June 18, 2010 by admin.

The other day, some one sent some information to me about a vastly greater catastrophe that is surely bound to happen in consequence of the Gulf Blowout.  Here is another option that will most likely not be used either, although it would be the cheapest of all.  It won’t be used because it is not politically correct.

The Nuclear Option against British Sabotage in Our Gulf
by Laurence Hecht
Editor, 21st Century Science & Technology

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2010/BP_nuclear-option.pdf

The option that will be used, successfully, is most likely the one that was used to plug Atlantic #3, which blew March 8, 1948, near Edmonton, I don’t know exactly where it was and assume that it was in the Leduc Area, SW of Edmonton (that is where the Nisku formation is located into which it had drilled).  That well blew and spilled about as much oil per day as the well at the bottom of the Texas Gulf does right now.  It blew that oil for a lot longer than the Texas Gulf well has been blowing it until now.  It blew for the same reason the Gulf well blew.  Someone decided to dispense with using drilling mud.  It seems that BP learned nothing from Atlantic #3, and it should be severely punished for that.

The June 14, 2010 edition of the Edmonton Journal had an article on Atlantic #3.

Read the article at that link.  You will find that there is little but one difference between the two blowouts.  The pressures involved are about the same, and so are the daily volumes of oil spilled.  Other than that, Atlantic #3 was on top of solid ground, and the Texas Gulf well is at the bottom of the ocean.  Here are some quotes from the article.

Atlantic No. 3 blew wild for six months, spewing 10,000 to 15,000 barrels per day of crude, which made it the biggest blowout in Alberta history. When it later caught fire [in September of 1948] and burned for two months in a spectacular inferno, it made movie theatre newsreels around the world….

Oilpatch historian David Finch says the Atlantic No. 3 disaster created a massive oil spill that was five times the size of the Exxon Valdez spill off the coast of Alaska in 1989.
Fortunately, most of the 1.2 million barrels of oil pouring out of Atlantic No. 3 was corralled by dikes and pumped through a pipeline to Leduc where it was being shipped to refineries in rail cars. But some escaped into the nearby North Saskatchewan River and temporarily contaminated Edmonton’s drinking water supply.

Oilpatch historians have suggested drilling “dry” — without drilling mud — was a flawed technique that led to the disaster. When the rig drilled into the Nisku formation, the uncountered pressure caused the well to blow, and months of effort by wild well fighters failed to stop it. They tried using everything, including tons of sawdust and even chicken feathers to plug the hole, but it blew wild until a relief well was drilled and the formation was flooded with river water…..

Read more: http://www.edmontonjournal.com/Alberta+blowout+disaster/3150830/story.html#ixzz0rD8DxpTv

Notice that nothing stopped the fire resulting when the blowout eventually caught on fire until river water was pumped through a relief well into the oil-bearing formation.  Do you recall an oil volcano blowing its top at that time?  No, that did not happen then and won’t happen now.

Nevertheless, stories about “unprecedented” spills, sea floors erupting into oil volcanoes and catastrophic tsunamis resulting from that do get a lot more attention.  To attract attention it is not necessary to tell the truth or what is most likely to happen.  All it takes is to engage in wild, unsubstantiated speculation about extreme possibilities, however unlikely catastrophes.

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Explosions & Fires, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | No Comments »

May 4, 2010 by admin.

From The Resilient Earth
Science, Global Warming and the Fate of Humanity

05/03/2010

Link to article

From the article:

I am all for clean energy, but only if it is safe energy. So let’s be realistic here, birds and bats do not get hacked from the air by nuke plants. And I know from personal experience, living on Chesapeake Bay near the Calvert Cliffs Nuclear Power Plant, that fish love  the warm water outlets from such installations. Over the past 40 years there have been more deaths attributed to wind power than to nuclear power, yet nuclear power is the one always called “unsafe” by conservationists. [Emphasis by folc.ca] It’s time to grow up children—if you want to save the birds, the bats and the humans, embrace the power of the atom.

The article contains photos and video clips of damage to wild life and of the dangers posed by wind turbines.

Posted in Alternative Energy Sources, Fines & Penalties | Print | No Comments »

March 9, 2010 by admin.

