Spey Pages banner
1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,946 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Anther one:

Water supply off-limits in Montana town after Yellowstone River oil spill:


This pipeline must be relatively new as the spill occurred near Montana/N. Dakota border on Shell-boom territory.

Construction quality and maintenance of pipelines are always subject to the corporate bottom line.

Let's gut regulations and save money on pipeline construction cost ??......:whoa::Eyecrazy:

No, regulation should be so draconian that corporate crimes are strongly discourage.


http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-yellowstone-river-oil-spill-20150120-story.html
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,365 Posts
Caught wind of this one today. Don't worry, the company is taking ''full responsibility" for the inconvenience and bringing "every thing back to normal"...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
Caught wind of this one today. Don't worry, the company is taking ''full responsibility" for the inconvenience and bringing "every thing back to normal"...
No kidding. Tragic how the energy company's get a slap on the wrist when "accidents" happen. Here is a thought. How about mandatory jail time for CEOs whenever there is a spill. Even if it's for a week. Anyone guess how serious and proactive companies will take to preventing spills when there is actually something at risk?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,649 Posts
Rustybee,

What crime did the CEO commit? Can you show that he (or she), personally, was negligent?

If not, then your idea is completely irresponsible. Do you jail the CEO of Ford when the brakes fail on an F-150?

Do you jail the CEO of McDonalds when somebody gets a tainted burger?

There's a (sort of) outbreak of measles at Disneyland; should we jail the CEO of Disney?

If your unstated point is that we should never pipe petroleum anywhere, ever, then do we jail the CEO of your local oil company when one of his (or her) drivers crashes his (her) tanker truck and spills oil. 'Tis the same argument...

Sheeeesh.....

moe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
Rustybee,

What crime did the CEO commit? Can you show that he (or she), personally, was negligent?

If not, then your idea is completely irresponsible. Do you jail the CEO of Ford when the brakes fail on an F-150?

Do you jail the CEO of McDonalds when somebody gets a tainted burger?

There's a (sort of) outbreak of measles at Disneyland; should we jail the CEO of Disney?

If your unstated point is that we should never pipe petroleum anywhere, ever, then do we jail the CEO of your local oil company when one of his (or her) drivers crashes his (her) tanker truck and spills oil. 'Tis the same argument...

Sheeeesh.....

moe
Moe. Respectfully... wondering if you would feel the same if you lived in said affected area? What if this happened to your beloved Umpqua river?

My sympathies are with the residents of Glendive. I have extended family who had an oil spill happen in their neighbourhood. I won't wish it upon my worst enemy. Close to a quarter million litres all said and done. Most of it made its way into the Burrard Inlet despite clean up efforts. Not to mention seeping into the top soil and beyond. Our sorry a*s justice system fined them a puny $1000 plus another $250k in contributions to wildlife funds. Family want to move out due to fears of long term effects to health caused by residue contamination. They can't afford to as property prices took a dump due to this event, and their neighbourhood has been "black listed".

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/britis...pill-1.1005862

Have a close friend who is pretty high up in the food chain for TMP. A discussion over one of our dinners lead me to conclude that such fines and cleaning costs are looked to as part of the cost of doing business.

Can oil spills ever be prevented? Absolutely not; in the event of natural disasters like landslides and earthquakes there is nothing that's 100% failure proof. Problem is that most of these incidents are avoidable with proper care and attention. But it's cheaper for them to pay the fines and continue with business as usual. Jail time if company found liable of negligence? A bit extreme? You betcha. I know that would change how they "game" such scenarios if there is risk of doing hard time. I'm sure as heck confident none of them wants to be the one holding the bag, I know my buddy doesn't.

Am I of the believe that energy companies are bad? Nope. I enjoy modern creature comforts and enjoy nice cars. I'd be a hypocrite to say otherwise. That said, as a society we have to measure cheap energy costs against the possible impact to the wilderness that we leave to our children (and their children's children).

Just my 2 cents worth...

