Gotta Love The New Alberta

[reevesr1]

How the hell did I get dragged into this discussion...(planet raper) LOL.

Here's my take on it...

If you run a business exploiting our provinces resources and things go wrong, then you are responsible for your mistake and should be held accountable (economically/criminally). There is no need in this modern world for these catastrophic errors to occur in the first place, but they do because of greed.

If I make a little mistake in my small business operation, I will be tarred and feathered by the government.

If a big corporation makes a giant mistake, that has a huge impact on our environment, health, wildlife, they are left off the hook with a stern look and a warning. That and every excuse that follows, whether philisophical or economic is just plain old fashion BS....BS boys, that's exactly what it is, even though those fancy Havard guys, sure got nice shovels.

 

Boy, sure didn't take long for you to rise to the bait. Wish I could get some trout to do that! I was just being funny. I don't think you really rape the planet. There may be some larger browns around who disagree with this however!

 

I do disagree with your take that large corps are left with stern looks and warnings. I think that like many other things, we remember the times where it seems the big company got off and forget when they are hit with the multi-million dollar fines, since they so obviously deserved it. And whether we like it or not, catastrophic errors will ALWAYS occur. No matter how well you plan or execute a project, there is always residual risk involved. I did risk analysis for a couple of years and no matter how well you do it (and I was pretty good at it, pat on the back), you just can't plan for everything. And the thing about residual risk is, given enough operations, the bad thing will happen either through human error, lack of planning, outside interference, whatever. The goal is to limit the chance of it happening as much as possible. We do that. When problems happen, it ain't always because of greed. Greed is a nice, easy target, but like many easy targets, the truth is almost always much more complicated.

 

Also, any belief that industry (and I mean any industry here) is not held accountable for mistakes, is mistaken. It's the level of accountability that is always in question. Most often depends what side of the fence you are on whether it is acceptable to you or not.

 

Did you just call my philosophical musings BS? That hurts mang!

[toolman]

Sorry if I cut to the bone Rick...grin.

Just that I listened to a lot of BS growing up in a region that allowed Pulp and Paper, Mining, Foresty, Hydro, to environmentally destroy a beautifull bay on the Atlantic where I grew up (Bay of Chaleur) and most of the rivers that drained into it.

I have heard all the excuses used to justify this for decades. As usual, it was all about meeting shareholder expectations in Norway, LA, Montreal or wherever the new ownership was from. The Yanks were probably the best corporate citizens over the decades, willing to invest in decent wages, pension plans, community centers, hockey rinks etc., but all of them were there for the money, with little concern for the problems they caused. The Europeans, well they preached environmental stewardship on their side of the Atlantic, but did things much differently this side of the water.

[reevesr1]

Sorry if I cut to the bone Rick...grin.

Just that I listened to a lot of BS growing up in a region that allowed Pulp and Paper, Mining, Foresty, Hydro, to environmentally destroy a beautifull bay on the Atlantic where I grew up (Bay of Chaleur) and most of the rivers that drained into it.

I have heard all the excuses used to justify this for decades. As usual, it was all about meeting shareholder expectations in Norway, LA, Montreal or wherever the new ownership was from. The Yanks were probably the best corporate citizens over the decades, willing to invest in decent wages, pension plans, community centers, hockey rinks etc., but all of them were there for the money, with little concern for the problems they caused. The Europeans, well they preached environmental stewardship on their side of the Atlantic, but did things much differently this side of the water.

 

Greg,

Cut away buddy. Makes it fun.

 

I grew up in the chemical refinery capital of the world. I understand environmental disaster. We deystroyed our own backyard before we ever thought of destroying anyone elses. But in my lifetime it has gotten much better, not worse. The bays are cleaner now than when I was a kid.

[Castuserraticus]

Gee a guy works for a day and all heck breaks out.

 

Harps - my main point is there is already extensive regulation. If you want to talk about overall footprint and impact on the environment look at agriculture. The farmers I've talked to know they wouldn't survive if they were under the same regulatory scrutiny - chemicals, animal waste run-off, tillage practices, etc. It might be a good thing though as farming still ranks as one of the most dangerous careers there is. The oil industry is pretty safe these days.

 

We do take responsibility for our social and environmental impact. My hackles rise when a broad brush is directed at my livelihood.

 

On to your points:

If industrial development was so harmful to the animals and fish of Alberta they would have died off with all the agricultural and forestry development to date.

 

Steam bed disturbance and log crossings of streams is so 1970's. Portable steel bridges have been the fashion for a couple of decades for permanent water courses.

 

Our location is accessible via high ground. There are no water courses. Despite this we would still not be allowed summer access except by quad. If someone were to go in and vandalize the well (ala W. Ludwig) we would not have the choice of waiting for frozen ground.

 

I don't have a problem with local native and resident consultation as long as it's relevant. BC is claimed 6X over by bands from all over that province and Alberta. It's another layer of scrutiny our industry must pass.