For some time now, the media reported on the case of the ducks who died at a Syncrude tailings pond, near Fort McMurray, in Northern Alberta.  First it was claimed that about 500 ducks had been killed.  That claim was later revised upward to 1,600 ducks in the incident or incidents.

The front page of the March 9, 2010 issue of the Edmonton Journal carried an article that reported Alberta Premier Ed Stelmach as stating that he had not seen the images of the ducks coated with bitumen at the Syncrude tailings pond, quite properly casting some doubt on Ed Stelmach’s claim that he had not seen those all-pervasive images.

The insinuation by the article in the increasingly liberal Edmonton Journal was that the pro-industry Alberta Government’s premier is in open denial of the truth, namely that the oil industry is deadly to the environment and specifically has little regard for the death toll it imposes on Alberta wildlife.

The deaths of 1,600 ducks appears to be a red herring dragged out to draw attention away from the death toll inflicted by “environment-friendly” alternative sources of energy, particularly wind power.

No doubt, environmentalist are ready and eager to crucify Ed Stelmach for daring to — either deliberately or inadvertently — belittle the deaths of the ducks in Fort McMurray.  The goal of the environmentalists’ exercise has been achieved.  Ed Stelmach’s denial is evidence of the Alberta Government’s program to insert “dirty oil” into the world market for oil production.

The deaths of the 1,600 ducks in the Syncrude tailings pond needs to be put into perspective.  The Alberta Government is an ardent promoter of alternative energy in the form of wind power, even though wind-power production cannot be justified economically and can be kept alive only through massive taxpayer-funded subsidies.

However, with respect to the impact of wind power on the lives of birds, the simple truth is that wind power is at least thousands of times more deadly to the lives of birds than the Fort McMurray tailings ponds could ever be feared to be.

 “Bernd Koop, based on monitoring studies conducted in Holland by Winkelman, estimated there would be 60,000 to 100,000 bird collisions per 1,000 megawatt installed capacity in his country - annually (13) . . ..Applying his estimate to Germany´s 17,000 MW, we obtain: 1,020,000 to 1,700,000 bird collisions per annum. And the closer we are getting to territorial saturation, the lower the chances for migrating birds to find safe routes through the maze, especially if we add the deadly power lines.

Already, birds in Germany die in great numbers from collisions with 70,000 km of high-tension lines that criss-cross the country - 30 million birds per year is an extrapolation found in Hoerschelmann, Haack & Wohlgemuth, based on a study along 4.5 km of high tension lines - electrocutions excluded (14). - As windfarms need more power lines, this mortality will increase as well; there is already evidence of this : Windfarms - the bird massacre continues. (Please follow this link, photos must be seen; author.)

__________
Source:
Wildlife Conservation Examiner

Deadly blades; death toll mounts as wind farms massacre birds of prey
August 7, 8:52 PM; by Cathy Taibbi

Not that anyone should downplay the unfortunate deaths of the ducks at Fort McMurray, but if we wish to measure the impact of energy sources on wildlife, let’s do justice to all sources of energy.  By objective measures, wind power is far more deadly to wildlife than the Syncrude tailings ponds are.

At least Syncrude is trying to do something, and largely successfully, about protecting ducks and other migratory birds, while most environmentalists who harp on Alberta’s “dirty oil” are totally silent about the massive deadliness and excessive costs of wind power.

Posted in Alternative Energy Sources, Fines & Penalties, Pollution: Health Issues, Emission Incidents & Issues | Print | 1 Comment »

December 15, 2009 by admin.

We have come to know that Enron’s manipulations that came crashing down some years ago were firmly built on fraudulent energy- and carbon-trading schemes of the world energy market.  It was Enron-style manipulation, for example, of Alberta’s energy market that led to the deregulation of the utility industry and to the doubling and tripling of energy prices.

We have come to know that Al Gore, when he was the vice-president of the US, had been involved in promoting Enron’s manipulations, although he appears not to have raised his great current wealth from that involvement.  Nevertheless, we have come to know that he is not an uninterested party in promoting the carbon cap-and-trade insanity, as he has an active interest in that promotion and increased his wealth from about $2 million, when he left government services, to about $200 million now.

