Showing posts with label dangers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dangers. Show all posts

Shell Downplays Crude Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico (Video)

On May the 12th Shell claims that its offshore Brutus platform spewed 88,200 gallons of crude (2,100 barrels) into the Gulf of Mexico. The spill in Shell's Glider field created a 13 mile long by 2 mile wide oil slick in an area 97 miles south of Port Fourchon, Louisiana. Shell offered the standard commentaries as dictated by their post-spill public relations protocols. The incident has been contained the said and "cleanup operations are underway." Shell spokesperson Kimberly Windon added, "no release is acceptable, and safety remains our priority as we respond to this incident."

Historically post spill press releases from the offending company tend to radically underplay the amount spilled and the dangers that these spills pose. 



BP infamously underplayed the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A total of eleven men died on that day in 2010. This oil spill went on to become the largest in history leaking a staggering 3 million barrels of oil to into the Gulf. The cost to marine life has been devastating and it is being felt to this day. In 2015 BP reached a settlement with the US government in which it agreed to pay $20 billion in fines and penalties.

The recent Shell leak appears to have originated in a subsea well-head flow line that connects four wells in the Green Canyon area to the Brutus platform. In 2011 another of Shell's flow lines sprung a leak, the time in the North Sea. Shell has also been the subject of derision for its test drilling in the Arctic. Their Arctic drilling exploits have not gone well. First one of their oil rigs ran aground and then they abandoned the Arctic as the price of oil fell below the point where this oil was financially viable. Then on Friday May 13th Shell was forced to give up all of its oil concessions in the Arctic except one.

The May 11th oil spill adds to the large and growing number of spills. This is but the latest of “thousands” of oil industry accidents in the Gulf of Mexico every year. In fact spills have become commonplace, as evidenced by this summary of fossil fuel spills in 2015.

Whether by pipe, rail or tanker, oil cannot be safely transported.  Offshore oil has its own unique set of risks that set it apart and make it an even more dangerous proposition. However, offshore oil is an avoidable tragedy.

For these and other reasons President Obama is being pressed to deny any additional offshore oil drilling leases in the Gulf.

Greenpeace Stalls Arctic Drilling by Blocking Shell's Ice Breaker (Video)

Late in July an icebreaker that is crucial to Shell's drilling operation in the Arctic sea was turned back by Greenpeace activists in Portland, Oregon. Activists spent almost 2 days suspended from St. Johns Bridge, while others took to kayaks in Willamette River below. However they managed to block Shell's icebreaker, the MSV Fennica from leaving the city on July 30th. The emergency equipment on-board the Fennica is essential for Shell's drilling activities in the Arctic.

Hundreds of people gathered on the dock in support of the Greenpeace protest. After being threatened with fines of up to $10,000 an hour, law enforcement succeed in removing the activists from the area allowing the Fennica to pass. Here is a video report from Democracy Now.


Related
Obama Administration Cuts Shell's Arctic Drilling in Half
The Unacceptable Risks of Arctic Drilling
After a Failed Cover-up Shell Sub-Contractor Pleads Guilty
Save the Arctic from a "Death Sprial"
Greenpeace forces Lego to Dump Shell
Shell Pauses its Arctic Drilling for 2013
Video of the Oil Rig Belonging to Shell that Ran aground in Alaska
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil and Gas Drilling
Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell

Top 25 Oil Spills in the Last Decade

Here is a listing of the worst oil spills in the world in the last ten years. The information is listed in the following order: The name of the spill is followed by the country, location, date and quantity of oil spilled. Quantities are measured in tonnes of crude oil with one tonne roughly equal to 308 US gallons, or 7.33 barrels, or 1165 liters. 
______________________

1. Deepwater Horizon, United States, Gulf of Mexico, 20 April 2010 – 15 July 2010, 627,000 tonnes

2. 2010 ExxonMobil oil spill, Nigeria, Niger Delta, 1 May 2010, 95,500tonnes

3. Xingang Port oil spill, China, Yellow Sea, 16 July 2010 - 21 July 2010, 90,000tonnes

4. Montara oil spill, Australia, Timor Sea, 21 August 2009, 30,000 tonnes

5. Jiyeh power station oil spill, Lebanonk, 14 July 2006 - 15 July 2006, 30,000 tonnes

6. Tasman Spirit, Pakistan, Karachi 28 July 2003, 30,000 tonnes

7. Bass Enterprises (Hurricane Katrina), United States, Cox Bay, Louisiana 30 August 2005, 12,000 tonnes

8. 2007 Korea oil spill, South Korea, Yellow Sea, 7 December 2007, 10,800 tonnes

9. 2008 New Orleans oil spill, United States, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 July 2008, 8,800 tonnes

10. Citgo refinery oil spill United States, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 19 June 2006, 6,500 tonnes

11. Nigeria oil spill Nigeria, Bonga Field, 21 December 2011, 5,500 tonnes

12. 2007 Statfjord oil spill Norway, Norwegian Sea, 12 December 2007, 4,000 tonnes

