« April 2006 | Main | June 2006 »

May 30, 2006

LCBO drinks laced with alcohol

I thought readers would be interested in the following amusing exchange that occurred in response to a February blog post by me entitled "Truth Coming Out About LCBO." (By the way, you can read old Blog entries by accessing the archives, which are stored by month.) Since it's an old post, I figured most of you would otherwise miss it. The first comment is from a well-intended reader. The further response is from mischievous me.

Comments

Intresting article, thanks. Do you know of any chemical brake downs of products that are sold by the LCBO. For many years The tabacco industry, I've heard, have been putting substances in cigarettes to increase sales. Often harmful and or addictive chemicals and claming its refining process, packaging for freshness, taste or other missleading suggestions.

Posted by: B Wood | May 29, 2006 07:02 PM

Reply

To answer your question, I've heard, although I haven't investigated the matter personally, that the LCBO might be selling beverages laced with a chemical commonly referred to as "alcohol" in order to subtly make its products more addictive to adults. It's frightening to contemplate what effect might be inflicted on society if beverage producers were to sell drinks containing such a chemical, which is known to cause loss of balance, blurred vision and memory problems in lab rats. I recall reading in a medical journal about a group of soldiers during World War Two who inadvertently drank large amounts of grape juice while posted in the Burgundy region of France. Apparently the juice, which was stored in large wooden casks, had somehow fermented. (I presume because of the war the juice had been left for several years and not consumed.) The soldiers soon became delirious and temporarily mad from the toxic liquid, at times passing out and even vomiting. Yet so addictive was the chemical that some after the war continued to seek out the fermented juice, and had to eventually be treated in a 12-step program. Frightening.

Posted by: Anonymous | May 30, 2006 08:06 AM

May 25, 2006

Some quick insights on a busy day

I took a break from editing articles for the next edition and caught the news on CNN that former Enron Corp. chiefs Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling were convicted of conspiracy and securities and wire fraud in one of the biggest business scandals in U.S. history. If you have any shred of doubt about their guilt, I strongly suggest you rent the award-winning documentary "The Smartest Guys in the Room." It's a very persuasive expose of what complete fraud artists these two guys were -- Enron was a complete house of cards built on made-up numbers and fabricated businesses. If you feel sorry for these people, remember that their agents were largely behind the manipulation of the California energy market as it tried to privatize, the failure of which subsequently gave free energy markets a bad name, despite the fact that they worked well in the UK. I think these fellows are corporate sociopaths and deserve their future as, how shall I say it, "The Smartest Guys in the Cell Block."

On another note, some people have emailed me asking how was my trip to Finland and the UK. I'll report more about it in the days ahead, but let me just share this one "deep thought." Remember the circumpolar trip by former Governor General Adrienne Clarkson and her irritating husband? Well, at the time I thought it was a terrible waste of taxpayer's money, and I still do. However, I have to admit that the condescending duo were actually onto something. One of my strongest impressions was of all the things we have in common with the British Isles and the Scandanavian countries due to our being "northern people" with similar climates. On the environmental front, our issues are highly similar. I feel we should develop stronger (very strong!) linkages between Canada and the other countries around the Arctic Circle, and not pay quite so much attention to our neighbors to the south. I don't mean that as an anti-American jibe. I just mean, there is incredible cultural and geographic commonality among the countries, and there's so very much we could all do to share information and help one another. Many things they're doing in Finland would work brilliantly in Canada. And another thing: because of the education systems, almost everyone there is totally fluent in English. People in Finland shift into near-perfect English seemingly effortlessly.

More on all that in my next blog entry.

May 24, 2006

Upside down smokestacks

Okay, I'm back form my trip to Finland and the UK. I'll post more thoughts and observations from the trip over the coming days. There's a lot to talk about.

