Red Deer River oil leak

[Bear00]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle4241238/

[pikergolf]

more..
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories...-spill-120608/

[tommyguitar]

[Lonnie]

not enuogh of a spill to worry abuot its just a small leak hardly news worthy and very little environmental impact and its all natural stuff from the ground any way. if you believe this,do I have a big bridge to sell you.

[keeks]

http://emergencyalert.alberta.ca/ale...12/06/986.html

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Lonnie

not enuogh of a spill to worry abuot its just a small leak hardly news worthy and very little environmental impact and its all natural stuff from the ground any way. if you believe this,do I have a big bridge to sell you.

I'd call 5000-15000 gallons a significant spill...and the impact upon the river could be quite serious.... at least in the short term.

[Lonnie]

Originally Posted by pesky672

I'd call 5000-15000 gallons a significant spill...and the impact upon the river could be quite serious.... at least in the short term.

short term effects can be cleaned up and used to show how good they are at making people feel good or throw a bunch of money aruond to make most people happy its the long term effects that they don't know or the ones that they know about that there not telling that worry me the most.

[Big Daddy Badger]

Originally Posted by Lonnie

short term effects can be cleaned up and used to show how good they are at making people feel good or throw a bunch of money aruond to make most people happy its the long term effects that they don't know or the ones that they know about that there not telling that worry me the most.

I'm a bit confused...you just finished saying it was nothing to worry about.
Were you just joking before?

[deanmc]

Originally Posted by pesky672

I'd call 5000-15000 gallons a significant spill...and the impact upon the river could be quite serious.... at least in the short term.

1000-3000 BARRELS!! That is 45,000 to 135,000 gallons!

[Lonnie]

Originally Posted by pesky672

I'm a bit confused...you just finished saying it was nothing to worry about.
Were you just joking before?

reread my first post, especially the last line about the bridge. not realy a joke, but yes

[bb356]

Originally Posted by deanmc

1000-3000 BARRELS!! That is 45,000 to 135,000 gallons!

How many cube's for us french guy's ???

[fajita123]

160-480 m3

[prairiecustom]

Originally Posted by deanmc

1000-3000 BARRELS!! That is 45,000 to 135,000 gallons!

Actually a barrel of oil is not 45 gal. It is 42 US gal,or 159 liters or 35 imp gal.
That being said it is still quite a bit.

[chasingtail]

It makes bait and barbed hook bans insignificant when stuff like this happens. From what I know of the Mountain View County Councillors they won't go easy on them.

[silverdoctor]

That's going to be a big impact to the river and everything downstream. Sweet geesus. least with wabamun, it was standing water and containable for the most. Wow.

[Lonnie]

this maybe the blessing in disguise as its just a little sample of what will happen if they put a pipe line thuogh the mountains of B.C

[canuck]

Originally Posted by Lonnie

this maybe the blessing in descize as its just a little sample of what will happen if they put a pipe line thuogh the mountains of B.C

Ok, this hurt my head

descize

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disguise



You do realize that there are pipelines through the mountains of BC already?

[boroumand8]

Hey guys you've probably all heard about the oil spill in the red deer river and I'm just wondering if any of you have any recent updates on the spill or just anything really. Thanks a lot, I'm just a bit worried since I get my drinking water from the river.

[FishingMOM]

http://www.outdoorsmenforum.ca/showthread.php?t=136434

[canuck]

Originally Posted by boroumand8

Hey guys you've probably all heard about the oil spill in the red deer river and I'm just wondering if any of you have any recent updates on the spill or just anything really. Thanks a lot, I'm just a bit worried since I get my drinking water from the river.

Why worry?
The gov't will take care of you

Alberta Premier Alison Redford, who visited the cleanup site with her Environment Minister Friday, pledged that her Progressive Conservative government would take action if necessary

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...38/?cmpid=rss1

[Lonnie]

Originally Posted by canuck

Ok, this hurt my head
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/disguise



You do realize that there are pipelines through the mountains of BC already?

yes I do, and to put a new one like gateway through to kitimat is nuts it will be crossing and running beside some of the freshest water in north america. they claim that fresh water will be the next highest commodity to oil. and you probably couldn't give oil contaminated water away but even now there is a good market for fresh water. Imagine what it will be like in 40 to 50 years from now. but if there is any trace of oil residue in it you probably won't be able to give it away. oil is an important natral resource but so is water.

[boroumand8]

"He reported the oil leak and, within two hours, a helicopter dispatched by a local oil company landed on his 57-acre property near Sundre, Alta., to fly him over the devastating scene. Mr. Johnston, who works in the oil patch, could see oil “boiling up” in the river at the site of a pipeline crossing. By Friday morning, the situation had worsened. Oil clotted one of the province’s most crucial waterways and soaked nearby wetlands. He found a dead fish coated with oil and brought a tar-covered baby beaver to a wildlife refuge.