Now comes another astonishing revelation.  U.N. climate chief Rajendra K. Pachauri, too, is not an uninterested party in promoting the schemes for creating great wealth from irrational and destructive carbon fears. In the process of pushing his very personal interests in creating profits from the U.N.-promoted carbon fears, Pachauri, a railroad engineer from India, stands to make hundreds of millions of dollars for himself.

U.N. climate chief turns carbon to green

In lucrative carbon trade ‘all roads lead to Pachauri’

Nobel Peace Prize winners Al Gore and Rajendra Pachauri on the balcony of Grand Hotel, Oslo, Norway, Dec. 10, 2007

NEW YORK – Further examination of U.N. climate chief Rajendra K. Pachauri’s resume shows more extensive international business relationships through which he stands to profit from global warming activism.

WND reported last week A Mumbai-based Indian multinational conglomerate with business ties to Pachauri, the chairman since 2002 of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, or IPCC, stands to make several hundred million dollars in European Union carbon credits simply by closing a steel production facility in Britain with the loss of 1,700 jobs..

Now, the head of the Asian Development Bank, Haruhiko Kuroda, is warning governments that failure to reach a deal at the U.N. Climate Summit in Copenhagen could lead to a collapse of the carbon market. He says rich countries, therefore, should commit up to $100 billion to finance a climate deal that would benefit the developing world.

Pachauri chairs the Asian Development Bank Advisory Group on Climate Change….

(Full Story)

Posted in Energy Issues, Climate Change, Fines & Penalties, Community & Industry | Print | No Comments »

April 13, 2009 by admin.

The Edmonton Journal
Edmonton,Alberta,Canada
April 13, 2009

Bruderheim families voice safety concerns over ‘dangerous’ plan
By Andrea Sands,

…Area homeowners are also worried that train cars carrying sulphur to and from the plant may derail. Debbie Bishop, a lawyer for FOLC, said residents don’t … (Full Story)

________________
Note by folc.ca: The article identified above discusses the concerns of FOLC (Friends of Lamont County) that county residents in the vicinity of a proposed sulphur-forming, -storage and -shipping facility to be built less than two miles east of the Town have, if the Natural Resource Conservation Board (NRCB) gives HAZCO permission to build the sulphur plant and storage facility at the intended location.

The sulphur storage will have a capacity of up to 90,000 tonnes.  That is the carrying capacity of approximately six sulphur unit-trains of a hundred cars each and six times the amount of sulphur that burned in the disastrous sulphur fire that harmed thousands of residents at the town of Macassar, South Africa, in 1995.  Macassar was located at a somewhat greater distance from that sulphur fire than Bruderheim is located in relation to the proposedHAZCO sulphur plant.

The NRCB hearing will be held during an estimated four-day interval at the Lakeview Inn & Suites, 10115 - 88 Ave, Fort Saskatchewan.  The hearing will begin at 9:00 a.m., April 14, 2009.

The NRCB hearing is crucial to the future of the people who live in Lamont County.  What is at stake is essentially whether Lamont County — at the very least the areas that have been rezoned Heavy Industrial, and the areas adjacent to them — will within the space of a few years become as devoid of residences as is the Industrial Heartland in Strathcona County.

HAZCO’s sulphur facility poses a threat to residents within a large radius from its location (including the residents of Bruderheim and Lamont).  That is what is at stake at the NRCB hearing beginning on Tuesday.

It is in the best interest of every single resident of our county to attend.  It is especially in the interest of the residents of Bruderheim and Lamont to attend.

A good number of concerns by Lamont-County residents have not yet been addressed satisfactorily.  It is our health, our lives and our wellbeing that is at stake.

Make sure you are there!

 Lakeview Inn & Suites

10115 - 88 Ave, Fort Saskatchewan,

April 14, 2009, 9:00 a.m.

The details of the concerns by FOLC can be looked up at this link.

More information about sulphur fires is accessible at folc.ca.

Posted in Energy Purchases, Fines & Penalties, Hazco, Sulphur-Related Construction Costs, Hydrogen-Sulphide, Uncategorized | Print | No Comments »

December 9, 2008 by admin.

Prince George Citizen

Monday, 08 December 2008

Penalties imposed on Marsulex for 2006 sulphur-dioxide release

By PAUL STRICKLAND, Citizen staff

Marsulex Inc. was fined a total of $2,000 plus a 15-per-cent impact surcharge Monday after pleading guilty to two environmental counts in connection with the release of a concentrated plume of sulphur dioxide from its Prince George plant on Aug. 9, 2006….

