45
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    The official unit of measurement in Canada for fuel and oil is litres since 1979. Please get used to it.


    No disagreement, but news headlines about production, pipelines, tankers etc most frequently use barrels or barrels per day. But every time there's a small spill, instead they'll use litres because it sounds much worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Rather than minimizing the fact of the leak, would you mind if I came by your house and did a demo of the mess a single barrel of crude would do to your front lawn?


    I'm not attempting to minimize it. I'm pointing out how media outlets can and often do tweak headlines to catastrophize events and make them seem much worse than they actually are. It's not unique to oil spills by any means, but I often notice it in particular.
    it's interesting when that happens...

    from an area perspective, you see it when they they'll say something is the same size as "x" football fields (presumably american and not canadian football fields). when they do that i think it's an attempt to relate the size of something to a measure that you can easily relate to/imagine visually.

    interestingly enough, when the material or the amount is something they want you to be able to relate to when it comes to volume, the visual unit of measurement is "x" olympic size swimming pools.

    when they don't really want you to relate, as you noted, 5,000 barrels becomes 795,000 litres. that's because it's pretty hard to visualize 795,000 litres of something. as the donald would say, that's "uuuuge", so "uuuuge" it becomes incomprehensible. the problem with that is there is no scale to things that aren't readily comprehensible - what's the difference between 795,000 litres or 79,500 litres or 7,950,000 litres?

    reporting the spill as the equivalent of 2.12 olympic sized swimming pools (the minimum volume of an olympic swimming pool is 375,000 litres) just doesn't have the same impact. this shouldn't be done to minimize the impact or the implications of the spill but it would be a more accurate visualization of both the size of the leak and what might be involved in containing it and cleaning it up.

    as in many things, the choice of measurement can say a lot about the intention of the reporter. the sun seems really close when the distance is reported as 0.00001581 light years. it seems a touch further away when that distance is reported as 149,600,000 km.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  46. #46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    The official unit of measurement in Canada for fuel and oil is litres since 1979. Please get used to it.


    No disagreement, but news headlines about production, pipelines, tankers etc most frequently use barrels or barrels per day. But every time there's a small spill, instead they'll use litres because it sounds much worse.

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Rather than minimizing the fact of the leak, would you mind if I came by your house and did a demo of the mess a single barrel of crude would do to your front lawn?


    I'm not attempting to minimize it. I'm pointing out how media outlets can and often do tweak headlines to catastrophize events and make them seem much worse than they actually are. It's not unique to oil spills by any means, but I often notice it in particular.
    Funny!!!! And I’d probably agree. Would be fun to test the idea via google news searches.

    Similarly in news reports about privatizing marijuana distribution the articles all seem to be titled as “Alberta government” whereas I wonder if the decision had been government distribution maybe “The NDP...” would lead all articles. Can’t sell newspapers, media and advertising if you don’t pander go people’s beliefs and biases.

  47. #47
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by noodle View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post

    No disagreement, but news headlines about production, pipelines, tankers etc most frequently use barrels or barrels per day. But every time there's a small spill, instead they'll use litres because it sounds much worse.
    Kinda like when they do a drug bust at a lab/grow op & use the final street value after it's gone through however many layers of people & their markups versus the actual value the operation would see themselves passing it along down the chain.
    Yes, thanks, that's another good example. Sometimes they'll use "wholesale" prices, sometimes street prices.

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor
    as in many things, the choice of measurement can say a lot about the intention of the reporter


    Actually, I think it's fairly rare that a reporter is responsible for the final headline on their stories. My understanding is that someone above them, whether that be an editor I'm not sure, is responsible for the final headline. But otherwise very much agreed.

  48. #48

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    5000 barrels doesn't sound big enough? Quick, use liters in the headline instead!

    But seriously, terrible timing for TransCanada.
    Tell you what, let's use tankers instead as a measurement. The spill is roughly 0.0025 of a large tanker. Hardly worth even worrying about. Not even worth cleaning up. It's soooo tiny.

  49. #49
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    5000 barrels doesn't sound big enough? Quick, use liters in the headline instead!

    But seriously, terrible timing for TransCanada.
    Tell you what, let's use tankers instead as a measurement. The spill is roughly 0.0025 of a large tanker. Hardly worth even worrying about. Not even worth cleaning up. It's soooo tiny.
    he said nothing about not cleaning it up - where did that even come from?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  50. #50

    Default

    Pipeline companies regularly do the absolute minimum required to clean up after a spill and hope that what's left will be seen as inconsequential.