PS. Not sure about Ford, but the CEO of Toyota step down as part of the 2013 safety recalls. Aiko Toyota (yes business bears his family name) took full responsibility and committed career seppuku (Japanese ritual suicide). Personal accountability. Something you won't often see in western corporations. And your example of measles and Disneyland gave me a good chuckle.
 

·
All Tangled Up
Joined
·
677 Posts
Do you jail the CEO of Ford when the brakes fail on an F-150?

Do you jail the CEO of McDonalds when somebody gets a tainted burger?

There's a (sort of) outbreak of measles at Disneyland; should we jail the CEO of Disney?
For thinking like this, we generally don't hold managers in corporations personally accountable for accidents and such.

But if you could show that there was a systematic disregard for safety, that was a causatory or even contributing factor to any of these events, and the higher-ups knew about it, yes, they might be held responsible. And I think most people would not have a problem with that.

Now the problem with this system is it incentivizes the management chain to be sure they never know about any safety risk anytime, so they can't be held accountable. And the surest way to do that is be sure nobody in the company ever talks about or, for god's sake, every writes down anything about any possible safety risk anytime. Which is a 100% guarantee to have precisely the problems such liability positions are intended to prevent.

So this really isn't such an easy thing to fix. Super-strict liability seems unfair and unworkable, backing off from it can be counter-productive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
742 Posts
For thinking like this, we generally don't hold managers in corporations personally accountable for accidents and such.

But if you could show that there was a systematic disregard for safety, that was a causatory or even contributing factor to any of these events, and the higher-ups knew about it, yes, they might be held responsible. And I think most people would not have a problem with that.

Now the problem with this system is it incentivizes the management chain to be sure they never know about any safety risk anytime, so they can't be held accountable. And the surest way to do that is be sure nobody in the company ever talks about or, for god's sake, every writes down anything about any possible safety risk anytime. Which is a 100% guarantee to have precisely the problems such liability positions are intended to prevent.

So this really isn't such an easy thing to fix. Super-strict liability seems unfair and unworkable, backing off from it can be counter-productive.
Not an issue solely with energy companies. Resource companies too are guilty of such gross disregard for the environment. Case in point Imperial Metals and the Mt Polley mine breach. Heck even if upper management knows about issues there is no guarantee of holding anyone accountable if they happen to "lobby" the right political party. Slap on the wrist. Cost of doing business at the expense of the environment....


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti...llowed-years-of-government-warnings-1.2728591
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,946 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 · (Edited)
How about having double layer pipeline over then river and within 500 m form the river ?

The problem is cost of fines is smaller then then second layer over pipeline.

BP in the Gulf of Mexico had only one preventer with dead battery, where all operations near Africa, Brazil or Europe have two working preventers.

A pure corporate greed, augmented by corrupted politicians ( inadequate environmental laws) who works for corps.......

If company business model depends on week safety standards or unlivable minimum wade, then such business in not viable business, because it needs corporate welfare : socialize cost and privatize gains
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
210 Posts
Don't worry, there aren't any fish down that far on the Yellowstone. At least none that matter. Just pallid and shovelnose sturgeon, paddlefish, walleye, sauger, smallmouth bass, catfish, pike, drum, goldeneye, etc...

This spill is barely making the news. No surprise as the political right prepares to jam the Keystone Pipeline down our throats. Can't wait for the Ogalalla Aquifer to be fouled by spilt oil too.
 

·
All Tangled Up
Joined
·
677 Posts
Not an issue solely with energy companies. Resource companies too are guilty of such gross disregard for the environment.
No argument, it's a widespread problem, and well outside resource extraction too. Clearly it's possible to do better -- commercial aviation accidents are quite rare in the US for example. And you do not hear the sort of whining the resource companies make : "but, but, if you make us make our planes safer, we'll go out of business!!" An effective government watchdog, a process-driven safety-focused culture, a willingness to dig out the root of problems and make fixes, and personal motivation of the employees, makes a difference.
 

·
''Speydo-masochist''
Joined
·
1,265 Posts
I believe that in such cases if it proven that corners were cut to maximise profits then those at the top of the decision making tree, who probably received enormous bonuses/ share options as a result of these profits, should be held financially liable & those bonuses clawed back from them to contribute towards the clean up costs. If retired, but responsible at the time, then they should still be liable.