In the meantime, I wanted to draw readers' attention to a very interesting article in today's National Post newspaper about a highly effective carbon sequestration system that's up and running on a huge scale near Weyburn, Saskatchewan. I didn't realize such potential to offset global warming existed anywhere, never mind Canada. To wet your appetite for the article (which I've pasted below), let me just quote the following:

"Geologists say Canada is blessed with huge sedimentary basins that have the potential to hold mind-boggling volumes of the gas.

"We'd run out of fossil fuels before we'd run out of storage space," says geologist Malcolm Wilson of the University of Regina.

On a global scale, scientists estimate there is room to bury the entire world's CO2 emissions for hundreds of years."

Now, here's the article:

Oil reaped from farm of 'upside down smokestacks'

Carbon dioxide buried
Margaret Munro

CanWest News Service

Wednesday, May 24, 2006

WEYBURN, SASK. - Farmers are seeding their fields in the Prairie sunshine and a meadowlark is singing from a nearby power line.

But Dave Craigen of EnCana oil and gas and his visitors are fixated on the elaborate maze of pipes and drill holes 1.5 kilometres underfoot that has turned southeast Saskatchewan into a mecca for people searching for solutions to global warming.

"You name a country, and they've been here," Mr. Craigen says of EnCana's $1.5-billion Weyburn operation, which is home to the largest carbon-storage project on the planet.

The $42-million international project is financed largely by Natural Resources Canada and the U.S. Department of Energy. Government and industry officials from Japan, Saudi Arabia, France and the United States have trekked here for a first-hand look. Environment Minister Rona Ambrose, who has promised a "made-in-Canada" plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions, is expected in June.

Since 2000, more than seven million tonnes of carbon dioxide that would otherwise have wafted into the atmosphere have been injected into the porous rock far beneath the farmers' fields. Plans call for at least 30 million tonnes to eventually be stashed here -- the equivalent of taking about 6.8 million cars off the road for a year. The plan -- and hope -- is that the CO2 will stay locked underground forever.

The Weyburn project and one injecting a million tonnes of carbon dioxide a year under the North Sea are held up internationally as evidence that carbon storage, or sequestration, can work. Geologists say Canada is blessed with huge sedimentary basins that have the potential to hold mind-boggling volumes of the gas.

"We'd run out of fossil fuels before we'd run out of storage space," says geologist Malcolm Wilson of the University of Regina.

On a global scale, scientists estimate there is room to bury the entire world's CO2 emissions for hundreds of years. The carbon dioxide buried here is imported from a U.S. gasification plant that produces a steady stream of almost pure CO2. It is captured before it heads up the smoke stack in North Dakota and diverted into a 323-kilometre pipeline. It snakes its way through a lake and across the border into Saskatchewan, where it emerges from the ground at EnCana's Weyburn operation. The CO2 then heads for a cavernous building where deafening compressors further liquefy the CO2 for injection.

EnCana official Dave Hassan, in charge of the Weyburn operation, likens it to "turning the smokestack upside down."

The reality is more complicated. The liquid CO2 is fed through a maze of piping buried at the 180-square-kilometre operation. Injection wells, housed in igloo-shaped fibreglass sheds, send the CO2 underground, where it floods into horizontal channels bored into oil-rich rock. The CO2 seeps into the rocks' pores and acts like a solvent liberating oil. The oil migrates to collection wells and is pulled to the surface by hundreds of pump jacks bobbing up and down on the farmers' fields.

Much of the CO2 stays underground, but about 2,500 tonnes a day return with the emulsion of oil and water roaring up the production wells. The carbon dioxide bubbles out of the mixture like fizz in a can of pop. It is routed to the compressors, turned back into liquid and reinjected far below the fields where cattle graze and wheat and canola grow. The closed loop, which cost about $1.5- billion to build, generates 30,000 barrels of oil a day. "It's a simple process, just a big simple process," Mr. Craigen says.