    Enbridge's Kalamazoo cleanup dredges up 3-year-old oil spill

    The EPA believes there is at least 684,000 litres of bitumen still in the river. Before March's cleanup order was issued, Enbridge and the EPA went back and forth over how much oil there was and whether or not dredging it would do more harm than good to the Kalamazoo's ecosystem.


    In the end, the EPA prevailed.


    "They [Enbridge] don't agree with the way we develop our number. And, you know what, we're the agency and I'm not going to let them dictate how we do science," said Jeff Kimble, the EPA's incident commander in Marshall, Mich.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/enbr...pill-1.1327268

  51. #51

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Pipeline companies regularly do the absolute minimum required to clean up after a spill and hope that what's left will be seen as inconsequential.

    Enbridge's Kalamazoo cleanup dredges up 3-year-old oil spill

    The EPA believes there is at least 684,000 litres of bitumen still in the river. Before March's cleanup order was issued, Enbridge and the EPA went back and forth over how much oil there was and whether or not dredging it would do more harm than good to the Kalamazoo's ecosystem.


    In the end, the EPA prevailed.


    "They [Enbridge] don't agree with the way we develop our number. And, you know what, we're the agency and I'm not going to let them dictate how we do science," said Jeff Kimble, the EPA's incident commander in Marshall, Mich.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/enbr...pill-1.1327268
    ‘Pipelines regularly do the minimum’
    That would be my guess, but only a guess on my part, not a statement of fact as you seem to put it.

    In reading the article there appears to be different public opinions but clearly the EPA is using some harder ‘scientific’ methodology. Time may tell who was right.

  52. #52
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Pipeline companies regularly do the absolute minimum required to clean up after a spill and hope that what's left will be seen as inconsequential.

    Enbridge's Kalamazoo cleanup dredges up 3-year-old oil spill

    The EPA believes there is at least 684,000 litres of bitumen still in the river. Before March's cleanup order was issued, Enbridge and the EPA went back and forth over how much oil there was and whether or not dredging it would do more harm than good to the Kalamazoo's ecosystem.


    In the end, the EPA prevailed.


    "They [Enbridge] don't agree with the way we develop our number. And, you know what, we're the agency and I'm not going to let them dictate how we do science," said Jeff Kimble, the EPA's incident commander in Marshall, Mich.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/enbr...pill-1.1327268
    while indisputable, this still has nothing to do with the exchange regarding the use of selective measurements in reporting. it might well be worthy of a conversation on it's own but still has nothing to do with marcel's comments on an unrelated topic. you're deflecting.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  53. #53

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Pipeline companies regularly do the absolute minimum required to clean up after a spill and hope that what's left will be seen as inconsequential.

    Enbridge's Kalamazoo cleanup dredges up 3-year-old oil spill

    The EPA believes there is at least 684,000 litres of bitumen still in the river. Before March's cleanup order was issued, Enbridge and the EPA went back and forth over how much oil there was and whether or not dredging it would do more harm than good to the Kalamazoo's ecosystem.


    In the end, the EPA prevailed.


    "They [Enbridge] don't agree with the way we develop our number. And, you know what, we're the agency and I'm not going to let them dictate how we do science," said Jeff Kimble, the EPA's incident commander in Marshall, Mich.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/enbr...pill-1.1327268
    while indisputable, this still has nothing to do with the exchange regarding the use of selective measurements in reporting. it might well be worthy of a conversation on it's own but still has nothing to do with marcel's comments on an unrelated topic. you're deflecting.
    Lets call it meandering.

    Unfortunately it seems you asked for it: “he said nothing about not cleaning it up - where did that even come from?”
    Generally, I do wish reporters would provide links for their quotes and references. I’d like to see what US measures were used by authorities and then see how the journalist chose to convert it for Canadian readers.

  54. #54

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Pipeline companies regularly do the absolute minimum required to clean up after a spill and hope that what's left will be seen as inconsequential.

    Enbridge's Kalamazoo cleanup dredges up 3-year-old oil spill

    The EPA believes there is at least 684,000 litres of bitumen still in the river. Before March's cleanup order was issued, Enbridge and the EPA went back and forth over how much oil there was and whether or not dredging it would do more harm than good to the Kalamazoo's ecosystem.


    In the end, the EPA prevailed.


    "They [Enbridge] don't agree with the way we develop our number. And, you know what, we're the agency and I'm not going to let them dictate how we do science," said Jeff Kimble, the EPA's incident commander in Marshall, Mich.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/enbr...pill-1.1327268
    while indisputable, this still has nothing to do with the exchange regarding the use of selective measurements in reporting. it might well be worthy of a conversation on it's own but still has nothing to do with marcel's comments on an unrelated topic. you're deflecting.
    It shows why oil and pipeline companies would want to use the measurement that minimizes the size of the spill. The smaller number you use, the less of an an impact is appears to have. The smaller perceived size, the less likely there will be calls for a major clean up effort.