13. 2011 Little Buffalo oil spill Canada, Alberta, 29 April 2011, 3,800  tonnes

14. Murphy Oil USA refinery spill (Hurricane Katrina) United States, Meraux and Chalmette, Louisiana 30 August 2005, 3,410 tonnes

15. Shell (Hurricane Katrina) United States, Pilottown, Louisiana, 30 August 2005, 3,400 tonnes

16. Kalamazoo River oil spill United States, Kalamazoo River, Calhoun County, Michigan, 26 July 2010, 3,250 tonnes

17. Chevron (Hurricane Katrina) United States, Empire, Louisiana, 30 August 2005, 3,200 tonnes

18. 2MT Bunga Kelana 3 Singapore, Singapore Strait, 25 May 2010, 2,500 tonnes

19. Kab 101 Mexico, Bay of Campeche, 23 October 2007 – 17 December 2007, 1,869 tonnes

20. Guimaras oil spill Philippines, 11 August 2006, 1,540 tonnes

21. MV Selendang Ayu, United States, Unalaska Island, Alaska, 8 December 2004, 1,560 tonnes

22. 2010 Port Arthur oil spill, United States, Port Arthur, Texas, 23 January 2010, 1,500 tonnes

23. Bass Enterprises (Hurricane Katrina), 1,560, 30 August 2005, 1,500 tonnes

24. Arthur Kill storage tank spill (Hurricane Sandy), United States, New Jersey, Sewaren, 29 October 2012 1,130 tonnes

25. Trans-Alaska Pipeline spill, United States, Anchorage, Alaska, 25 May 2010, 1,200 tonnes

Source: Wikipedia

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Another Leaking Pipeline in Montana
Video - Train Carrying Oil Derails Illustrating the Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
EPA Slams State Department on its Keystone XL Report
Oil Spills off the Coast of New Zealand
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Spills
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil Spills
Inadequate Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Pipeline
BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline
Another Offshore Oil Leak
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Another Gas Pipeline Rupture in Montana

Early in July a gasoline pipeline outside of the small town of Lodge Grass on Montana's Crow Indian Reservation spilled 25,000 gallons of gasoline. Over the last 20 years there have been at least three spills from the 8-inch underground pipeline now owned by Phillips 66.

The Lodge Grass spill comes almost two years to the day after 63,000 gallons of crude spilled into Montana's Yellowstone River from an Exxon Mobil line. The cleanup and repair costs for that spill totaled more than $135 million.

Phillips 66 is a Houston-based oil refinery and chemical company. They said the boken pipe outside of Lodge Grass will have to be excavated to be repaired and the contaminated soil likely will have to be removed.

The Seminoe pipeline carries gasoline, diesel and other refined petroleum products from Phillips 66's Billings refinery to Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. It has a maximum daily capacity of 46,000 barrels, which is equivalent to more than 1.9 million gallons.

Gasoline is highly toxic and gives off more dangerous fumes and is far more flamable than crude oil. When mixed with water gasoline can be even more damaging than oil.

In the same general area, the same pipeline spilled 2,300 barrels of gasoline in two seperate spills in one week in 1997.

The two spills and another 2001 pipeline leak near Conrad, Mont., resulted in a half million dollar settlement ($465,000) for violating the Clean Water Act. The line's former owner, Conoco Pipe Line Co.,

The environmentally destructive impacts of leaking pipelines are hardly the only concern associated with transporting fossil fuels. In Nigeria 120 people were burned alive in a pipeline rupture and fire in 2011 and more recently the small town of Megantic Quebec was decimated by the derailment of a train carrying oil.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Video - Train Carrying Oil Derails Destroying Town in Canada
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
EPA Slams State Department on its Keystone XL Report
Oil Spills off the Coast of New Zealand
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Spills
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil Spills
Inadequate Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Pipeline
BP Accused of Corporate Recklessness Including Willful Misconduct
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Cost of Oil: BP Barred from Doing Business with the US
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline
Another Offshore Oil Leak
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The Costs of Offshore Drilling

Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada

The province of Alberta and the oil industry are fighting to expand the tarsands and build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Canadian and Alberta government's are working hard to defend the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline which would ferry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.

Another controversial project, the Northern Gateway pipeline, would ferry oil from Alberta to the West Coast of British Columbia.

Government largely ignores the problem of pipeline ruptures which is endemic to the oil industry. Without the Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway there are already over 399,000 kilometres of pipelines under the authority of the Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board.

Despite the Alberta government's repeated assurances that oil spills are rare, they are in fact an unavoidable corollary of oil pipelines.

The entire oil pipeline network in Alberta has spilled approximately 28,000 barrels (~4,452 cubic metres) equivalent volumes of liquid hydrocarbons every year since 2005.

Flooding has caused pipes to shift spilling 750 barrels of synthetic oil from a pipeline in northern Alberta.

There have been many other oil spill in Alberta in recent years. As reviewed by Sean Kheraj's review of pipeline spills in Alberta from 1970 to 2005 and Kheraj's extensive summary of more recent oil spills from Alberta's pipelines between 2006 and 2012.