Injecting CO2 has paid big dividends for EnCana. It has boosted production here to 30,000 barrels of oil a day and extended the life of the Weyburn reservoir by decades. When the wells eventually run dry, it is predicted at least 30 million tonnes of CO2 will be entombed underground. The more than 1,000 wells on the site will be filled in with cement.

Geologists say there is no danger of a catastrophic C02 release like the one that belched out of Lake Nyos in Cameroon in 1986. The gas, which is heavier than air, settled in a thick layer over the surrounding area, asphyxiating 1,700 people and countless animals as they slept.

"You can't get a Lake Nyos here," says Mr. Wilson, noting such deadly releases can only occur with deep, tropical lakes in volcanic regions.

The concern on the Prairies is with CO2 seeping from faulty wells and rock fractures, risks that can be minimized and managed, says Michael Monea, executive director of the Petroleum Technology Research Centre co-ordinating the Weyburn research project.

The researchers say the rocks under the Prairies are like a "layer cake" made of sediments laid down over the eons as glaciers and oceans came and went. Some are porous and filled with oil -- like the 23-metre-thick reservoir under Weyburn. Others are impenetrable slabs like the five-metre-thick cap rock that keeps the oil in place. "It's sealed the oil down there for more than 55 million years," Mr. Wilson says.

Most enticing for carbon storage are the thick layers of porous rock that hold salt water -- the so-called saline aquifers that Mr. Monea says offer the "granddaddy" of storage. Unlike oil fields, aquifers have had few wells drilled into them so pose less risk of leaks. To demonstrate the potential, Mr. Monea and his group are proposing a $59-million project to inject 1,350 tonnes of CO2 a day two kilometres down into a Saskatchewan aquifer.

There is also interest in following EnCana's lead and using CO2 to boost production from oil-bearing rocks. It is estimated CO2 could liberate 3.8 billion extra barrels of oil in Western Canada alone.

© National Post 2006

May 15, 2006

Traveling days

I'm traveling today (Monday) and tomorrow. When I arrive at my hotel in Nokia, Finland, I'll try to make time for a blog entry. It may be that I'll only be able to make a couple of entries this week. If you don't see anything for the next few days, it means technical problems have got in the way, although Finland has one of the world's most advanced internet and high-tech infrastructures, so I should be able to keep in touch.

May 13, 2006

Heading to Finland

On Monday I'm flying the red-eye to Finland to tour Molok's plant in Nokia. My itinerary includes a tour of the factory and then we head down to Turku, the old capitol of Finland. On Thursday there's a big meeting in Helsinki where waste facilities' people from all over Finland will meet. This will be a great opportunity for me to find out what's going on throughout the country, and I'll report back about this in an article in our June/July edition.

On the way back, I'm spending the Victoria Day long weekend stopping over in London and touring around with an old friend. He lives in Toronto but we happen to be over there at the same time. When you fly to Helsinki you have to change planes at Heathrow anyway. The last time I was in London I left the day before the bombings in the tube. Hopefully things will be less eventful this time.

I'll be updating news on our website and maybe even making a few blog entries while I'm traveling, but don't be surprised if I miss a day or two with all the traveling.

May 12, 2006

A tale of two conferences: Watch out!

Just a quick entry today to update readers about a couple of things.

On Wednesday morning Brian van Opstal gave me a tour of the Dufferin organics plant in the northwest corner of Toronto. It was very interesting and I'll be writing a technical article on it for our August/September annual composting supplement. My basic impressions were that I was impressed with the very small footprint of the plant, which composts 25,000 tonnes per year of source-separated organics (SSO) captured by Toronto's SSO progam (of about 110,000 tonnes total). The material is tipped and conveyed to a BAT wet-separation vortex tank where water is added and the light (e.g., plastic bags) and heavy (e.g., glass) fractions are taken off. The material then passes through a second vortex tank, and then pumped to a digester where it spends 15 days at 37 degrees Celsius being broken down; then it goes to a drier and the damp pulpy product is sent to a private facility that mixes it with leaf-and-yard waste for full composting. Toronto wants to potentially double the capacity at this facility and then build another to handle most of the city's SSO, and let the private sector handle some too.