    Remember, that in the case of the kalamazoo spill, when the drop in pressure was reported to Enbridge control in Edmonton, the first response was to increase the flow. Doesn't sound like a company particularly concerned about the damage they could be doing.

  55. #55
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    Pipeline companies regularly do the absolute minimum required to clean up after a spill and hope that what's left will be seen as inconsequential.

    Enbridge's Kalamazoo cleanup dredges up 3-year-old oil spill

    The EPA believes there is at least 684,000 litres of bitumen still in the river. Before March's cleanup order was issued, Enbridge and the EPA went back and forth over how much oil there was and whether or not dredging it would do more harm than good to the Kalamazoo's ecosystem.


    In the end, the EPA prevailed.


    "They [Enbridge] don't agree with the way we develop our number. And, you know what, we're the agency and I'm not going to let them dictate how we do science," said Jeff Kimble, the EPA's incident commander in Marshall, Mich.

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/enbr...pill-1.1327268
    while indisputable, this still has nothing to do with the exchange regarding the use of selective measurements in reporting. it might well be worthy of a conversation on it's own but still has nothing to do with marcel's comments on an unrelated topic. you're deflecting.
    It shows why oil and pipeline companies would want to use the measurement that minimizes the size of the spill. The smaller number you use, the less of an an impact is appears to have. The smaller perceived size, the less likely there will be calls for a major clean up effort.

    Remember, that in the case of the kalamazoo spill, when the drop in pressure was reported to Enbridge control in Edmonton, the first response was to increase the flow. Doesn't sound like a company particularly concerned about the damage they could be doing.
    i think you're still deflecting...

    if the appropriate measurement standard isn't properly meant to evoke something that can be visualized but is instead - as you are now suggesting in an attempt to make a link - something meant to drive an appropriate response to what is being measured, then perhaps teaspoons or millilitres should be a more appropriate measure for oil spills?
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  56. #56

    Default

    You're quite free to think what you like. That's a decision only you can make. I was simply pointing out that the initial complaint by Marcel and yourself that the measure of the spill in litres was intended to make it seem worse than it was. Therefore, using barrels would make it seem better. I simply pointed out that he could make it seem inconsequential by measuring it in tankers.

  57. #57
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You're quite free to think what you like. That's a decision only you can make. I was simply pointing out that the initial complaint by Marcel and yourself that the measure of the spill in litres was intended to make it seem worse than it was. Therefore, using barrels would make it seem better. I simply pointed out that he could make it seem inconsequential by measuring it in tankers.
    yes, i did point out that the choice of litres was intended to sensationalize the size of the spill and make it seem worse than the originally reported amount in gallons. my concern wasn't that using barrels would make it seem better but that using litres makes it seem incomprehensible which isn't better, it's worse. when things are incomprehensible, they are impossible to deal with logically. while you imply that litres is better because it might put more pressure on the efforts to clean up, i'm not sure the opposite isn't true. if the spill is reported as too large to even visualize, the clean up is then seemingly even more insurmountalbe. everything becomes something on the order of the gulf horizon spill when a more comprehensible measure isn't used that would be easier to exert more urgency towards being dealt with. as noted earlier, huuuuuge requires time and resources and planning and allowances for all of those things. smaller - and more comprehensible - should be able to be dealt with immediately in the here and now and knowing that by using more comprehensible measurement standards should allow for more pressure and more immediacy and more public support of that pressure and immediacy. when you move to the incomprehensible, you provide an excuse for those responsible to put off action because you've allowed them to make it seem large and not the other way around.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  58. #58

    Default

    The average person has an idea how much liquid is in a litre. Even Americans buy pop in 2 litre bottles. Except for people in oil producing areas, how many know how big a barrel is without looking it up? Why not measure it in hogsheads (roughly 2 barrels plus a bit) then?

  59. #59

    Default

    Interesting. However wouldn’t this database be audited and thus have passed many audits. I would guess the data meets the desired criteria.

    On Oil Spills, Alberta Regulator Can’t Be Believed: New Report | The Tyee


    “...As part of his research, Timoney examined Alberta’s spill database over a 38-year period between 1975 and 2013 and visited major spill sites to gauge the impacts on water, land and plants.