 

There are no cutting corners in abandonment and reclamation. Every site is inspected and has to pass or the government makes you go back and do it again.

 

None of it is simple and when I lay the numbers I wonder why I'm in the business sometimes. Mainly what I want to counter is the erroneous view that the industry has carte blanche to pillage wherever and whenever it wants as you indicate is at the heart of your beliefs (quote). "Legislation provides a clear path for oil companies to follow when proposing a drill… with all the drilling that has gone on, you’d think that companies would know the procedure by now." We do know the procedures. Apparently you don't just as I know nothing about your job.

 

It's pretty hard to find any industry or activity that does not have an impact on the environment. The big fight is how much is acceptable and who sets the standard because everyone's differs. Fortuneately, we have learned from our past mistakes and made huge strides. First hand experience seems to be the only way change happens. Otherwise the Chinese would not be doing what they're doing.

 

On your final comment we need legislation to make mistakes of any kind illegal.

 

I look forward to meeting on the river bank some day. We can settle the argument with a casting contest as I drink very rarely. Hopefully, you can teach me some things. I'd rather be fishing than typing all this.

 

Cheers

[Harps]

Hey RickR,

Guiness it is. Good post, I have extreme personal views (okay, not to extreme), but I act in moderation.... I have to for what I do. Strides have been taken in the right direction... I'd have hoped that there would be less accidents rather than more.

 

Castuserraticus,

I won't even start on Ag... that'd have Clive coming down on my head.

In my job, everyday I see streambed disturbance by O&G. Portable steel bridges are the rare form of crossing that I dream of as the norm. More often it is temp culverts, logfills, and icefills.

Your access is in winter only for a good reason, even if you don't see it. Caribou and elk winter- there are other uses for the area besides O&G. I'm not going to comment on the consultations.

 

Reclimation of sites... well we'll have to disagree on that.

 

There are extensive regulations, applied a little like patchwork, but I agree, there should be better standards across the board.

 

As for procedures... I don't know how often you apply or talk to regulatory agencies, not people you hire. Like you mentioned, I'm not clear on what you do, and you also don't know what I do. I have worked in the O&G field, most of it with regulations. This is my perspective though, from my personal Albertan (and Alaskan) experiences. I've grown up here and as an Albertan, and like most in this province, I have been exposed to the political, economic, social and environmental atmospheres that impact resource development (whether it is oil and gas, agriculture or even recreational activities- I think most know my opinion of jet boating…).

 

Plus these arguments represent what I like to do in my spare time...

 

Hopefully we'll get a chance to wet a line together, I may be short on the casting contest, but I find a good civil conversation about differing views, an excellent way to pass the time.

 

Cheers,

[castor]

Castus,

 

Harps' job is enforcing the procedures that industry doesn't know. It is exactly because of this that I believe that he does know the procedures, and the he knows damn well that industry doesn't.

 

That's not to say that you don't, but not all those applying for permits have your level of experience and I'm guessing that you weren't born with this knowledge and maybe you made a few mistakes just like everybody else does when they learn something. Now that you've considered your situation, think about all the development taking place right now; on the whole, X times the development means X times as many people have to make the same mistakes, have to learn the procedures. After all, first hand experience seems to be the only way to learn anything. Just ask the Chinese. (sorry China - not my example)

 

To bring this back to the original post, please bear in mind that what you see in the media (TV, print, internet, radio) has already been spun to achieve the greatest impact and nice stories don't sell. To demonstrate the concept, consider the Wabamun Lake situation (all fictional numbers now).

 

After two years (almost exactly), an estimated 799,000 litres of the estimated 800,000 litres spilled has now been cleaned up..... When a reporter from the Journal is send to write this story it might be titled "99% of Deralinment Contamination Recovered". This is a great story for page 32, right beside the story of the old woman that just ran the same marathon she first ran 45 years ago. Now if it were titled "CN Admits 1,000 Litres of Toxic Sludge Unaccounted For", you've got front page material. Now you're slagging big business, using the term "Toxic Sludge", and creating the mystery of missing chemicals. This is hot stuff. You can discuss the suspected carcinogenic nature of some of the chemicals (most have never been studied definatively) and ignore that the menacing tarballs actually encapsulate most of the oil. (Personally, I know that tarballs are bad because my cousin knows a guy that got bit by one then had to get needles to prevent infection. And another guy I know, his neighbour's dog got taken down by three of them while it was swimming by their dock, pulled him right under and he never came back up. Some of the bones washed up on shore two days later. Swear to god.)

 

The point is that you can't just be spoonfed whatever you' re being told. There are no sources provided, and the data presented in this article is clearly slanted. I would suggest that the reason the number of spills reported has increased is likely a combination of more activity and that more spills are being reported. Doubling the number of spills reported doesn't necessarily mean that double the volume of oil has been spilled and the fact that one was a large spill is convienient if you want to focus on the negative, but it clearly isn't representative of all the spills reported. You've gotta ask yourself the questions, or might look like just another silly sheep.