On June 7, 2012, the Sundre Petroleum Operators Group, a not-for-profit society, notified Plains Midstream Canada of a major oil pipeline failure near Sundre, Alberta that spilled an early estimate of between 1,000 and 3,000 barrels of light sour crude oil (~159-477 cubic metres) into Jackson Creek, a tributary of the Red Deer River. The river is one of the province’s most important waterways, providing drinking water for thousands of Albertans.

In late May 2012 an estimated 22,000 barrels of oil and water (~3,497 cubic metres) spilled across 4.3 hectares of muskeg in the northwest part of the province near Rainbow Lake. According to the Globe and Mail, this rupture, which occurred along a pipeline operated by Pace Oil & Gas, Ltd., “ranks among the largest in North America in recent years,” and certainly in the province of Alberta. A couple of weeks after the accident, the company downgraded the estimate to 5,000 barrels of sweet crude oil with no water (~795 cubic metres).

In 2011, 28,000 barrels (~4,452 cubic metres) of oil spilled on the Rainbow pipeline operated by Plains Midstream Canada near Little Buffalo, Alberta. The 2011 Plains Midstream oil pipeline rupture was one of the largest single spill events in recent memory,

On October 10, 2006, the Rainbow Pipe Line Company became aware of a crude oil spill on its pipeline 20 kilometres southeast of Slave Lake. Roughly 7,924 barrels of oil (~1,260 cubic metres) poured into a series of ponds near the northern Alberta town, despoiling wildlife habitat on what one local news outlet ironically referred to as “Black Tuesday.”

In mid-June 2008, Pembina Pipeline Corporation accidentally leaked 177 barrels of oil (28.1 cubic metres) into the Red Deer River, eventually resulting in a large oil slick on the surface of Glennifer Lake. Resorts on the Lake had to turn off their drinking water intakes to avoid human consumption of the contaminated water.

From 2006-2010, Alberta's pipeline network leaked roughly 174,213 barrels of oil (~27,700 cubic metres). In 2010 alone, more than 21,000 barrels (~3,400 cubic metres) were spilled across the network. 

Click here to see Kheraj's map of pipeline spills in Alberta from 2006 to 2012.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline Due in Part to Fears about Spills
The Fate of the Keystone XL in the Wake of President Obama's Climate Action Plan
Video - Will the Keystone XL Pipeline Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
EPA Slams State Department on its Keystone XL Report
Inadequate Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Pipeline
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Oil Spills
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell Temporarily Pauses its Arctic Drilling
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil Spills
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
BP Accused of Corporate Recklessness Including Willful Misconduct
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
The Cost of Oil: BP Barred from Doing Business with the US
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Video - Will the Keystone XL Pipeline Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?


This video addresses both sides of the debate on whether the Keystone XL pipeline will increase GHG production. The proposed pipeline would ferry tarsands from Alberta to refineries on Texas's Gulf Coast. On June 25th, 2013, President Obama made it clear that he will not authorize the building of the Keystone XL pipeline if it results in an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs). While it is widely understood that the tarsands are much more GHG intensive than traditional fossil fuels, the question is whether this would result in a net increase in GHG emissions. Those that support the building of the Keystone XL say that in the absence of the pipeline there would be increased transportation traffic (tankers and trucks) which would result in even greater levels of GHGs.

What this video does not address is the fact that more fossil fuel infrastructure and easier access to dirty sources of energy will detract from market based forces that would decrease our reliance on climate change causing sources of energy.

Related ArticlesThe Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline in the Wake of President Obama's Georgetown University Speech
Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for KeystoneCanada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Is Apple's Adoption of Sustainability Too Little Too Late?

Apple is trying to offset its long history of  unsustainable practices through a number of initiatives that include hiring former EPA head Lisa Jackson. Even if the company manages to clean up its act, they may be haunted by their past for years to come. As Apple strives to improve its sustainable performance, the company is being battered by allegations of tax avoidance. Over the last few years Apple has been plagued with a number of problems including criticisms of their labor force in China, concerns about their supply chain and a forced reversal on EPEAT.

These factors seem to have eroded the firm's bottom line. Apple's profits and stock valuations have all suffered in recent months. From the beginning of 2009 until the end of 2012 Apple's (AAPL) meteoric rise seemed unstoppable. Then the stock plummeted losing almost half its value in the first quarter of 2013 (Going from a high of more than $700 per share in September 2012 to $390 per share in April, 2013).

In 2011, Apple was accused of treating its Chinese workforce "inhumanely." Apple's supply chain has also been accused of being unsustainable, and according to a report issued by anti-pollution activists in China, Apple's secretive supply chain is both "dirty" and "poisonous."

Apple has done a 180 with its suppliers in China. In terms of progressive environmental policies, the company has gone from being one of the most uncooperative electronics companies to one of China's most proactive IT suppliers. Although Apple has significantly increased its sustainability efforts in a bid to try to catch up with other tech companies. One of the most significant efforts is Apple's new 500,000-square-foot data center in Maiden, N.C., which will be entirely powered by renewable energy.