    In that time period, industry spilled at least 1.6 million barrels (256,712 cubic metres) of crude oil and more than five million barrels of salt water onto the land and waterways, according to Timoney’s analysis of the AER database.


    That works out to 42,105 barrels of oil spilled every year across the province, whose landscape has been marked by 400,000 well sites and 415,000 kilometres of pipelines. 


    In contrast, Enbridge spilled more than 23,809 barrels of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. It cost more than $1 billion to clean up the disaster. 


    But Timoney found that the AER’s spillage statistics did not reflect the real scale of the problem because ...”

    “...he found many documented spills that appeared in newspapers aren’t in the database.


    The AER database also does not include... ”

    “Alberta has a long and dramatic record of large oil spills. In 1970, Suncor spilled 50,000 gallons of synthetic crude into the Athabasca River while Imperial Oil flooded farmland west of Edmonton with 28,000 barrels of oil.

    In recent years industry has authored more spectacular spills in Alberta, including an Apache-operated pipeline that dumped 9.5 million litres (60,000 barrels) of industrial wastewater into a muskeg in 2013. ...”
    https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/02/09/O...rta-Regulator/



    As for the issue of deliberatly introducing bias in reporting to enhance or diminish the perceived impact, read the above article and note the units used.
    Last edited by KC; 26-11-2017 at 03:23 PM.

  60. #60

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You're quite free to think what you like. That's a decision only you can make. I was simply pointing out that the initial complaint by Marcel and yourself that the measure of the spill in litres was intended to make it seem worse than it was. Therefore, using barrels would make it seem better. I simply pointed out that he could make it seem inconsequential by measuring it in tankers.
    yes, i did point out that the choice of litres was intended to sensationalize the size of the spill and make it seem worse than the originally reported amount in gallons. my concern wasn't that using barrels would make it seem better but that using litres makes it seem incomprehensible which isn't better, it's worse. when things are incomprehensible, they are impossible to deal with logically. while you imply that litres is better because it might put more pressure on the efforts to clean up, i'm not sure the opposite isn't true. if the spill is reported as too large to even visualize, the clean up is then seemingly even more insurmountalbe. everything becomes something on the order of the gulf horizon spill when a more comprehensible measure isn't used that would be easier to exert more urgency towards being dealt with. as noted earlier, huuuuuge requires time and resources and planning and allowances for all of those things. smaller - and more comprehensible - should be able to be dealt with immediately in the here and now and knowing that by using more comprehensible measurement standards should allow for more pressure and more immediacy and more public support of that pressure and immediacy. when you move to the incomprehensible, you provide an excuse for those responsible to put off action because you've allowed them to make it seem large and not the other way around.
    Litres are the official liquid measurement in Canada, get over it.


    Barrel's are so 19th Century. I don't get my motor oil from the corner gas station in wooden barrels and take it home in my horse drawn buggy.

    Do you Ken?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  61. #61
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kcantor View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by kkozoriz View Post
    You're quite free to think what you like. That's a decision only you can make. I was simply pointing out that the initial complaint by Marcel and yourself that the measure of the spill in litres was intended to make it seem worse than it was. Therefore, using barrels would make it seem better. I simply pointed out that he could make it seem inconsequential by measuring it in tankers.
    yes, i did point out that the choice of litres was intended to sensationalize the size of the spill and make it seem worse than the originally reported amount in gallons. my concern wasn't that using barrels would make it seem better but that using litres makes it seem incomprehensible which isn't better, it's worse. when things are incomprehensible, they are impossible to deal with logically. while you imply that litres is better because it might put more pressure on the efforts to clean up, i'm not sure the opposite isn't true. if the spill is reported as too large to even visualize, the clean up is then seemingly even more insurmountalbe. everything becomes something on the order of the gulf horizon spill when a more comprehensible measure isn't used that would be easier to exert more urgency towards being dealt with. as noted earlier, huuuuuge requires time and resources and planning and allowances for all of those things. smaller - and more comprehensible - should be able to be dealt with immediately in the here and now and knowing that by using more comprehensible measurement standards should allow for more pressure and more immediacy and more public support of that pressure and immediacy. when you move to the incomprehensible, you provide an excuse for those responsible to put off action because you've allowed them to make it seem large and not the other way around.
    Litres are the official liquid measurement in Canada, get over it.


    Barrel's are so 19th Century. I don't get my motor oil from the corner gas station in wooden barrels and take it home in my horse drawn buggy.

