Dead Birds In Fort Mcmurray

[beedhead]

And nobody reports it to the proper authorities...

To report an environmental emergency (like a spill), please call the joint federal - Alberta Hotline at 1-800-222-6514 (24 hour emergency/complaint line)

... and stay anonomys if you want, but call- it doesn't hurt.

 

That's the point...The Oil comps hire these so called enviro hands...and they don't do nothing but take a couple samples...And call it good...Shouldn't these hired, so called enviromentalists be doing a more than putting a false reprt on on paper...????...At the time I was Filling in on the rig...And thought I had done the right thing, as to tell the enviro dudes what was going on...And they said they would look after it..Only after the spill had stopped, and run out of volume...It stopped...As far as I could tell the next day....

 

Thanx for the tip on the hotline...If I see crap like that again...It shall be phoned...

 

Cheers....I think...Jeff...

[Jeffro]

Wongrs,

 

Unfortunately being in the business I am not allowed to disclose any specifics regarding my specific work without prior consent, but I will do my best to answer your questions (and I do not agree with censorship in the scientific community).

 

One of the biggest problems with windfarm locations is that they are placed where there is a high volume of wind and they will be able to efficiently harness that wind. Usually this will consist of a ridgeline or hill top. Migrating species tend to use these ridgelines during their migrations to help them find their way back to their summer stomping grounds (and on the return trip). This to me is the most underlying problem, because no matter how much you micro-manage where each and every turbine is specifically located, the windfarm is still going to be placed where the bulk of one species or another passes through while on their migrations. There are setbacks for sensitive wildlife (aka a nesting raptors, Sharp-tailed grouse leks, endangered species, etc.), but these simply just provide a little more space for the species affected, not protection from hitting a wind turbine blade travelling over 300 km/hr.

 

Going through the windfarms on the ECP list, at least 3/4 of those in Alberta are right smack in the thick of one of our bat migration corridors. There is also a large volume of passerines that migrate through that corridor. Summerview (one from the list) is actually one of the reasons there is post-construction monitoring going on. They have had what would be deemed major events for kills specifically for hoary and silver-haired bats (around 500). This may not seem like a lot of impact, but if you include the other mortalities seen at the windfarm during the year and these turbines will have a life expectancy of around 25 years, you start to get into a bigger picture of whats happening. Unfortunately not all windfarms are monitored (or at least not properly) and a lot of information is inaccessible or inaccurate.

 

I would gladly continue to ramble on, but it's late and I'm tired. Feel free to PM me Wongrs and I can provide some better insight to what goes on at the ground level.

[reevesr1]

Clive,

I understand people's aversion to the "obscene" profits the oil companies are making. Sounds like everyone is getting screwed. You cited Shell's profits in Q1. This is Shell's North American President's reply to a reporters question:

 

"Look at our revenues and our income for the last quarter. If we had made $7.8 million on $114 million of revenue, nobody would call that excessive, because that's 7½ percent. We made $7.8 billion profit on $114 billion revenue -- same 7½ percent. So to me that is not an excessive number when banks and pharmaceuticals and IT companies earn a whole lot more."

 

Of course the statement is self serving, but 7.5% profit isn't that big a number. Now 114Billion is!

 

Almost all of my oil patch work has been in Canada. Several years ago I went down to the States to help train on one of our new systems. I was shocked at the difference in the states. Everything was dirtier, older, less well maintained, etc. Environmentally, Canada is orders of magnitudes over what I saw in the Northern US. While there is lots still to do, you guys really are on the right track.

[dryfly]

Thanks rickr. Also thanks to Jeffro for his first-hand insights.

[Guest Sundancefisher]

Clive,

I understand people's aversion to the "obscene" profits the oil companies are making. Sounds like everyone is getting screwed. You cited Shell's profits in Q1. This is Shell's North American President's reply to a reporters question:

 

"Look at our revenues and our income for the last quarter. If we had made $7.8 million on $114 million of revenue, nobody would call that excessive, because that's 7½ percent. We made $7.8 billion profit on $114 billion revenue -- same 7½ percent. So to me that is not an excessive number when banks and pharmaceuticals and IT companies earn a whole lot more."

 

Of course the statement is self serving, but 7.5% profit isn't that big a number. Now 114Billion is!