In July, 2012, Apple reversed its position on EPEAT. This reversal demonstrates the company's recognition of the value of sustainability to its customer base. Apple was forced to capitulate on EPEAT due to the burgeoning demand for more responsible corporate conduct from customers, institutional buyers and activists. It also reflects the purchasing and procurement policies of institutional buyers like Kaiser Permanente, McKesson and HDR which demand EPEAT certification.

If nothing else, Apple is a marketing Svengali. Like the villainous hypnotist in George du Maurier's novel Trilby, the firm has managed to control the public's perception. But the company's unsustainable history cannot be concealed forever.

As explained in a Fortune article, despite being anything but green, Apple has excelled at promoting itself as a responsible corporate global citizen in terms of environmental, social and governance issues. According to Brandlogic's 2012 Sustainability Leadership Report, Apple is a company "whose perceived performance far exceeds its actual achievement."

In 2012, Brandlogic's Denis Riney offered this assessment:

"On the reality side," he writes, "Apple made significant gains from 2012 to 2011, improving their SRS [sustainability reality score] from 29.3 to 45.8, a 16.5 point increase vs. a 9.3-point increase for the 100 companies overall. Its perceived ESG [environmental, social, governance] scores increased as well, from 53.5 to 55.6, in year when the average perception score dropped 2.7 points."

According to the 2012 Brandindex Sustainability Leadership Report Apple's ability to fool the public is especially pronounced in the developing world. Apple's reputation is falling among investment professionals but rising among recent university graduates and supply chain professionals:

However, Apple's unsustainable design which on the one hand are part of a marketing strategy that has led to astronomical profits on the other makes the company a sustainability laggard. A business model that encourages people to regularly upgrade technological devices is doomed to fail in an increasingly resource constrained world.

It looks as though Apple's CEO Tim Cook is getting the message. At the end of May 2013 he announced that the company has hired former US Environmental Protection Agency Chief Lisa Jackson to oversee environmental activities including greentech and efficiency.


“Apple has shown how innovation can drive real progress by removing toxics from its products, incorporating renewable energy in its data center plans, and continually raising the bar for energy efficiency in the electronics industry,” Jackson said. “I look forward to helping support and promote these efforts, as well as leading new ones in the future aimed at protecting the environment.”

Only time will tell if hiring Jackson and other sustainability initiatives can bridge the gap between the public's perception of the brand and its actual performance.

"While there is no doubt that the positive halo around the Apple brand has some influence on the perceptions of these audiences," Riney concludes, "it is hard to imagine that Apple's extreme Promoter position will last long term."

Apple is trying to catch-up on sustainability, however, the chickens may have come home to roost. The company, once the darling of the tech industry, has a hard road to hoe. Despite the positive perception of the brand in 2012, a March report which showed a 114 percent increase in the use of renewable energy and hiring Jackson in May.

Although Apple should be lauded for its efforts, the fact that it is a late-comer to the sustainability table constitutes a serious problem for the brand. This is particularly true of a corporate behemoth like Apple, where their efforts may be seen as too little too late.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Apple's Reversal on EPEAT 
Steve Jobs: Apple's Product Recycling Efforts
Under Steve Jobs Leadership Apple Removed Toxic Chemicals from its Products
Video: Steve Jobs 2005 Stanford Commencement Speech
Video: Steve Jobs on Computer Efficiency
Apple's iPhone Green Applications
10 Energy Efficient Electronics for College
Greenpeace Green Electronics Guide
Greenpeace's Ranking of Electronic Companies
Cleantech the Next Great Investment Opportunity
Top 10 Global Sustainability Leaders (Report)

List of Environmental and Conservation Issues

The number of environmental and conservation issues is vast and expanding. What all of these issues have in common is the fact that they relate to the anthropogenic effects on the natural environment. Here is an alphabetized list of 21 environmental and conservation issues and their 171 sub-categories (many of which are overlapping):

Air pollution

Environmental impact of fossil fuels • Smog • Tropospheric ozone • Ozone depletion resulting in UV exposure • Indoor air quality • Volatile organic compound • Atmospheric particulate matter• Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

Climate change/Global warming

Global dimming • Fossil fuels • Sea level rise • Greenhouse gas • Ocean acidification • Shutdown of thermohaline circulation • Environmental impact of the coal industry • Urban Heat Islands

Conservation

Species extinction • Pollinator decline • Coral bleaching • Holocene extinction • Invasive species • Poaching • Endangered species

Ecosystems

Anoxic waters • Biodiversity • Biosecurity • Coral bleaching • Edge effect • Global warming • Habitat destruction • Habitat fragmentation • Illegal dumping

Energy 

Energy conservation • Renewable energy • Efficient energy use • Renewable energy commercialization • Environmental impact of the coal industry • Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

Environmental degradation

Eutrophication • Habitat destruction • Invasive species • Soda lake

Environmental health

Asthma • Environmental impact of the fossil fuel industry • Electromagnetic fields • Electromagnetic radiation and health • Indoor air quality • Lead poisoning • Outdoor air quality • Sick Building Syndrome