    Do you Ken?
    no, i don't get my motor oil from the corner gas station in wooden barrels and i'm well aware of canada's official liquid measurement standards.

    you're missing the point i'm trying to make (or choosing to ignore it?) which was that there are sometimes better measurement standards if the intention really is to foster broader public understanding than simply to sensationalize something.

    if it's the official measurement standard that you're hung up on, millilitres are just as official and it could have been reported as 795 million of them. kilolitres are also just as official and it could have been reported as 795 of them.

    football fields and olympic sized swimming pools aren't official area or liquid measurement standards in canada either but the media still use them both to demonstrate the area and volume of things.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  62. #62

    Default

    No, I believe you are trying to minimalize the facts.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  63. #63
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,150

    Default

    So yes, you are indeed choosing to ignore the point we were making.

  64. #64

    Default

    Just from the except I see barrels, cubic metres, gallons and litres. All measurements of volume.

    Quote Originally Posted by KC View Post
    Interesting. However wouldn’t this database be audited and thus have passed many audits. I would guess the data meets the desired criteria.

    On Oil Spills, Alberta Regulator Can’t Be Believed: New Report | The Tyee


    “...As part of his research, Timoney examined Alberta’s spill database over a 38-year period between 1975 and 2013 and visited major spill sites to gauge the impacts on water, land and plants.


    In that time period, industry spilled at least 1.6 million barrels (256,712 cubic metres) of crude oil and more than five million barrels of salt water onto the land and waterways, according to Timoney’s analysis of the AER database.


    That works out to 42,105 barrels of oil spilled every year across the province, whose landscape has been marked by 400,000 well sites and 415,000 kilometres of pipelines. 


    In contrast, Enbridge spilled more than 23,809 barrels of diluted bitumen into the Kalamazoo River in 2010. It cost more than $1 billion to clean up the disaster. 


    But Timoney found that the AER’s spillage statistics did not reflect the real scale of the problem because ...”

    “...he found many documented spills that appeared in newspapers aren’t in the database.


    The AER database also does not include... ”

    “Alberta has a long and dramatic record of large oil spills. In 1970, Suncor spilled 50,000 gallons of synthetic crude into the Athabasca River while Imperial Oil flooded farmland west of Edmonton with 28,000 barrels of oil.

    In recent years industry has authored more spectacular spills in Alberta, including an Apache-operated pipeline that dumped 9.5 million litres (60,000 barrels) of industrial wastewater into a muskeg in 2013. ...”
    https://thetyee.ca/News/2017/02/09/O...rta-Regulator/



    As for the issue of deliberatly introducing bias in reporting to enhance or diminish the perceived impact, read the above article and note the units used.

  65. #65

    Default

    Because pipeline companies should be given unwavering trust.

    Keystone’s existing pipeline spills far more than predicted to regulators

    "The existing 2,147-mile (3,455 km) Keystone system from Hardisty, Alberta, to the Texas coast has had three significant leaks in the United States since it began operating in 2010, including a 5,000-barrel spill this month in rural South Dakota, and two others, each about 400 barrels, in South Dakota in 2016 and North Dakota in 2011.


    Before constructing the pipeline, TransCanada provided a spill risk assessment to regulators that estimated the chance of a leak of more than 50 barrels to be “not more than once every seven to 11 years over the entire length of the pipeline in the United States,” according to its South Dakota operating permit.


    For South Dakota alone, where the line has leaked twice, the estimate was for a “spill no more than once every 41 years.”"

    https://www.rawstory.com/2017/11/key...IJ3rw.facebook


  66. #66

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Marcel Petrin View Post
    So yes, you are indeed choosing to ignore the point we were making.
    Your point was as clear as...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  67. #67

    Default

    I'm curious what happens with Keystone XL. Once Line 3 and Trans Mountain are built (there is the possibility to expand those lines further as well), its unclear there is enough production to more than partially fill Keystone XL, at least, not for some time. Maybe its like Field of Dreams - if you build it, the dilbit production upstream will come? I hope so, that would be great news for Alberta.
    Last edited by moahunter; 27-11-2017 at 04:01 PM.

  68. #68
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    ^^ ^^^ you're both intentionally ignoring the point - or confusing it with something else - which was simply that some measurement standards are easier to understand and relate to than others. it's a pretty clear and concise hypothesis.

    ^^ i'm not sure how your posting a photo of what i presume is intended to be metaphorical mud applies to your not being able to understand the point.