The plant was quite impressive, not least because it's functioning well, as opposed to some other Ontario in-vessel plants that have experienced big problems.

On Thursday morning I attended the morning session of the Recycling Council of Ontario's (RCO) one-day workshop on waste diversion entitled "Making Waste History" -- the first of five proposed one-day workshops that will take the place of the RCO's annual conference. I like this idea and format very much, but would prefer next time if the panelists get into more of the nitty gritty of policy even if it's controversial. These workshops will be more successful if the panelists let the fur fly a bit more.

The RCO was successful in getting Ontario environment minister Laurel Broten to come out and talk at lunch. She didn't say too much that was new and stuck pretty much to her script. She also made it known she would not entertain questions at the end of her remarks. I don't find this acceptable. In a democracy we expect elected officals to be prepared to take at least a few questions from the public and the media and interact. Even if they tap-dance around the most controversial questions, they should at least be prepared to deliver the appearance of genuine interaction and not flat out refuse questions, especially from a non-hostile professional audience. This minister has been given a bit of a free ride in that regard and I'm not going to cooperate anymore with politely "not asking questions" as though we live in some Stalinist state. I will in fact speak up next time and ask questions of the minister. I will be polite and respectful but I will not be silent, even if my only question is to ask "Why do you refuse to take questions?" She's a public servant and not a member of the royal family. I'll pose a question! Watch out!

In the afternoon I attended an afternoon session of a very nice conference on environmental issues as they affect the pharmaceutical industry. I bumped into Dave Douglas and a few other industry contacts there. I raised the idea (which was well received) that pharmaceutical waste needs to be added to the list of special wastes in Ontario's new designation of Household Hazardous & Special Wastes under Waste Diversion Ontario (WDO). The conference chair -- Lisa James of The Environmental Advisory Group -- is writing an article pharma waste issues for the forthcoming June/July edition, and it was a pleasure to meet her.

May 10, 2006

Musings on the Devil's Playground and more

Today I'm touring the Dufferin organics composting plant in the northwest end of Toronto with the city's Brian van Opstal. I hope to write about the plant in the forthcoming June/July edition of the magazine, or potentially in the special annual composting supplement in the August/September edition. (Space will dictate.) Apparently after some initial glitches the system is working fine (I'm told). The plant is important because it's one of only a few in-vessel systems that are working in Ontario. With more and more communities, including Toronto, collecting source-separated organics (SSO), ways of efficiently processing the material are crucial. Currently, a lot of material has to be sent out of province (Quebec) which makes little sense in terms of environmental economics.

Tomorrow I'll be at the Recycling Council of Ontario one-day policy workshop at the Boulevard Club, and hope to swing by the pharmaceutical environmental conference at Lion's Head Golf Club toward the end of the day.

Before I head off, I'd like to mention that I watched an interesting documentary last night. (Actually, it was one that I downloaded using my Rogers personal video recorder [PVR] that is a TIVO-type of appliance -- very cool.) Entitled "Devil's Playground" (not to be confused with the Australian film about repression in Catholic schools) the documentary examines Amish life, specifically a period of a few months or years in which Amish youth, when they turn 16, are set free from the restrictions of their religious communities and are allowed to sample the experiences of the outer world. I knew nothing about this before.

Basically, many of the kids go nuts with partying and drinking and experimenting with drugs and sex, etc. Typical teenage stuff, but in the case of these kids, even going to a shopping mall or a city is a new experience. The deal is that at the end of this wild time they have to choose for themselves whether to freely choose to return to the community and be formally baptized, or go out into the world and give up Amish life. On the positive side, allowing this free choice ensures that people stay in the community because they want to be there, and not because they're hostages. (In fact, the Amish fled to North America centuries ago specifically because they were persecuted for allowing this choice. They opposed baptism of children and believed only people of a certain age should be baptized, after freely choosing a Christian life.) On the negative side, these kids are wholly unprepared for life outside the Amish villages and farms. They have no emotional or other support, and little preparation. Job opportunities are limited since Amish formal education ends at Grade Eight (since higher education leads to "pride"). So one suspects a lot of Amish kids fall back into Amish life not so much because they reject the outside world, as that they've been conditioned to fail in it.

