We are sorry this incident occurred.

Apr 17, 2026 9:42 AM

We are sorry this incident occurred.

WE ARE SORRY THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED

We aren't going to do fuck all bout it.

We are sorry this incident occurred.

It's got - what plants crave.

The shareholders laughed.

I thought that because of the situation in Iran, oil is absolutely devilishly expensive and they can afford to dump it into lakes.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

With oil pipelines, it not "if" they have a spill, it's "when". No more pipelines in Canada!!! We should be focusing on alternative energy.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 2

You should call the US and have them blockade the oil spill for you

3 months ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

In Alberta they don’t give a single fuck about the environment and when their assets get stranded after the energy transition leaves my province behind they will complain that it’s a shithole and that it’s entirely the liberals fault even though the conservatives ran the fucking province for 50 years

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"We're sorry this incident occurred".... but pipeline maintenance is too expensive.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

"We're very sorry for the loss of profit this causes our shareholders."

3 months ago | Likes 47 Dislikes 0

It won't. They will just bump price to make up for it

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They're sorry the media learned about it.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh... My bad. Will you get that for me? Bye!

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Lots of people where I live work in Alberta tar sands or an adjacent industry. A few weeks ago, someone told me a story about getting called out to a spill (I think it was a train) next to a remote lake. They were told to have it cleaned up and operational in 24hrs, and replied that it wasn't possible. They were told to dump it all in the lake or else. They refused. Finished their shift, and the next shift dumped it in the lake and opened the line.

3 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 1

The blame should still be fully the management's responsibility.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

The biggest consequences should be, but a little bit ago we did somewhat famously establish that following orders does not absolve you of a crime, and a crime certainly was committed by the individuals who did the dumping.

Holding EVERYONE accountable is what will make these shitty companies less attractive and will actually harm their business more than a one-and-done fine ever could.

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

Send BUS TITS to clean it up

3 months ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

I fuckin

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Lol bus tits... nice one

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

UCP = Maple Maga = Nazi shitheads

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

and you know what we do with Nazis?

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh, shit yeah, "bus tits" is comin' with me, thank you kindly.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Damn, if only anyone had seen this coming...

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

So if a 225gal tank dumps in someone's basement it means a call to the epa, often digging up the foundation, and they probably won't be drinking well water there ever. So I'm just real curious how 222,000 gallons has no environmental impact worth reporting. Pretty sure 222000 gallons of cooking oil would have an environmental impact

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

@op You forgot to add a link to the webpage with the article. Here it is. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/imperial-oil-pipeline-spill-bitumen-emulsion-9.7165429

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Absolutely my fault, thank tou

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

When will we stop with these fucking pipelines?

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

An issue with algae blooms may occur now that there’s pollution in the water. Not to mention drinking water and reservoir closures. Stay safe Canada.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oil is what those treasonous bastards in Alberta worship above all else, so enjoy.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

with all the fucking money these assholes have, they can't make pipes that don't constantly break‽

3 months ago | Likes 102 Dislikes 0

not really - it's not too different from water pipes everywhere: sometimes it's corrosion, or metal fatigue, or bad operation... they can be detected but shutting a valve upstream won't keep the contents downstream of it

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Wow an interrobang in the wild! But anyway, yeah but that'd require them to spend money. Why spend money making something better when you can typically get away with half-assing it and just saying sorry when something does go wrong?

3 months ago | Likes 49 Dislikes 1

Making pipes that don't constantly break cost money. You don't get this rich by spending money.

3 months ago | Likes 24 Dislikes 1

You don't get to keep all that fucking money by spending it on pipes that don't constantly break.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Having worked with the people who design those pipes many years ago: they’re trying. They’re good engineers trying to solve an impossible problem (metal pipes that never fail). The only answer is to stop using fossil fuels.