Fishing

Blast fishing • Bottom trawling • By-catch • Cetacean bycatch • Gillnetting • Illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing • Environmental effects of fishing • Overfishing • Marine pollution • Whaling

Genetic Engineering

Genetic pollution • Genetically modified food controversies

Intensive Farming

Overgrazing • Irrigation • Monoculture • Environmental effects of meat production • Slash and burn • Pesticide drift • Plasticulture

Land Issues

Land pollution • Desertification • Soil erosion • Soil contamination • Soil salination • Alkali soils * Residual Sodium Carbonate Index Urban sprawl • Habitat fragmentation • Habitat destruction

Logging and Forests

Clearcutting • Deforestation • Illegal logging

Mining

Acid mine drainage • Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing • Mountaintop removal mining • Slurry impoundments

Natural Resources

Resource depletion • Exploitation of natural resources • Exploitation of natural resources • Overdrafting Consumerism — Consumer capitalism • Planned obsolescence • Over-consumption

Nuclear Issues 

Nuclear fallout  • Nuclear meltdown • Nuclear power • Nuclear weapons • Nuclear and radiation accidents • Nuclear safety •  radioactive waste

Overpopulation

Burial • Water crisis • Overpopulation in companion animals • Tragedy of the commons • Gender Imbalance in Developing Countries •

Pollution

Environmental impact of fossil fuels • Nonpoint source pollution • Point source pollution • Light pollution • Noise pollution • Visual pollution

Species

Habitat destruction • Holocene extinction • Invasive species • Poaching • Pollinator decline • Red-listed species • Species extinction • Wildlife trade • Genetic diversity

Toxins

Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) • DDT • Endocrine disruptors • Dioxin • Toxic heavy metals • Environmental impact of the coal industry • Herbicides • Pesticides • Toxic waste • PCB • Bioaccumulation • Biomagnification • Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

Waste

Electronic waste (e-waste) • Litter • Waste disposal incidents • Marine debris • Medical waste • Landfill • Leachate • Environmental impact of the coal industry • Incineration • Great Pacific Garbage Patch • Exporting of hazardous waste• Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing Conservation Issues

Water Pollution

Environmental impact of fossil fuels • Acid rain • Eutrophication • Marine pollution • Ocean dumping • Oil spills • Thermal pollution • Urban runoff • Water crisis • Marine debris • Microplastics • Ocean acidification • Ship pollution • Wastewater • Fish kill • Algal bloom • Mercury in fish • Environmental impact of hydraulic fracturing

What would you add to the list?

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Earth Conscious People in History
Celebrating Female Environmentalists on Women's Day
Visionary Women: The Profiles of 2 Important Environmentalists
Video - Homage to Environmental Pioneer Rachel Carson
Three Green Republican PresidentsThe Persecution of Environmentalists
The Persecution of Environmentalists
Cambodian Environmentalist Murdered
Who Bombed Judi Bari? (Video Trailer)
Environmental Problems and Activists Struggling Against Abuse (Video)
Another Amazon Environmentalist Killed (Video)

Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate

Several unions are opposing the Keystone XL project and this is significant because the strongest argument of supporters of the pipeline is that the project provides jobs. The Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada (CEP), the Transport Workers Union. and an increasing number of health care workers have all come out against the pipeline.

Refering to the Keystone XL, David Coles, the president of CEP said "We're diametrically opposed to the construction of it." What makes the support of this union so important is the fact that it represents 35,000 Canadian oil and gas workers, including thousands involved in Canada's tar sands. "The Keystone XL is not good for the economy, it's not good for the environment, it violates all kinds of First Nations rights," Coles said.

Coles went on to say that the union also opposes "the unfettered expansion" of tar sands extraction, saying "it's not in the best interest of Canada and it's not in the best interest of our members."

Coles and members of his staff do not only talk the talk they walk the walk. In 2011 they were arrested during White House protests against the pipeline. Coles had indicated that his union was planning to continue to protest the project but he was forced to back-down after US construction unions threatened to picket them.

The Transport Workers Union also opposes the Keystone project, as are a growing number of health care workers. Earlier this year, the National Nurses United published a statement warning of the "significant impact" the pipeline would have on the health of communities along its route and that it will "exacerbate climate change which affects public health much more broadly even than the widespread direct impacts of the tar sands industry."

"You cannot separate the environment, jobs, the economy, human rights," said Coles. "It's a four-legged stool, and it's falling over...The thing that liberals and progressive minded people have not yet come to terms with is what do we do about an economic system that continually puts the health, environment and standard of living of workers at risk."

The support of these unions adds weight to a 2011 Cornell University study which indicated that the Keystone XL would not offer the employment and economic benefits that many are suggesting. The study also indicated that the project would undermine cleaner energy initiatives.