Anyway, I'm writing about this because one thing that struck me from the film had little to do with its intended theme. Watching the Amish live their simple rural and uncomplicated life, driving horse and buggy, and eschewing anything electronic (phones, TVs, computers, etc.) it occurred to me that if we all lived like the Amish, there would be no environmental crisis. No industrial pollution, no man-made global warming, in fact, few modern problems. While the Bible-orientation of the Amish lifestyle and its obsession with getting into heaven may not appeal to many of us, it's worth thinking about the fact that we have among us rel living examples in other respects of what life looks like when lived without the modern wasteful and energy-consuming accoutrements that environmentalists say are poisoning the planet. Perhaps this is how we'll all live, after the coming storm.

May 5, 2006

On the matter of federal funds for Ontario

You've likely read by now that in the federal budget, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty didn't include $538million in funds that were promised for Ontario to help offset its costs fighting global warming.

The issue is a complicated matrix that goes something like this:

1) Premier Dalton McGuinty promised voters in the next election that he'd close Ontario's coal-fired power plants in order to help clean up the airshed in that province. This idea stemmed from a report issued by doctor's that many deaths occur each year because of fine particulates in the atmosphere. (As an aside, I've always been a bit suspicious of that data. I imagine that most of the deaths are among elderly and infirm people who would have died a few days later in any case, and the doctor's count them as smog-related because they take place on high smog days. I have no proof of this, but it's an educated guess.)

2) Once in power, the provincial Liberals find themselves in a bit of a pickle with this promise, because Ontario needs more power generation, not less, and the grid can't afford the shutting down of the coal-fired plants at this time. Wind and solar just won't provide enough electricity in the foreseeable future. The shut down of most of the plants is delayed.

3) The power worker's union argues that clean coal technology would be the most affordable way to power the province. Further filters and scrubbers could make the coal-fired plants virtually non-polluting. Everyone agrees, however, that even if the Ontario plants are shut down, particulates will still migrate up here from Ohio and other states that have many coal-fired plants. Little difference will be made, especially since most of the smog-type pollution comes from cars, which is why closure of the Lakeview power plant upwind of Toronto made almost no impact on that city's smog.

4) However, in the intervening years, evidence grows that man-made global warming is real, and the effects are especially noticeable in Canada's Arctic. Even if the government scrubs every last bit of aerosol/particulate out of the coal-fired emissions, CO2 will still be generated which, if you believe global warming is real, is the worst problem of all. So now the government has an even better reason to shut down the plants.

5) Solar and wind power are highly inefficient, and other alternative energy systems are decades away from widespread application. The province can do a bit better in terms of energy efficiency, but nothing will cause people toi be energy efficient as much as high energy prices. Since these have risen with the price of oil and electricity, the market is doing more than any government PR program.

6) Faced with no other realistic choice, the Liberals decide to invest in nuclear power. The technology is much improved since decades ago when Darlington and other reactors went way over budget. (Canadian plants in China have recently been built on time and on budget.) The nukes are also the safest technology according to objective studies. (I am serious.) So the LIberals -- correctly if you think global warming is real -- decide on nuclear power because it allows them to shut down the coal-fired plants and achieve massive CO2 reductions, and so fight global warming.

7) However, the government is disappointed that the feds reneg on earlier primises to help offset the cost of doing all this.