In the long term the oil companies make huge levels of profit, if the base line for what is classed as acceptable safety in terms of pipelines were raised by regulators this would be common across the industry & all producers would have similar rises in production cost. In real terms taken over the life time of a pipeline/ oil field this wouldn't add much to a barrel of oil.

It should never be an option to pollute because the sanctions cost less than the additional cost of constructing satisfactory installations, but to penalise the companies alone lets the decision takers at the top, who are the ones who really benefitted financially, off the hook - so the law should go after them directly where negligence is proven. They determine corporate policy & this should incentivise them to ensure standards are high.

Regards, Tyke.
 

·
JD
Joined
·
3,636 Posts
Hey, this is a Spey Fishing Forum

As one who was once kicked off this forum back in the day when there was a Conservation topic, I get more than a little ticked whenever I see this subject raise it's ugly head. If you want to rant about stuff like this, find another place to do it! I too have issues not only with pipelines, but also rail shipping, and overland shipping of the stuff on our highways. But face it, we need the stuff!
 

·
All Tangled Up
Joined
·
677 Posts
As one who was once kicked off this forum back in the day when there was a Conservation topic, I get more than a little ticked whenever I see this subject raise it's ugly head. If you want to rant about stuff like this, find another place to do it! I too have issues not only with pipelines, but also rail shipping, and overland shipping of the stuff on our highways. But face it, we need the stuff!
If the discussion is conducted respectfully -- and I fully admit many of these discussion go off the rails quickly -- I don't see an issue. Without some consciousness of conservation issues, simultaneously recognizing various "stuffs" that we need, this sport may not exist three decades out. The quiet creeping censorship of people only talking to other people that think like them is what will do us in.
 

·
Tellumnothing
Joined
·
89 Posts
Conservation, Politics, what next, religion?

Gentlemen,
I agree with JD Jones 100%. I once was an active member of TU here in Missoula until the politics WORMED its way into board meetings. Haven't been back since! Let's talk about spey fishing. Okay?
Tellumnothing.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
983 Posts
Politics of conservation and healthy sportfishing go hand in hand. If you believe discussions and news of environmental tragedies that affect our resources, should somehow be censored on sporting pages....you're doing the sport a disservice.
 

·
The Dude abides
Joined
·
2,079 Posts
unless you give up your technology loving, resource chewing lifestyles, no *****ing about our modern society. when you move to a farm, produce your own food and power, and don't rely on modern civilization to wipe your butt for you, you can complain. this is our fault, not the oil company.

Its still sad, but its only the fault of convenience and complacency.

JD hit the nail on the head
 

·
The Dude abides
Joined
·
2,079 Posts
Politics of conservation and healthy sportfishing go hand in hand. If you believe discussions and news of environmental tragedies that affect our resources, should somehow be censored on sporting pages....you're doing the sport a disservice.
I think his point is that posting this does nothing, changing the way you spend your dollar is the only thing that changes anything.

Lots of bad things happened today, and more tomorrow, and then more next week too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
410 Posts
If even in a forum where a 100% of members should understand the beauty and life giving of clean river is .And just the thought of an oil spill on a river should be consider nothing less than at least a criminal negligence .even more given the fragile state of our river , fish and ecosystem .to get some of the cold responses that you see on this forum, even some defend and excuse the parties responsible for such events .The most ridiculous excuse I heard is that we all use this resources to make our lives convenient . what that has to do with greedy CEOs and Corporations trying to cut corners to maximize profits as is shown in most of this cases over and over again. and no one is held criminally responsible for it. it is a matter of any busyness having to follow environmental law and even, go beyond that ,is what we all should demand .As we all small busyness do and if we don't will be hit with penalties that will put us out of busyness and most likely land us in jail .busyness that have the potential to cause massive damage to our environment ; should and must be held at higher standards of accountability no less .
 

·
PiscatorNonSolumPiscatur
Joined
·
817 Posts
I agree with Tyke and longrodangler

This sport can only exist when resources are well managed.
One does not have to open this thread and read if they have no interest.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top