    ^^^ i'm not sure how you think that the point raised is somehow equivalent to saying "pipeline companies should be given unwavering trust".
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  69. #69

    Default

    While you ignore the point that litres are the only correct measurement.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  70. #70
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    While you ignore the point that litres are the only correct measurement.
    you can post that as many times as you want but it's still not correct.

    the weights and measures act (r.s.c., 1985, c. w-6) still contains the following definitions of volume, all of which can be used in most circumstances including legal trade:

    Measurement of Volume or Capacity
    Unit of Measurement Definition
    (a) bushel 8 gallons
    (b) peck 2 gallons
    (c) gallon 454 609/100 000 000 cubic metre
    (d) quart 1/4 gallon
    (e) pint 1/8 gallon
    (f) gill 1/32 gallon
    (g) fluid ounce 1/160 gallon
    (h) fluid dram 1/8 fluid ounce
    (i) cubic yard a volume equal to that of a cube each side of which measures one yard
    (j) cubic foot 1/27 cubic yard
    (k) cubic inch 1/1 728 cubic foot
    (l) [Deleted, SOR/86-854, s. 2]

    all of the above are perfectly legal and correct measures in canada. while governments have elected in some areas, typically safety or consumer protection, to use certain measures in lieu of others, it does not make any of the others illegal or incorrect for use in other circumstances and, where not being used for sale purposes, the act doesn't preclude the use of other measures either (i.e. something being the same size as so many football fields or something having the same volume as so many olympic sized swimming pools or something achieving a certain quarter mile time and speed in mph or even barrels).
    Last edited by kcantor; 27-11-2017 at 04:52 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  71. #71

    Default

    you can post that as many times as you want but it's still not correct.

    Teaspoons are still used daily

    Litres are the official unit of volume


    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  72. #72
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    you can post that as many times as you want but it's still not correct.

    Teaspoons are still used daily

    Litres are the official unit of volume


    no, litres are not "the" official unit of volume.

    per the section of the act which deals with units of measurement:

    Basic, supplementary and derived units

    (2) The basic, supplementary and derived units of measurement for use in Canada and the symbols therefor are as set out and defined in Parts I, II and III of Schedule I, respectively.

    the table inserted above was taken directly from schedule ii in the act and they are all "official" units of measure in the same way that troy ounces are used for precious metals and carats for precious and gem stones..
    Last edited by kcantor; 27-11-2017 at 05:07 PM.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  73. #73

    Default

    I notice that you ignore the fact from the actual act of 1985 was to allow "Customary units used with the international system" where traditional units were incorporated including those used in Quebec for area based upon Napoleonic Law. From your posts, the column with the metric conversion was conveniently deleted. It is also very noteworthy that 'barrels' are not included as a measurement of volume and that fact tears at the underpinnings of your argument.

    In other words, barrels are a 19th Century term that has no real legal meaning in 21st Century Canada.

    Give it up or soldier on in your weak argument and your attempts to minimize the sizable spill of the TransCanada Keystone pipeline which leaked 795,000 litres of crude oil in South Dakota or 567,857 canadas!

    [QUOTE]The canada (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɐˈnađɐ]) was the unit of liquid volume of the ancient Portuguese measurement system. It was used in Portugal, Brazil and other parts of the Portuguese Empire until the adoption of the metric system. It was equivalent to 4 quartilhos (pints). The exact value of the canada varied from region to region, the canada of Lisbon being equivalent to 1.4 litres.In the Portuguese metric system officially adopted in August 1814, "canada" was the name given to the unit of liquid volume. This metric canada was equivalent to 1 litre.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(unit)

    Things you learn on Wiki
    Last edited by Edmonton PRT; 27-11-2017 at 05:30 PM.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  74. #74
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    [QUOTE=Edmonton PRT;859089]I notice that you ignore the fact from the actual act of 1985 was to allow "Customary units used with the international system" where traditional units were incorporated including those used in Quebec for area based upon Napoleonic Law. From your posts, the column with the metric conversion was conveniently deleted. It is also very noteworthy that 'barrels' are not included as a measurement of volume and that fact tears at the underpinnings of your argument.

    In other words, barrels are a 19th Century term that has no real legal meaning in 21st Century Canada.

    Give it up or soldier on in your weak argument and your attempts to minimize the sizable spill of the TransCanada Keystone pipeline which leaked 795,000 litres of crude oil in South Dakota or 567,857 canadas!

