folc.ca's comment on HAZCO's answer to FAQ #23
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 #23. Opponents to your project claim that the technology you’re using to store the sulphur is new and untested? What are you doing differently compared to more traditional sulphur storage facilities?
A similar facility located near Sundre, Alberta, using the same technology, has been operating for the last 14 years in a similar environment. To date, the Sundre facility has processed more than 22 million tonnes of sulphur. The only change to the facility would be designing and construction the temporary sulphur storage block sub-grade and constructing perimeter berms to provide a visual barrier from the sulphur block.
That answer, as so many things stated by HAZCO in relation to its proposed site in Lamont County, is an insidious distortion of the facts. Let's take the components of HAZCO's answer in sequence.
- It must be assumed that the "similar facility located near Sundre" is Shell's Shantz facility. At the very least HAZCO often claimed that the Shantz facility is similar (or even identical) to theirs.
However, the Shantz facility differs in very important aspects from that proposed by HAZCO. For example:
- Shantz occupies only a quarter section of land, not a whole section;
- Shantz uses silo storage of sulphur prills produced, not open-air storage piles;
- Shantz stores raw sulphur on site in above-ground
sulphur blocks, not in sub-surface pits in whom the
sulphur block is in contact with the ground water; and
- Shantz is located in a sparsely populated area with the closest residence being two miles away from the facility, not in an area that involves within a mile radius many dozens of residences and within a two-mile radius many more, including a town with 1,250 residents and a school containing more than a hundred students and teachers.
Hazco claims that the Lamont County residents object to the technology to be employed by HAZCO. That claim is wrong, but the County's residents are right. The County residents' objections relate to HAZCO's proposed sub-standard methods that deviate from established practices such as those used at Shantz.
However, those specific objections are the least of the concerns with the apparently haphazard and sub-standard methods used by HAZCO. The major concern is that, whatever method HAZCO will be using, its facility must not be located in Lamont County. Our County is too valuable to all who live here to have it turned into a dumping ground for hazardous material that has the potential to put all of the County, its residents and their property at a great risk.
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