 

Almost all of my oil patch work has been in Canada. Several years ago I went down to the States to help train on one of our new systems. I was shocked at the difference in the states. Everything was dirtier, older, less well maintained, etc. Environmentally, Canada is orders of magnitudes over what I saw in the Northern US. While there is lots still to do, you guys really are on the right track.

 

Thanks for posting this Rick

 

Many people tend to look with tunnel vision at the number and not the big picture. People never think of what is a fair rate of return for capital invested.

 

For instance...saying a company made $5 billion dollars seems like highway robbery. Well McDonald's restaurants made that profit last year. Nobody complains about that "big" corporation. Very large oil companies spend very large amounts of money exploring and producing oil and gas in a ever increasingly expensive environment. Therefore there is no difference to them. In fact the rates of returns have historically been much lower than many other more favored investments. Only the rising oil and gas prices have been able to keep oil and gas companies in the black.

 

Clive...if you show me any oil and gas company making obsene profits insofar as rate of return is concerned and I will be investing immediately.

 

As for the original topic on the oil sands bird fiasco...

 

Firstly, stupid of the company to have not complied with the regulations regardless of this "small" magnitude impact on birds

Secondly, the publicity and fines will make them and any others cringe about having that happen again and rightly so

Thirdly, it is humanities job to ensure that there is no undue suffering and that there is mitigation in place to protect the environment for future generations therefore there are fines and regs in place

Fourthly, tree huggers should not rejoice for green energy is killing more animals that the oil sands, dams and wind power are not everything people think it is.

Fifthly, Outdoorsmen should not be screaming to loud either as they are big into killing birds, animals and fish and public opinion has gone against them either...PETA will love to join your call to label all deaths as unnecessary. Think of the wounded birds, animals and fish that go unharvested or get poached!

Sixthly...now that we have an NDPervative Government in place things can only get more screwed up...

 

Cheers

 

Sun

[dryfly]

sun .. all good points.

 

Regarding my perception that oil companies are screwing us .. it is VERY easy perception to have. I am filling up with buck twenty petrol while I am listening to the radio telling me about the huge oil company profits. It is not hard to feel you are being gouged.

 

The rest of this hype about the tars sands dead birds was, is and will be blown way out of proportion. It is very sad, but it is minuscule in the big scheme of things. The eco weenies are quick to find fault with anything to do with conventional energy and turn a blind eye to the issues alternate sources.

[reevesr1]

sun .. all good points.

 

Regarding my perception that oil companies are screwing us .. it is VERY easy perception to have. I am filling up with buck twenty petrol while I am listening to the radio telling me about the huge oil company profits. It is not hard to feel you are being gouged.

 

The rest of this hype about the tars sands dead birds was, is and will be blown way out of proportion. It is very sad, but it is minuscule in the big scheme of things. The eco weenies are quick to find fault with anything to do with conventional energy and turn a blind eye to the issues alternate sources.

 

You are right about that! I, like everyone else, am feeling pain at the pump. Particularly when oil is going up more on speculation (read: emotion) than anything else. But I will say it is not the responsibility of the oil refiners to lower margins because the cost of their feed stock is going up. But it don't stop it from suckin'.

 

As far as the eco weenies finding fault:

True. But I can make the same observation about many who argue the other side as well......

[wongrs]

what's an eco-weenie?

 

how would one go about defining an eco-weenie? am i an eco-weenie because i like trees and fish?

[reevesr1]

what's an eco-weenie?

 

how would one go about defining an eco-weenie? am i an eco-weenie because i like trees and fish?

 

Hell Rich, that one's easy, but it depends on the definer.

 

For example, since you are more ecologically conscious than I, you my friend are an eco-weenie.

Since dryfly is less environmentally conscious than I in a GW sense, he is a planet raper. (remember, this is an example, not a declaration! )

 

I on the other hand am completely fair and balanced in my approach to the environment.

 

But your definition is probably different:

 

David Suziki is more environmentally conscious than you (I think) and is therefore an eco-weenie

I am less conscious, and a planet raper

You are completely fair and balanced.

 

See how it works? Simple, yet terribly complicated.