In conclusion, I have come around to agreeing that Ontario's Liberals are making the correct decision in going with nuclear power. Read my earlier blog entry about James Lovelock's book to learn more as to why. My main concern is this, however: I don't want to see a repeat of the Ontairo Hydro fiasco in which a fairly unaccountable crown corporation built plants over budget and stuck taxpayers with tens of millions of dollars in "stranded debt." We need to devise a competitive market in which private companies bid on the opportunity to build and operate the plants, with strict performance guarantees and stiff penalities for cost overruns. In other words, government steers, the private sector rows.

I know that the environmentalists are going to hate me for supporting nuclear power, but they sort of brought it on themselves fighting everything else. I plan to join the Association of Environmentalists for Nuclear Energy, not only because I'm coming over to that way of thinking, but because it'll irritate the hell out some environmentalists whose views I oppose in this and other areas. I feel the need to join something, so maybe this is it. I'll let you know how it works out in this space in future.

May 4, 2006

Drowning polar bear myths and other notes

Just a quick entry today on a couple of items.

Readers should take a look at Margaret Wente's column in the Globe & Mail (May 4) in which she questions (you could say "demolishes") the story about "drowing polar bears" and the idea that they're in danger of going extinct. While it's true that in some places where ice is melting bears have been adversely affected, in most areas their numbers have increased. The populations are actualy thriving, in large part because of hunting legislation. Canada is home to two-thirds of the 22,000 to 24,000 polar bears in the wild, and in 11 of 13 distinct subpopulations, the numbers are stable or increasing. Over hundreds of thousands of years, the bears have survived warmer and colder conditions than those of today.

I was glad to read this article as other accounts upset me greatly. Perhaps Wente doesn't have the whole story, but her article at least provides some balance to recent statements from people like Tim Flannery (author of the Weather Makers who recently toured Canada to promote his book) and David Suzuki that polar bears will be extinct within our lifetime. Anyway, read the article for yourself and make up your own mind.

On another note, I just wanted to mention a heart-warming experience I had two nights ago. My Rotary Club in Collingwood is responsible for a tract of land and creek that forms about a mile of the town's extensive hiking and biking trails. We maintain a garden and once per year stage a cleanup evening where everyone comes out with garbage bags, rubber gloves, and so on and walks the trail, picking up litter.

I agreed to put on some hip waders (what a fashion statement) and walk our length of the creek. Frankly, previous cleanups have already restored to an almost pristine condition what used to be an awful mess. But I did fill about one large leaf and lawn clear plastic bag with all kinds of junk. Not surprisingly, I noticed a lot of Tim Horton's cups and lids, quite a few plastic grocery bags, and fast food items like potato chip bags. Unusual items included quite a few tiny dark plastic bottles, which we surmized were "Bitters" bought by teens and tramps alike to achieve a cheap alcoholic buzz, and a VERY heavy metal railway connector stuck in the mud. (The trail was established on what used to be the railway line that ran from the Collingwood Terminals to Toronto.) It took two of us to carry it all the way to the litter drop off area -- frankly, it was so heavy I would have just left it there, but my friend decided it was a form of pollution, so he's more green than me, I guess (and I'm lazier).

The reason I say this litter cleanup was "heart warming" is that it reminded me of the time 35 years ago when I was ten -- the same age as my oldest son -- in 1970 when I participated in a similar ravine/trail cleanup with my family as part of an Earth Day anti-litter campaign championed by an outdoor sports and fishing columnist for the Toronto Sun newspaper. I recall that my brother and sister and I dressed up in green plastic bags with pop cans and other junk tied to us as "garbage" for the local Mayfair Parade. It was fun, and was the beginning of my very slow evolution as a conservation-minded person. (Sorry, but I'm just to cynical to use the word "environmentalist" for myself and would be laughed at for using such a term anyway.)

I suggest you organize a cleanup of a stretch of land or watershed in your area, if there isn't one already. It's a very good way to impart some sense of respect for our environment to children, and to teach them that they can become physically active in helping clean things up, rather than just talking about it.