“My place is destroyed,” Mr. Johnston said, as he prepared to abandon his home and later head for a hospital to be treated for exposure to the fumes. “My whole life’s work is gone. I’ve pretty well lost it all here.”"

Ummmmm

[canuck]

Agreed, but keep in mind that the pipeline failures we are seeing now are 30-40-50 year old lines.
The industry has come a long way since these old pipelines were first installed and any new line should be much more long-lived.

Don't get me wrong, these events turn my stomach, but what is the alternative?

Maybe we should go back to sod huts and horse drawn buggys?

[Lonnie]

Originally Posted by boroumand8

Hey guys you've probably all heard about the oil spill in the red deer river and I'm just wondering if any of you have any recent updates on the spill or just anything really. Thanks a lot, I'm just a bit worried since I get my drinking water from the river.

if I were you I think that I wuold start buying my drinking water in bottles from town, you never know what the long term effects cuold be.

[Bigrib]

Originally Posted by canuck

Don't get me wrong, these events turn my stomach, but what is the alternative?

The alternative is to keep it in the ground , except for domestic needs .

[woods_walker]

What kind of action is being done on these 40-50 year old lines that will prevent other spills like this from happening (not sure on the age of this one). Are spills like this just a sign of things to come with all of the aging infrastructure buried in the ground?

[Lonnie]

Originally Posted by canuck

Agreed, but keep in mind that the pipeline failures we are seeing now are 30-40-50 year old lines.
The industry has come a long way since these old pipelines were first installed and any new line should be much more long-lived.

Don't get me wrong, these events turn my stomach, but what is the alternative?

Maybe we should go back to sod huts and horse drawn buggys?

they may have come a long way in 30-40-50 years but not far enough as it seems to be cheaper to have oil spills than shut the oil off and replace the lines and as long as its that way they will keep doing business that way and if you look into the big oil clean up companies there owned by oil companies this makes a lot of sence becuase who wuold no more abuot oil than oil companies but the catch is that it is usualy the goverment that is paying for the long term clean ups and effects, and oil companies seem to be great at sucking up free goverment money as that is why there in business.

[canuck]

Originally Posted by Bigrib

The alternative is to keep it in the ground , except for domestic needs .

And who pays for that??
Don't be a simpleton.

Originally Posted by woods_walker

What kind of action is being done on these 40-50 year old lines that will prevent other spills like this from happening (not sure on the age of this one). Are spills like this just a sign of things to come with all of the aging infrastructure buried in the ground?

I'm not sure, but I believe this line dates to the mid 60s
The companys that own these lines do what they can I'm sure, but the fact is the pipe was put in the ground long ago.
Expect more pipeline failures, its going to happen.

Originally Posted by Lonnie

they may have come a long way in 30-40-50 years but not far enough as it seems to be cheaper to have oil spills than shut the oil off and replace the lines and as long as its that way they will keep doing business that way and if you look into the big oil clean up companies there owned by oil companies this makes a lot of sence becuase who wuold no more abuot oil than oil companies but the catch is that it is usualy the goverment that is paying for the long term clean ups and effects, and oil companies seem to be great at sucking up free goverment money as that is why there in business.

Who would pay to replace millions of miles of pipeline?
The oil co's? Not likely - cleaning a spill would be much cheaper.
Ya, we - the gov't - pay our fair share to keep industry alive.

Again I ask, what is the alternative??
You guys are living in the most bountiful piece of the world there is!
If you want to get rid of the oil industry, expect to live worse than an poor african (at least they don't have sub-zero temps!)
What else would fuel our economy!??

Again, I am disgusted by the events unfolding, but lets be realistic - it is our lifeblood in this province, no, this COUNTRY!!

[BeeGuy]

Originally Posted by Bigrib

The alternative is to keep it in the ground , except for domestic needs .

I like that idea.

[deanmc]

Originally Posted by prairiecustom

Actually a barrel of oil is not 45 gal. It is 42 US gal,or 159 liters or 35 imp gal.
That being said it is still quite a bit.

I learned something today!! lol Thanks

Oil barrel, (abbreviation bbl): 42 US gallons (34.9723 imp gal; 158.9873 L)[7](but see caveat below regarding conversion to metric units)
The standard oil barrel of 42 US gallons is used in the United States as a measure of crude oil and other petroleum products.

The origins of the 42-gallon oil barrel are obscure, but some historical documents indicate that around 1866, early oil producers in Pennsylvania came to the conclusion that shipping oil in a variety of different containers was causing buyer distrust. They decided they needed a standard unit of measure to convince buyers that they were getting a fair volume for their money. They agreed to base this measure on the more-or-less standard 40-gallon whiskey barrel, but, as an additional way of assuring buyer confidence, they added an additional two gallons to ensure that any measurement errors would always be in the buyer's favor, on the same principle as that underlying the baker's dozen and some other long units of measure.