[Castuserraticus]

Clive,

I understand people's aversion to the "obscene" profits the oil companies are making. Sounds like everyone is getting screwed. You cited Shell's profits in Q1. This is Shell's North American President's reply to a reporters question:

 

"Look at our revenues and our income for the last quarter. If we had made $7.8 million on $114 million of revenue, nobody would call that excessive, because that's 7½ percent. We made $7.8 billion profit on $114 billion revenue -- same 7½ percent. So to me that is not an excessive number when banks and pharmaceuticals and IT companies earn a whole lot more."

 

Of course the statement is self serving, but 7.5% profit isn't that big a number. Now 114Billion is!

 

Almost all of my oil patch work has been in Canada. Several years ago I went down to the States to help train on one of our new systems. I was shocked at the difference in the states. Everything was dirtier, older, less well maintained, etc. Environmentally, Canada is orders of magnitudes over what I saw in the Northern US. While there is lots still to do, you guys really are on the right track.

 

Exxon announced their record profit - same profit margin of about 7 1/2 %. They were about break even on the refining side. For reference, it's about the same margin as Safeway. Free markets are amazingly efficient. Competition is very effective at knocking down "excess profit".

 

"Dirtier, older, less well maintained..." The workers?

 

Bird kill facts - the largest single source of kills are lighted radio towers. There are reported instances of greater than 10,000 birds killed in one night at single towers. This tends to affect larger birds with big wingspans. The problem is the towers and the stabilizing cables. This happens in every country around the world. Alberta is being vilified internationally over 500 waterfowl. Go Greenpeace. Go media.

[dryfly]

"what's an eco-weenie? "

 

rickr hit it on the head. Bingo. It's all about perspective. I am an "earth raper" because I drive an 8 cylinder truck (on occasion), so an eco weenie is anyone with a 4-cylinder car and who complains about my truck. And to a guy who rides a bike everywhere the 4-cylinder guy is an "earth rapist" and the cyclist is the eco con weenie.

 

I see eco weenies as anyone who thinks when it comes to the environment they have SDS and everyone else is a bastard.

 

I always wondered what an "environmentalist" is. I see it in "letters to the editor" all of the time. It is a pompous statement about to one's self appointed status. I know a local self-anointed "environmentalist" who is thinks Al Gore is a God..just like Al Gore thinks he is a God. And this local environmentalist lives with her hubby in two homes totaling about 5,000 square feet. Right! (And Al gore lives in a 10,000 sq ft mansion.) She accuses me of being an "earth rapist," but she and her hubby leave more of a footprint as Blondie and I. She has SDS big time.

 

Castuserraticus.. yeah tower lines are a biggie. Buildings and windows THE biggest; cats are huge; and road kills also huge. Never hear about these...well we see something about buildings now and then.

 

Based on the highly scientific survey adc and I took yesterday there were at LEAST as many road killed birds on Alberta's highways yesterday (alone) as died in this tar sands event. We saw 3 fresh dead birds (seagulls all) in about 100 km of paved road...there are 20K of paved roads in AB....that's at least 600 road kill birds on AB's highways on ONE day. What is to be done about this slaughter!?!?! :P Oh the shame! blah blah blah.

 

Who in this thread said something about fly fishermen should be a tad careful in what they say? Let's say C&R anglers release 50,000 rainbows and browns on the Bow River annually. Based on the "science," they kill at least 1,000 trout annually!! (it is probably more.)

 

We ALL have a footprint. It is our duty (and that of Suncor) to minimize that impact within reason. None of us like any unwanted wildlife deaths, but they are a reality of life.

 

Y'all have a swell weekend. I am going to take pictures this afternoon..nice sunny day here.

[reevesr1]

Alberta is being vilified internationally over 500 waterfowl. Go Greenpeace. Go media.

 

Yeah, but each side does this. They take any piece of information that supports their belief and beats everyone over the head with it. I mean both sides of any debate. Particularly any debate that is extremely difficult, if not completely impossible, to prove one way or the other. Unfortunately, like politics these days, environmentalism as a whole and GW specifically has become more like a religion than an issue. Two sides standing on opposite sides of the proverbial road shouting slogans at each other. Each side convinced the other is 100% wrong all the time and they are 100% right all the time.

 

And dryfly is completely correct. We all have a footprint and should do what we can to minimize it, within reason. And each of us defines what is "within reason"

 

Oh and castus-the older, dirtier and less well maintained is me!!