3 months ago | Likes 13 Dislikes 0

You might know the answer then for an idea i had. Pipe within a pipe. Have sensors in the outer pipe where if it detects oil it sends out an alert for a emergency shutoff and repair. The odds of both pipes failing at the same spot should be slim to none, and the cost, while higher, should not be unreasonable. Hell the outer pipe could even be a plastic of sorts since it should only have contact during a leak, at which point it could be replaced anyway.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

They already do this for particularly critical areas (crossing important waterways for instance). But the double pipe introduces all sorts of other issues, from more failure points (welds), to maintenance made more difficult, and potentially trapping corrosive moisture and deposits that can hasten both pipes failing, and monitoring difficulties. (Monitoring often involves devices going through the pipe which can't see the outer pipe then).) And of course, more expensive always plays a role.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Nearly 1/4 million gallons for those who can't read liters.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

You are sorry, great. Now get an environmental engineer in there, let him estimate the damage and the costs to bring it back to normal, and than pay up. And this won’t be cheap…

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I forgive them. End of story. Keep giving oil companies public money forever!

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

whoopsie

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

for perspective: 1 litre of oil can contaminate 1 million litres of water

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

For our southern neighbors, that roughly 4 liters to a gallon.

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Oh well so long as they are sorry

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Only sorry because they can’t sell that oil not that they spilled it and hurt the environment

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

3 months ago | Likes 174 Dislikes 0

Was it like a hand written statement at least?

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Sowwwwyyyyyyyy

3 months ago | Likes 22 Dislikes 0

I had to scroll down to the comments because i just knew this would be the top comment! Was not dissapointed.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

They should be charged 100$ per liter spilled.

3 months ago | Likes 18 Dislikes 0

Per mL

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who's gonna charge them? The corrupt EPA? So the fine can be rerouted to an offshore account under rapist pedos control?

3 months ago | Likes 10 Dislikes 4

Shpuld be federal governement and put on their income tax

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Its Canada, so they very well could be charged, but so far nothing from MOE Alberta , likely intentionally for similar reasons.

3 months ago | Likes 9 Dislikes 0

I know the Doomerism is your highest priority, but please try to remember that the EPA doesn’t have jurisdiction in Alberta.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

EPA is USA, canada has environement canada, different country bro

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

840 000 liters is enough to cover the whole of Lake Louise in a 1mm thick film of oil.

3 months ago | Likes 39 Dislikes 1

But don't worry, there are no environmental impacts reported. Probably fine. Like most places you go in nature, you just look around and can intuitively know "yeah this place could shrug off 843,000 litres of oil, no problem" the plants just like photosynthesize it away or whatever

3 months ago | Likes 6 Dislikes 0

This was a bitumen emulsion spill. Better than oil in some ways, worse in others. It's a mix of saltwater and bitumen. It won't coat the surface but the bitumen will sink and become harder to clean up.

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 0

Personal pic? That's majestic af

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

It didn't, though. It didn't hit any waterways. Look, I'm as anti-oil as anyone but we don't need to exaggerate what happened.

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 12

Even assuming that’s correct (and that’s unclear, because as the article states, thy don’t know the environment of the spill yet), but let’s say it didn’t happen in a lake…

Does it not fucking rain? Where is that oil going to go the first time it gets rained on?

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

"There's no information on the length of the spill nor the environment where the spill happened {...}" - so how do you know it didn't hit any waterways?

3 months ago | Likes 11 Dislikes 0

Sounds like we found our culprit!

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

clearly they spilled the oil outside of the environment, so there is nothing to worry about.

3 months ago | Likes 7 Dislikes 0

Also this very rarely happens, I'd like to point that out.

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

I'd be worried about the amount of hue in that lake already

3 months ago | Likes 5 Dislikes 1

That’s just talc. Blanca Lake in Washington is the exact same color

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

Who?

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0

Hugh?

3 months ago | Likes 4 Dislikes 0

Q Jackman

3 months ago | Likes 1 Dislikes 0

a weird episode of Star Trek, but ok

3 months ago | Likes 2 Dislikes 0

Blue.

3 months ago | Likes 3 Dislikes 0