[Pythagoras]

Taco...LMFAO!

 

"I generally find that generalizations generally suck"

 

Oh man, I'm so gonna use that...

 

lmfao

[reevesr1]

I have worked in the O&G field, most of it with regulations.

 

You've worked with regulations? I just thought you were a fisherman and an environmentalist on the side. I wouldn't be caught dead hanging with anyone whose worked with regulators. Imagine the scandal.

 

Kidding. Drop me a PM when you are downtown one day and we'll find us some Guiness!

[SteveM]

Harps,

I'll have a civil discussion with you. Preferrably over a Guiness, that is if you don't drink some sort of organic compound you pinko liberal tree hugger (did I say that out loud? Just foolin'!) By the end of the beers I'll have you rushing out to buy an H1 and a quad. Or maybe I will strip naked, grow my balding hair as long as I can, and chain myself to the nearest sour wellhead.

 

Lots to respond to in your above post. But instead of taking them on one by one, I think I'll wax philsophic for a moment, or maybe two.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how easy it is for us to believe supposed facts, opinions, scientific 'findings', etc. that fit nicely with our belief systems. Conversely, how easy it is for us to discount or discredit anything that does not fit those beliefs. I do not in any way exclude myself from my proclivity to fall into that trap. Another thing I have noticed is that over the past couple of decades, environmentalism has become more akin to a religion than anything else, with lots of different sects. Like any religion, there are moderate (faithful stewards of the enviornment), conservative (planet rapers), and fundamental (extremist) movements. How those are defined depends on where you see yourself. In my case (a bit tounge in cheek here)

rickr=moderate steward of the environment. Everyone should think like me

harps=extremist (but a friendly, well intentioned one)

toolman= planet raper (I mean come on, he makes tools for the forestry industry. Just kidding bud!)

 

From Harps viewpoint (again, exaggerating for effect)

Harps=moderate steward of the enviroment

rickr=planet raper (and a American one at that. A Evil man)

PETA=extremist (just a guess)

 

What happens with these labels we tend to give is that many people will only believe someone who is a member of their group. Everyone else is just wrong. Always. About everything. To me, the saddest part is the lack of communication/association between the groups, however you define them. If we don't listen to differing ideas, how do we learn anything? Also, it is BORING to only listen to people who think like you.

 

So to get back to the original discussion: I truly believe the O&G industry has made great strides in my career at better considering its' impact on the environment. We are also much better at reporting where we are falling down. That being said, we certainly have room to improve. So while this economy needs the O&G industry to prosper to maintain its' economic health, the industry needs people who are looking out for the environment to rub our collective noses in it from time to time. A you need us and we need you sort of arrangement, no matter how much we try to deny it. But we do need to listen to each side and not alway instantly start lobbing intellectual bombs at each other. Kumbayaa baby!

 

Goldang it, Rick, now I'm starting to understand why you're balding- it's from rubbing your head whilst waxing philosophical & thinking

too hard! Very interesting discussion ( and this is coming from someone who, like most, doesn't think about these issues a lot); such

good points from everyone- amazing thing, perspective....

And now, back to the debate...

 

Kum- beeyaaaahhh baby, indeed!

 

-Steve M-

[SteveM]

Boy, sure didn't take long for you to rise to the bait. Wish I could get some trout to do that! I was just being funny. I don't think you really rape the planet. There may be some larger browns around who disagree with this however!

 

I do disagree with your take that large corps are left with stern looks and warnings. I think that like many other things, we remember the times where it seems the big company got off and forget when they are hit with the multi-million dollar fines, since they so obviously deserved it. And whether we like it or not, catastrophic errors will ALWAYS occur. No matter how well you plan or execute a project, there is always residual risk involved. I did risk analysis for a couple of years and no matter how well you do it (and I was pretty good at it, pat on the back), you just can't plan for everything. And the thing about residual risk is, given enough operations, the bad thing will happen either through human error, lack of planning, outside interference, whatever. The goal is to limit the chance of it happening as much as possible. We do that. When problems happen, it ain't always because of greed. Greed is a nice, easy target, but like many easy targets, the truth is almost always much more complicated.

 

Also, any belief that industry (and I mean any industry here) is not held accountable for mistakes, is mistaken. It's the level of accountability that is always in question. Most often depends what side of the fence you are on whether it is acceptable to you or not.

 

Did you just call my philosophical musings BS? That hurts mang!

 

Just so there's no misunderstanding, Rick: Are you really saying that Greg rapes large browns?

Now I understand why he likes to fish after dark...

[Castuserraticus]

Harps - You obviously have more direct contact with violations that I ever will. You're comments remind me of one of my partners who's a lawyer. His experience working for and against corporate clients causes him to see people with a pretty jaded view. He's always telling me I'm too naive and trusting. However, I can't possibly possess all the knowledge in the universe so we hire the best people we can find, express our intent, and trust in their knowledge and actions.