The Cornell study and opposition from organized labor powerfully refutes the employment and economic arguments put forth in support of the pipeline.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
Burning Fossil Fuels and Staying Within the 2 Degree Limit
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline

The provincial government of BC has indicated that it is opposing the Northern Gateway heavy oil pipeline project due in part to environmental concerns. Although environmental concerns and aboriginal rights factor prominently, part of B.C.'s decision appears to be an attempt to sue for a bigger slice of the economic pie.

After reviewing all of the evidence B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake said, "our questions were not satisfactorily answered during these hearings."

B.C. is dissatisfied with the responses offered to questions related to five areas of concern which serve as the province's conditions for acceptance:

  • Environmental review needs to be passed.
  • World-leading marine oil spill prevention, response.
  • World-leading practices for land oil spill prevention, response.
  • First Nations opportunities, treaty rights respected.
  • Fair share of the fiscal and economic benefits for B.C.

"Northern Gateway has said that they would provide effective spill response in all cases. However, they have presented little evidence as to how they will respond," Lake said. "For that reason, our government cannot support the issuance of a certificate for the pipeline as it was presented to the joint review panel."

The president of Enbridge's Northern Gateway Pipelines project, John Carruthers, has indicated that he will attempt to allay B.C.'s concerns. While Enbridge does indicate they will try to address environmental concerns they invariably try to pitch the idea by talking about jobs and the economy.

The $5.5-billion Northern Gateway project involves the construction of two pipelines covering a total of 1,177-kilometres that will run from the Alberta oilsands to a tanker port on the North Coast of B.C. The capacity of the pipelines is expected to be 525,000 barrels of heavy oil per day.

B.C. will present its final arguments to the joint review panel on June 17. The review panel is scheduled to present a report to the federal government by the end of the year.

Alberta, which is banking on the project, tried to minimize B.C.'s opposition. Alberta's Environment and Sustainable Resource Development Minister Diana McQueen said the process will continue emphasizing that the federal government will ultimately decide the fate of the pipeline, "This is an ongoing, federally regulated review and I expect that the concerns brought forward by the government of British Columbia will be discussed and addressed through that forum," McQueen said.

These sentiments were echoed by the Federal government in Ottawa. After providing the usual environmental assurances, he indicated that he will wait until the end of the year to make a final decision, federal Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver said, "we look forward to continued engagement with all provinces on market diversification for oil and gas."

Given the ruling federal Conservatives efforts to silence debate on the Northern Gateway project, Oliver's assurances are little more than lip-service. Support for the Northern Gateway project can be expected from both the federal government in Ottawa and the provincial government of Alberta as both are stalwart champions of big oil.

The government of B.C. has made it clear that its opposition does not constitute a final decision. "The position adopted by B.C. on the Northern Gateway Pipeline project as currently proposed is not a rejection of heavy-oil projects." Lake said.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Burning Fossil Fuels and Staying Within the 2 Degree Limit
Canadian Conservatives Silence Opposition to the Northern Gateway Oil Pipeline
Canada on Track to be a Dirty Energy Superpower
Enbridge and The Farce of Canada's Carbon Capture
How the Hell did Enbridge get on the 2012 -2013 DJSI Leaders List?
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

Video - Sandra Steingraber Shines a Spotlight on the Problems of Fracking

Video - Sandra Steingraber Shines a Spotlight on the Problems of Fracking


After serving 10 days of her 15-day sentence for trespassing during a protest against fracking, activist Sandra Steingraber was released from the Schuyler County jail last week in Watkins Glen, N.Y. The day before she was imprisoned, she talked with Moyers about her fight to stop fracking and the release of toxins contaminating our air, water and food.

Steingraber had been arrested along with nine other protesters on March 18 for blocking the entrance to the Inergy natural gas facility to protest “the industrialization of the Finger Lakes.” After refusing to pay a fine, Steingraber and two other members of the “Seneca Lake 12″ received 15-day sentences.

In this exclusive video, watch Steingraber’s supporters greet her with flowers, cheers and song as she is released from jail. An emotional Steingraber tells the crowd: “I would do it again in a minute … Being new to civil disobedience, I’m still learning about its power and its limitations … But I know this: all I had to do is sit in a six-by-seven-foot steel box in an orange jumpsuit and be mildly miserable, but the real power of it is to be able to shine a spotlight on the problem.”

Source: EcoWatch

Related Posts
Earth Conscious People in History
Celebrating Female Environmentalists on Women's Day
Visionary Women: The Profiles of 2 Important Environmentalists
Video - Homage to Environmental Pioneer Rachel Carson
Three Green Republican PresidentsThe Persecution of Environmentalists
The Persecution of Environmentalists
Cambodian Environmentalist Murdered
Who Bombed Judi Bari? (Video Trailer)
Environmental Problems and Activists Struggling Against Abuse (Video)
Another Amazon Environmentalist Killed (Video)
Environmentalists Murdered for Protecting the Amazon (Video)
Murder of Two Environmentalists in the Amazon (Video)

EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL

In a letter to the State Department, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raised serious objections to the proposed Keystone XL pipeline. A State Department's draft report in March said the project would not create significant environmental impacts. Describing the State Department's analysis of the project's environmental impact as "insufficient," the EPA said "oil sands crude is significantly more GHG intensive than other crudes and therefore has the potentially larger climate impacts"

The EPA quotes DSEIS reports which indicates that the lifecycle GHG emissions from oil sands could be 81 percent greater than emissions from the average crude refined in the US. The incremental emissions from the oil sands crude would be 18.7 million metric tons of CO2 equivalent based on the project's capacity of 830,000 barrels per day. Over a 50 year time span that could amount to 935 million metric tons.