On the morning of Aug. 9, 2006, Marsulex shut down its plant for routine maintenance….

During the start-up the winds changed, and the mixing of the gas in the lower atmosphere may have become poor. Its analyzer showed sulphur-dioxide concentration levels exceeded 1,653 parts per million for seven-and-a-half minutes…the plant discharged a dense bluish-white cloud of gas, a plume, from its stack. The plume travelled across the road and descended upon the Canadian Forest Products’ Rustad sawmill, court learned.

Marsulex had notified the Rustad mill by phone 10 minutes ahead of time that it was restarting its furnace. At least 18 Rustad workers were physically affected by the plume. Some received first-aid treatment on site. Nine workers were taken to Prince George Regional Hospital for further treatment and were discharged from hospital that day, according to the agreed statement of facts.

The affected workers described the plume as bluish-white or grey cloud with a strong smell. They described the adverse physical effects they experienced as watering eyes, burning lungs, difficulty breathing, blurred vision, skin burning and a strange taste in the mouth, court heard.

The physical effects described by the workers are generally consistent with those suffered by people exposed to sulphur-dioxide, court heard….(Full Story)
______________
Comment by folc.ca: The article does mentions that four workers who allege that they experienced permanent damages to their health from the sulphur dioxide release filed a claim with WorkSafe - B.C., but nothing is mentioned whether anyone other than the “environment” received any sort of compensation.

More than three years after the fact, and no money for real people’s pains….but about $150,000 is to be paid to a bureaucracy, the Habitat Conservation Trust Fund, that safeguards the environment.  Is that not just absolutely wonderful?

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Community & Industry, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

November 2, 2007 by admin.

[for a substantial SO2 release caused by “an unexpected chemical reaction”]

Calgary Company Handed Huge Fine 

2007 11 01

CALGARY/AM770CHQR - A Calgary company has been fined $280,000 after sulphur dioxide was released from their plant in the Foothills Industrial Park in January 2005.
A huge conti[n]gency of city emergency workers responded, and several of them reported adverse health effects because of the exposure.
Tiger Industries Limited pleaded guilty to one charge under the Alberta Environmental Protection and Enhancement Act.
The facility has since been sold and the company has until February 2008 to pay the fine. (Link to Story)

The Edmonton Journal carried a related story (2007 11 02; p. B10) that identified that the incident caused a large response by emergency crews, that a two-block area had been closed for most of the day, that a police officer had been taken to hospital with minor respiratory problems, and that several emergency workers Tiger employees complained of adverse health effects.

Interestingly, the Journal story, too, called the problem a sulphur-dioxide release, but it identified the cause of that as “an unexpected chemical reaction during a production run of a fertilizer blend.”

Tiger Industries Ltd. (a.k.a. Tigersul) in Calgary formed sulphur into prills or pellets for adding those prills to various fertilizer blends.

What was the “unexpected chemical reaction” that produced the SO₂ release? Was it an explosion and fire? Burning sulphur produces SO₂. The bigger the sulphur fire, the more SO₂ will be released. Unless sufficiently heated, SO₂ is heavier than air.

An unexpected chemical reaction? According to Tiger Sulphur’s very own material safety data sheet for sulphur (January 2004):

SECTION IV HAZARDS INFORMATION

Unusual Fire and Explosion Hazards:

Dust suspended in air is readily ignited by flame, static electricity or friction spark. Every reasonable step must be taken to minimize dust formation. Dust tight casings should be equipped with explosion relief vents. Sparkless electrical equipment is recommended. Handling equipment must be grounded or bonded to avoid static electricity. Keep away from sources of flame or sparks. Detailed recommendations in Manufacturing Chemists Association SD-74 and National Safety Council 612 Bulletins covering “Sulphur” should be followed when handling Sulphur.

SECTION IX HAZARDOUS INGREDIENTS (Mixtures Only)

Material or Components:

Mixtures with chlorates, nitrates or other oxidizing agents may be explosive.

As of the January 28, 2006 issue of the EUB’s Identification Code Licence Eligibility Report, Tiger Industries Limited no longer qualified for licence eligibility.