    The canada (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɐˈnađɐ]) was the unit of liquid volume of the ancient Portuguese measurement system. It was used in Portugal, Brazil and other parts of the Portuguese Empire until the adoption of the metric system. It was equivalent to 4 quartilhos (pints). The exact value of the canada varied from region to region, the canada of Lisbon being equivalent to 1.4 litres.In the Portuguese metric system officially adopted in August 1814, "canada" was the name given to the unit of liquid volume. This metric canada was equivalent to 1 litre.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(unit)

    Things you learn on Wiki
    agreed, barrels are not noted in the weights and measures act but you're taking my reference to them out of context.

    football fields and olympic sized swimming pools also referenced in the parenthesis aren't included in the act either. but that doesn't make it illegal to use any of those terms even though it might be illegal to try use them in a financial transaction.

    my original point still stands - the choice of measurement standard can either assist or hinder comprehension - as does my subsequent point that litres are not "the" official unit of volume in canada.

    no need to rely on wiki by the way. you can read the act directly at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a.../FullText.html
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  75. #75

    Default

    Everyone’s been somewhat mistaken here. Canadian media is supposed to be reporting in “kitchen ranges” and failing that, cubic metres:


    Alberta Energy: Energy Measurements

    “Canadians typically report crude oil production in cubic metres, whereas production in the U.S. is reported in barrels. A typical Canadian oil well might produce 50 barrels of oil per day -- nearly eight cubic metres.”

    http://www.energy.alberta.ca/about_us/1132.asp


  76. #76

    Default

    Lets not get into the argument whether it is a Canadian football field or and American football field, ok.

    Usually we tend to ahree on many matters so I do not know why you have such a burr under your saddle.

    So we agree that litres are the correct unit of measurement and the rest are just for ludites who can't learn the metric system.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  77. #77

    Default

    [QUOTE=kcantor;859095]
    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I notice that you ignore the fact from the actual act of 1985 was to allow "Customary units used with the international system" where traditional units were incorporated including those used in Quebec for area based upon Napoleonic Law. From your posts, the column with the metric conversion was conveniently deleted. It is also very noteworthy that 'barrels' are not included as a measurement of volume and that fact tears at the underpinnings of your argument.

    In other words, barrels are a 19th Century term that has no real legal meaning in 21st Century Canada.

    Give it up or soldier on in your weak argument and your attempts to minimize the sizable spill of the TransCanada Keystone pipeline which leaked 795,000 litres of crude oil in South Dakota or 567,857 canadas!

    The canada (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɐˈnađɐ]) was the unit of liquid volume of the ancient Portuguese measurement system. It was used in Portugal, Brazil and other parts of the Portuguese Empire until the adoption of the metric system. It was equivalent to 4 quartilhos (pints). The exact value of the canada varied from region to region, the canada of Lisbon being equivalent to 1.4 litres.In the Portuguese metric system officially adopted in August 1814, "canada" was the name given to the unit of liquid volume. This metric canada was equivalent to 1 litre.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(unit)

    Things you learn on Wiki
    agreed, barrels are not noted in the weights and measures act but you're taking my reference to them out of context.

    football fields and olympic sized swimming pools also referenced in the parenthesis aren't included in the act either. but that doesn't make it illegal to use any of those terms even though it might be illegal to try use them in a financial transaction.

    my original point still stands - the choice of measurement standard can either assist or hinder comprehension - as does my subsequent point that litres are not "the" official unit of volume in canada.

    no need to rely on wiki by the way. you can read the act directly at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a.../FullText.html
    That’s Lisboa not Lisbon.

  78. #78
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I notice that you ignore the fact from the actual act of 1985 was to allow "Customary units used with the international system" where traditional units were incorporated including those used in Quebec for area based upon Napoleonic Law. From your posts, the column with the metric conversion was conveniently deleted. It is also very noteworthy that 'barrels' are not included as a measurement of volume and that fact tears at the underpinnings of your argument.

    In other words, barrels are a 19th Century term that has no real legal meaning in 21st Century Canada.

    Give it up or soldier on in your weak argument and your attempts to minimize the sizable spill of the TransCanada Keystone pipeline which leaked 795,000 litres of crude oil in South Dakota or 567,857 canadas!

    The canada (Portuguese pronunciation: [kɐˈnađɐ]) was the unit of liquid volume of the ancient Portuguese measurement system. It was used in Portugal, Brazil and other parts of the Portuguese Empire until the adoption of the metric system. It was equivalent to 4 quartilhos (pints). The exact value of the canada varied from region to region, the canada of Lisbon being equivalent to 1.4 litres.In the Portuguese metric system officially adopted in August 1814, "canada" was the name given to the unit of liquid volume. This metric canada was equivalent to 1 litre.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_(unit)

    Things you learn on Wiki
    agreed, barrels are not noted in the weights and measures act but you're taking my reference to them out of context.

    football fields and olympic sized swimming pools (also referenced in the same parenthesis in my post as barrels) aren't included in the act either. but that doesn't make it illegal to use any of those terms even though it might be illegal to try use them in a financial transaction.