The EPA letter goes on to question the veracity of the notion that in the absence of the Keystone XL, transportation of the oil sands would be done by rail. Transportation of the oil sands by rail entails higher costs and this could slow the transport of crude.

In terms of the mining of the oil sands, the EPA recommends working with the governments of Canada, specifically focusing on "pumping station energy efficiency and use of renewable energy, as well as investment in other carbon mitigation options."

The EPA letter points to the greater risks associated with oil sand (bitumen or dilbit) spills.

"We have learned from the 2010 Enbridge spill of oil sands crude in Michigan that spills of diluted bitument may require different response actions or equipment from response actions for conventional oil spills. These spills can also have different impacts than spills of conventional oil. We recommend that these differences be more fully addressed"

The further point to the problems associated with bitumen oil spill in water noting, "it is possible that large portions of dilbit will sink and that submerged oil significantly changes spill response and impacts."

The EPA cites DSEIS which recognizes that dissolved components like, "benzene, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarns (PAHs) and heavy metals could be slowly released back into the water column for many years after a release and could cause long-term chronic toxicological impacts"

The letter specifically recognizes the threat to the Ogallala Aquifer posed by the pipeline They further ask the Department of State to provide an "opportunity for public review and comment"

The EPA's letter urges the State to conduct a more thorough analysis of oil spill risks and alternative pipeline routes, as well as greenhouse gas emissions associated with the $7 billion pipeline.

The State Department is planning to conduct additional analysis and will incorporate comments from the public and other federal agencies into a final environmental report expected this summer. President Obama said in late 2011 that he would decide the pipeline’s fate, and a final decision is expected by summer.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone
A State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline

Keystone XL Pipeline: Your Last Chance to Say NO!

This is the final official comment period for Keystone XL pipeline. Both 350.org and the Sierra Club are joining many others in sending a message to President Obama and Secretary of State Kerry. They want to make it clear that this project is not in the national interest and Americans along with people around the world are against it.

The Keystone XL pipeline will put more dirty money into the pockets of big oil and worse, it will accelerate tar sands development in Canada, some of the dirtiest oil on earth. That's the definition of reckless.

Sierra Club supporters have already submitted over 100,000 comments -- we need to keep it up and push the national total to one million by April 22!

Its a fact, oil pipelines leak. To make the point there have been three major oil spills in the United States recently, including one that poured 84,000 gallons of tar sands into Arkansas backyards. The first Keystone pipeline saw an average of one oil spill per month in its first year of operations. Two years later, the Kalamazoo, Michigan spill still not cleaned up.

It's time to say no to spills, no to tar sands, and yes to the climate! With stakes this high, there is no excuse for the White House to approve Keystone XL. It's impossible to fight climate change while simultaneously investing in one of the dirtiest, most carbon-intensive fossil fuels on the planet.

This is your last chance to help stop Keystone XL pipeline before its too late.  Submit a comment and sign the petition before the April 22 deadline!

To join 350.org in submitting a comment to the State Department explaining the energy security case for stopping the pipeline click here. To sign the Sierra Club's petition click here.

Related Articles
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Canada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

Anti-Keystone XL Actions Target TransCanada

The current round of protests against the Keystone XL show that popular actions are a real threat, even to a corporate giant. The latest pressure campaign is targeting the builders of the infamous Keystone XL. TransCanada Pipelines have been selected to build the Keystone XL which is supposed to ferry tar sands from Alberta to Texas. The week of actions is being called "Stop Tar Sands Profiteers."  It starts on March 16th and runs until March 23rd.

This campaign is being led by a group that calls itself "Tar Sands Blockade." This is an open grassroots organization composed of people from across North America. This group has been behind more than 38 peaceful direct actions designed to stop the Keystone XL pipeline.

To execute this event, Tar Sands Blockade joined with people from a wide variety of backgrounds. Despite their differences all of those involved are united by the understanding that the extraction of tar sands in Canada is “game over” for the climate.

Starting on Saturday, Tar Sands Blockade is coordinating grassroots actions across Texas and Oklahoma and solidarity support actions are scheduled to take place all through North America. The organizers of this action have called on people to hold solidarity actions at TransCanada's offices or at the offices of one of their investors.

These protests may affect the company's operations and diminish shareholder value.

With hundreds of actions scheduled to take place all across North America, the impacts will be felt on TransCanada's operations far removed from the Keystone XL.

TransCanada's shale gas exports in BC alone are valued at almost 10 billion, that is 3 billion more than the Keystone XL pipeline.