The source of the two news items is an Alberta Government information bulletin. The bulletin contains information important to anyone living close to a sulphur processing facility

Investigation after the incident determined that the release was the result of an unexpected chemical reaction during a production run of a sulphur-based fertilizer blend. The combination of un-degassed sulphur [that would have to be hydrogen sulfide?] and an impurity in a copper micronutrient [any guesses as to what that may have been?] resulted in a chemical reaction that produced significant quantities of sulphur dioxide.

It is odd that the chemical reaction is not described in the bulletin. Was it an explosion, perhaps a fire? More information can be obtained by writing to Josh Stewart, whose contact details are shown at the end of the Alberta Government information bulletin.

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Community & Industry, Explosions & Fires, Pollution: Health Issues | Print | No Comments »

September 28, 2007 by admin.

American Farm Publications, Inc.

Oct. 1 deadline looms on EPA diesel regulations

9.25.2007

By SUSANNE ZILBERFARB
Special to The Delmarva Farmer

Farmers [in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic area of the US, designated “NEMA” by EPA] with on-farm fuel storage tanks larger than 550 gallons have until Oct. 1 to meet EPA regulations regarding the sulfur content for their off-road diesel or face fines of up to $32,500 per day per violation.

By Oct. 1, the diesel fuel in those tanks must contain 500 parts per million (ppm) or less of sulfur, as part of a national reduction of sulfur in fuel.

The current high sulfur diesel in those off-road tanks may contain from 2,000 to 5,000 ppm sulfur….

Farmers who still have large volumes of high-sulfur diesel can transfer that fuel to their home heating oil tanks, where it is not affected by these regulations, and then blend down the remaining fuel with ULSD….

Further sulfur reductions are set for phase-in beginning June 1, 2010, when the sulfur content for non-road diesel will be further reduced to a maximum of 15 ppm — the current requirement for on-road diesel…. (Full Story)

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Ultra-Low-Sulphur Diesel | Print | No Comments »

September 25, 2007 by admin.

ANA/MPA

Greece: PPC fined one million euros for excessive emissions

The state-run Public Power Corp. (PPC) was fined one million euros for exceeding atmospheric pollutants emission limits, the Greek environment, town planning and public works ministry announced on Monday. The fine was imposed following environmental inspections at several power plants operated by PPC throughout the country….

In a breakdown of the fines imposed, Souflias said power plants at Megalopoli, in the central Peloponnese, had been fined 400,000 euros for greatly exceeding hourly and daily limits for sulphur dioxide gas emissions considered safe for public health, while sulphur scrubbers at one Megalopoli plant had not operated for 31.1 per cent of the hours the plant was in operation in 2006, so it greatly exceeded sulphur dioxide emission limits.

The plant had also failed to monitor levels of sulphur dioxide, dust, nitrogen oxides and percentage oxygen at several of its units…. (Full Story)

Posted in Fines & Penalties, Pollution: Health Issues, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »

September 20, 2007 by admin.

yosemite.epa.gov

OpenDocument

(Washington, D.C. – Sept. 20, 2007) In a landmark settlement filed today, East Kentucky Power Cooperative, a coal-fired electric utility, has agreed to pay an $11.4 million penalty to resolve violations of the Clean Air Act’s acid rain program, the Department of Justice and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency announced today….

“This settlement shows that when you violate the law, [the] EPA will be there to make you pay.”….

The government estimated that the utility’s Dale Generating Station emitted over 15,000 tons of sulfur dioxide and 4,000 tons of nitrogen oxide without a permit from approximately 2000-2005. In addition, the government alleged the utility exceeded the federal annual emission rate for nitrogen oxides….

Coal-fired plants release sulfur dioxides and nitrogen oxides, which are a primary cause of acid rain that harms trees and lakes and impairs visibility. Nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxides cause severe respiratory problems, contribute to childhood asthma, and contribute to smog and haze. Emissions from power plants can drift significant distances downwind and degrade air quality in nearby areas…. (Full Story)

Posted in Pollution: Health Issues, Fines & Penalties, Acid Rain, Nitrogen-Oxides, Emission Incidents & Issues, Sulphur-Dioxide | Print | No Comments »