folc.ca's comment on HAZCO's answer to FAQ #41

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 #41. The residents say this is just the tip of the iceberg and that if this project is approved than Lamont County will become the dumping ground for Alberta sulphur.  What’s your response to those concerns?

The production of sulphur within the oil and gas industry is reality.  Facilities such as the one proposed here are sound methods of processing the sulphur into a saleable product such as fertilizer.  

Comment: Yes, the production of sulphur in the oil and gas industry is a reality.  Not only that, but the tightening of the standards for environmental control and regulation, and the demand for cleaner fuels has enormously accelerated the volume of sulphur production — far beyond the capacity of the world market to absorb the excessive volume of sulphur produced. (See world sulphur market trend information) Facilities such as the proposed HAZCO sulphur plant would without a doubt make enormous profits if there would not be such a severely limited demand for sulphur in the world market.  Surely, corporations like Shell, one of the major producers of sulphur in the world, would not even dream of handing over the manufacture and distribution of sulphur prills to a new-comer like HAZCO if they saw even the slightest glimmer of hope that the world market would open up sufficiently to increase the demand for sulphur. The only viable alternative is long-term storage of sulphur.  The large oil and gas producers will be only too happy to get that glut of sulphur out of their hair and let little fish like HAZCO look after that.  Sulphur is to the large oil and gas producers nothing but an expense and a nuisance.  They will cut their losses by trying to shorten the delivery routes to the disposal sites.  If the sites can be near but yet far away from their production facilities (preferably downwind), so much the better. Remember, it is Shell, not HAZCO, that is negotiating with the Scotford Colony for the right-of-way for a liquid sulphur pipeline to the HAZCO site. Many residents in Lamont County commute to Fort McMurray to work.  Most of those are quite familiar with the stink of sulphur in Fort McMurray.  They know the number of enormously large sulphur blocks as large as about 400 to 500 feet wide or more, a thousand feet long and longer, and about 50 feet high that exist in the Fort McMurray area.  They also know that the older sulphur blocks are flaking off, cracking and crumbling from the weather.  They know that waste sulphur is being poured into ever larger massive blocks at an accelerating rate as the production of tar-sand-crude escalates.  They know that the perpetual pouring of those new sulphur blocks causes the place to stink like hell every time the wind blows in the right direction. (See information on sulphur blocks.) We would have to be crazy if we were to invite sulphur trucks, tanker cars and pipelines to come here and dump that stinky, unhealthy and unsightly stuff from hell in our County.  Other counties said NO.  What in the world is making our Councillors unable to make a quick decision on all of this?  Their inactivity is not in the best interest of the residents of this County.  They failed all along to attract more than a pittance of industry here, but now they appear to wish to make up for that by helping to turn Lamont County into an industrial waste dumping ground. See also HAZCO's answer to the question in FAQ #3 relating to how much land would be required.

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
Updates:
2005 11 09 (added link to FAQ #3)
2005 11 20 (added link to information on the environmental impact of sulphur blocks)
2006 10 16 (reformated)