    my original point still stands - the choice of measurement standard can either assist or hinder comprehension. my subsequent point that litres are not "the" official unit of volume in canada still stands as well.

    no need to rely on wiki by the way. you can read the act directly at http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/a.../FullText.html
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  79. #79

    Default

    Uhhh guys - post #75



    Or this:

    Chapter 4 Measurement units and conversion factors
    “Volume units
    4.10. Volume units are original units for most liquid and gaseous, as well as for some traditional
    fuels. The SI unit for volume is the cubic metre which is equivalent to a kilolitre or one thousand litres.
    Other volume units include: the British or Imperial gallon (4.546 litres), United States gallon (3.785
    litres), the barrel (159 litres) and the cubic feet, which is also used to measure volumes of gaseous fuels.
    Given the preference from oil markets for the barrel as a volume unit, the barrel per day is commonly
    used within the petroleum sector so as to allow direct data comparison across different time frequencies
    (e.g., monthly versus annual crude oil production). However, in principle other units of volume per time
    can be used for the same purpose. Table 2 shows the equivalent factors to convert volume units.”

    https://unstats.un.org/oslogroup/mee...omments-v2.doc
    Last edited by KC; 27-11-2017 at 06:01 PM.

  80. #80
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Lets not get into the argument whether it is a Canadian football field or and American football field, ok.

    Usually we tend to ahree on many matters so I do not know why you have such a burr under your saddle.

    So we agree that litres are the correct unit of measurement and the rest are just for ludites who can't learn the metric system.
    it's not a burr, it's the fact you're wrong on this one and don't seem to want to accept that.

    litres are not "the" sole correct unit of measurement when it comes to volume any more than square meters is the sole correct unit of measurement when it comes to area making square feet or hectares or acres somehow incorrect.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  81. #81

    Default

    I never said it was the sole unit of measurement but the correct one and obviously barrels are used by oil companies who wish to minimalize their spills of toxic products and some reporters are either too lazy or failed math and cannot change it to the correct units. You already acknowledged that barrels are not in the Act of 1985.

    You come across as an oil company apologist.
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  82. #82

    Default

    Everything else about oil is reported in barrels, from prices to production to reserves to plant sizes to emissions.

    Are they also trying to make oil look worse when they report lb CO2 per barrel rather than per litre?
    There can only be one.

  83. #83
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    I never said it was the sole unit of measurement but the correct one and obviously barrels are used by oil companies who wish to minimalize their spills of toxic products and some reporters are either too lazy or failed math and cannot change it to the correct units. You already acknowledged that barrels are not in the Act of 1985.

    You come across as an oil company apologist.
    that's the first time i've heard anyone equating a desire for accuracy as coming across as an oil company apologist...

    probably time to go home and partake of something else aged in a barrel and toast an end to this particular conversation.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  84. #84

    Default

    Cracker barrel cheddar?
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  85. #85
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    Cracker barrel cheddar?
    glengoyne 18...
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  86. #86

    Default

    If you have a barrel, you can share with the rest of us...
    Advocating a better Edmonton through effective, efficient and economical transit.

  87. #87
    Addicted to C2E
    Mr. Reality Check

    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, Alberta
    Posts
    10,900

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT View Post
    If you have a barrel, you can share with the rest of us...
    if i had a barrel i would. it was a gift and it really is quite lovely.
    "If you did not want much, there was plenty." Harper Lee

  88. #88
    C2E SME
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Downtown Edmonton
    Posts
    10,150

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Edmonton PRT
    Usually we tend to ahree on many matters so I do not know why you have such a burr under your saddle.


    It's pretty clear who has the burr under their saddle here, and it's not Ken. You're the only one tossing around pejoratives like luddite or apologist.

  89. #89

    Default

    I spotted this same issue of; media deliberately reporting in litres vs barrels or cubes to create a greater negative perception, in a posting on the Alberta Outdoorsman forum.


    Just saw this mix of units:

    Ski area going to trial for cutting trees | Local News | Rocky Mountain Outlook
    Excerpt:
    “It is alleged by Parks Canada that the area cleared was five metres wide and moved along the ridgeline for 290 metres. The area is estimated to have had 140 trees, including at least 39 whitebark pines. According to the exhibit considered for the stay application, the trees at that location were mature, with diameters at the ground of 27 centimetres and as tall as 25 feet.”

    http://www.rmoutlook.com/article/Ski...trees-20171109
    Last edited by KC; 04-12-2017 at 09:44 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •