Logo: folc.ca: For our Lamont County

Industrial and Community Development for Our Lamont County

| Home | In The News | Contact Us | Our Blog | Search this Website | Share

 

ISSUES OF CONCERN:

Industrial Heartland Expansion

Visible Air Pollution
IHE Main Page

Maxim's Deerland Peaking Station

Maxim Index
News on Maxim
Proposed Power Station at Deerland (North of Bruderheim)

NAOSC Upgrader
News on NAOSC
Proposed Bitumen-Upgrader Facility near Bruderheim

HAZCO

News on HAZCO
Proposed Waste-Sulphur-Storage and -Handling Facility
Environmental Impact of Sulphur
Health-Impact of Sulphur
Sulphur Poisoning
Sulphur Fires
   

Shell CCS Project
News and information on Shell's CCS Project

GENERAL

Table of Contents for Website of folc.ca
Site Map
Post comments on any items or issues on this web page or at folc.ca that concern you to the LCE Blog, the blog for folc.ca
Mail to FOLC or to folc.ca
Air Quality, Flaring and Monitoring
Glossary of Sulphur-related Terms used in the Petroleum Industry
Links
References - Bibliography
folc.ca Site Stats

You are visitor

at the website of folc.ca
since July 16, 2005



Click to get your own widget


 

 
 
 
 

folc.ca's comment on HAZCO's answer to FAQ #20


Note: The background text in the following was copied from the Frequently-asked Questions page at HAZCO's website, Nov. 2, 2005.  HAZCO's answers to "frequently asked questions" deserve further comments.  Those comments are inserted where required in HAZCO's text and are shown on yellow background.

From HAZCO's FAQ web page (quoted verbatim):

FAQ #20. How will you deal with the safety issues with so much more road and rail traffic?

With respect to the rail traffic, Hazco anticipates one to two unit trains per week so the effect on traffic patterns will be minimal.  Discussions with Lamont County may be initiated to upgrade rail crossings if they become a safety issue.



Comment:

In other words, when it happens that a train is stalled and blocks a railroad crossing on a dark night, and if someone is then killed or seriously injured by driving into the train (something that has apparently happened more than once in connection with Shell's sulphur facility at Shantz — in an area that is far less densely populated than ours), HAZCO may then initiate discussions with the County of Lamont to make the many railroad crossings in our County safer. 

Why would discussions take place after the fact of someone having been killed or injured (how many incidents it would take to make those discussions happen is not mentioned)?  Why would HAZCO even consider discussing such an issue with the County if not for the fact that it expects the taxpayers of the County of Lamont to pay a portion if not all of the costs for the required upgrades to railroad crossings in our County?

However, HAZCO's declared intentions are obviously not to close the barn door before the horses have bolted but maybe to discuss with the County who will pay what portion of the required crossing upgrades when someone (or a few people) has been killed.

Besides, the upgrades would have to be done by the railroad companies, not by the County.  The County (that is, its taxpayers) would do nothing more than foot the bill if HAZCO has its way. 

Next FAQ

Back to index page to HAZCO's FAQs

Back to index page for Hazco sulphur storage site pages

Back to Bruderheim Main Page

Created Nov. 4, 2005