[wongrs]

well that's exactly why i ask the question "what defines an eco-weenie". if it's about perspective, then jimmy-jo-poacher (or even perhaps rush limbaugh or ann coulter) would call you and i "eco-weenies" because we think fish should be conserved and not poached. for that matter, mr. poacher might accuse the provincial or federal government of being eco-weenies because they dare to impose catch limits or close down waters for spawning. well how dare a bunch of fisherman sponsor more patrollers on my poaching waters! eco-weenies! look at those eco-weenies cleaning up rivers...idiots! or perhaps exxon mobil believes we're eco-weenies because we would like them to pay their fine for the exxon-valdez catastrophe.

 

to me the term "eco-weenie" implies that you are demonizing people who care about their environment and their environmental footprint. you've both noted that we should try to limit our impacts whether it they be land, air, wildlife or water impacts and obviously i'd agree with that. you are in fact trying to use the term to describe people that support in global warming. by the way, labeling people and demonizing them on their beliefs is also a form of discrimination. really people are going to have varying degrees to how much they believe an idea or not...it's not simply black and white.

 

just because i (or anybody else) might be an eco-weenie doesn't really mean that i deserve a negative label because by reducing my impacts (whether they be GHG or other) it really benefits you in other ways. for example reducing my power consumption to reduce my GHG emissions would also reduce the amount of acid rain precursor emissions and heavy metal emissions that end up blowing over into saskatchewan/manitoba. it would also reduce the amount of mining operations going on in say the elk river valley. my ghg reductions are helping to reduce other impacts that you would care about.

 

i don't think you have a problem with people that are eco-weenies. i think you have a problem with people telling you what to do or people telling you what to do while they do the opposite. those terms are called being 'bossy' or being 'hypocritical'. being an eco-weenie is a good thing. caring about your environment is a good thing and caring about bird kills in a toxic tailings pond is a good thing regardless of what's happening elsewhere in the world.

 

and just so you know, most people are aware of al gore's and david suzuki's strengths and faults. they have good and bad qualities just like everybody else.

[reevesr1]

and just so you know, most people are aware of al gore's and david suzuki's strengths and faults. they have good and bad qualities just like everybody else.

 

Hell, I voted for one of them. Three times, once for prez and twice as vp. I could very well be the only white, male, Texan engineer who can make that statement.

 

I don't know how many of you ever use the Urban Legend website to debunk outrageous stories circulating the internet. My favorite urban legend is "Al Gore said he invented the internet." Al Gore was involved in approving funding early internet research, and in fact, has been honored for the fact. Al Gore said he helped CREATE the internet. Much like Eisenhower could have said "I helped CREATE the Interstate Highway system." Big difference.

 

Al Gore Urban Myth

 

Truth be known, I like Al Gore. Always have. I think his heart is in the right place. I have no idea whether or not he is correct in his views on GW. But I personally do not believe he is doing it for any reason other than he believes he is doing it to help. I also believe he needs to change his personal footprint as well.

 

Wish he would have won 8 yrs ago. My homeland would almost certainly be in a better place. Could hardly have done worse.

[kipper]

..just wondering..I hunted ducks for years and never did a duck that landed in water sink...and if I am not mistaken oil is less dense than water so an oil soaked bird would still float to a certain degree? Anyway it is tragic but is it possible there were only 5 ducks and not 500..never saw any of the 500 dead ones.Just a thought

[kipper]

..just wondering..I hunted ducks for years and never did a duck that landed in water sink...and if I am not mistaken oil is less dense than water so an oil soaked bird would still float to a certain degree? Anyway it is tragic but is it possible there were only 5 ducks and not 500..never saw any of the 500 dead ones.Just a thought

 

sorry this should read 495 dead birds as 5 were "rescued".

[reevesr1]

..just wondering..I hunted ducks for years and never did a duck that landed in water sink...and if I am not mistaken oil is less dense than water so an oil soaked bird would still float to a certain degree? Anyway it is tragic but is it possible there were only 5 ducks and not 500..never saw any of the 500 dead ones.Just a thought

 

I may be wrong about this, but I think the sink because their feathers absorb the oil (they are water resistant, not oil resistant), they loose their buoyancy, can't fly, and sink.