With 30 billion worth of projects in the works over the next few years, TransCanada will have to analyze the material risk to the company's entire operation for what amounts to less than one quarter of the firm's business.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs

While much has been made of all the jobs that would be associated with the Keystone XL pipeline, the truth is that far more long term jobs would be created though green projects. Despite all the wild claims from the oil industry and their supporters, a State Department Report indicated that the Keystone XL pipeline will generate about 42,100 jobs in the construction phase but only 35 permanent jobs to operate the pipeline.

TransCanada, the builders of the Keystone XL claim the pipeline will boost the US economy and create more than half a million jobs. According to a study they commissioned in 2010, the construction of the pipeline would create 118,935 non-permanent jobs and an additional 553,235 permanent jobs due to the increased US oil supply.

A Cleantechnica article reviews the number of green jobs that could be generated all across the country form clean energy projects. According to a new report http://www.e2.org/jsp/controller?docId=31325 from the green business group Environmental Entrepreneurs (E2) there are more than 300 new clean energy and transportation projects which will create 110,000 green jobs in the U.S. The difference between the Keystone XL and the green jobs are significant.

Unlike the Keystone pipeline jobs, many of these green jobs are permanent and renewable energy projects like solar and wind, as well as transportation projects advanced vehicle and trains offer far more than just jobs.

Clean energy is the future of power production and improved transportation networks reduce traffic congestion and pollution.

These projects will help move the US economy forward in meaningful ways that are in step with the realities we face. In addition to employment and economic benefits these projects would help to stave off climate change improve community well being and public health.

Perhaps most importantly green jobs do not light the fuse on a massive carbon bomb which is how some have described the tar sands oil that will flow through the Keystone XL pipeline.

The lack of long term jobs is far from the only problem associated with the pipeline. Refining tar sands oil also creates an additional environmental problem, a byproduct known as petcoke. Although the State Department report appeared to downplay the risks associated with the Keystone, the reality is that pipelines regularly leak, break and spill.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone
Conservative Confusion about the Role of Government in Support of Green Jobs
Republican Cuts Target Green Jobs
Hopeful Statistics for Green Job Growth
Best Places for Green Jobs in the US
Green Jobs for America
Green Government Investments and Job Creation

A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline

On Friday March 1, the State Department released a draft environmental impact statement which has cleared the 875-mile Keystone XL pipeline saying it will not harm air, water or landscape. The draft further indicated that although the pipeline will carry 830,000 barrels of crude oil from Alberta to Texas each day, it will not increase greenhouse gases.

Contrary to the whitewashing contained in this report, the pipeline is widely referred to as a “carbon bomb.” Environmentalists have consistently expressed concerns about the fact that tar sands oil are among the dirtiest fossil fuels on earth.

Predictably the news was heralded by the Canadian government, the oil industry, some members of Congress, and the nation’s major labor unions, which stand to gain construction jobs.

The last remaining hopes are that either the new Secretary of State or President Obama himself will kill the Keystone. Both men have repeatedly indicated that they are serious about tackling climate change. It remains to be seen whether this is just empty rhetoric.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for Keystone

Video - Interview with David Lavallee of White Water, Black Gold

Video - White Water, Black Gold: Tar Sands Pipeline

Event - The Corporate Water-Risk Management Program

The Water Professional Path event will take place on Feb. 5-6, 2013 in Toronto, ON. This program from HRCarbon is designed to provide an expert-level foundation to corporate and institutional practitioners to measure, mitigate and adapt to water risk.

Water Professional Path is a 2-day program that will focus on a risk management strategy incorporating water-risk from both a demand and supply context. The program will cover the analysis, development and implementation of a systemic, corporate-wide water adaptation strategy. Attendees will be able to leverage HRCarbon’s Sustainability Management and Reporting Framework to address external and internal stakeholder communications within a structured framework that enables water management and reporting.

For more information click here or Phone: 416.628.4196, E-mail: courses(at) hrcarbon.com

Related Articles
Video - The World's First Carbon for Water Program
The State of Our Oceans: We are Headed Towards a Marine Mass Extinction
GE is Helping Nestle to Save Millions of Gallons of Water
New Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement
World Oceans Day 2012
World Oceans Day in America (2012)
Urgent Appeal to Save our Oceans
Marshall Islands World Ocean Day 2012
State of the Climate Global Analysis Nov 2011
Seven Ways to Save the Seas
Air and Water in the OECD Report
OECD Environmental Outlook to 2050: The Consequences of Inaction
Water as a Weapon of WarNew Tool Helps Companies with Water Risks
Protect the US Clean Water Act
Report on the UN's World Water Day Panel Discussion
World Oceans Day UN Panel Discussion
Alarming Facts About Water
Solutions to Diminishing Ground Water
Population Growth and Climate Change will Add to the World Water Crisis
Water Management Webcast: Cities and the Global Water Crisis
Siemens Water Tool on Facebook
Water School’s Ascent of Mount Kilimanjaro
Banana Peels and Water Purification
Sustainable Water Purification Technology Investing in Water
World Water Week 2011: The Business of Water Management Requires Collaboration