Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next

If you agree the death was avoidable and pointless, then that's the distinction to be made - not implementing the safety measures didn't result in any significant benefit on the part of Syncrude or anyone else - their death was not in the "pursuit of profit", it was in the "neglect of responsibility".

   

A one million dollar fine for 500 ducks? Jeez they should of just buried them somewhere and forget about it. The duck species will not die off because of 500 of them got killed off.

   

next time...shoot, shovel and STF up

   

I doubt they'll get that kind of fine.

The ducks do not belong to the oil companies. They are under the stewardship of the people of Canada. We did not ask, nor did we authorize, the company to kill our ducks. The company is making money--presumably quite a bit of money--extracting and selling a natural resource that belongs to the people of Alberta.

   

and employing Albertans and Canadians while doing it....keeping the Canadian economy strong.

   

1000's of people have recently been killed in Myanmar. THAT is a tradgedy. The 'incident' resulting in the deaths of 500 or so ducks, ( which by the way, had they been shot by hunters, nary a peep would have been heard)with due diligence could have been avoided should result in a monetaty penalty payable to, say, Ducks Unlimited or any other 'animal focused' organization. Yes. The importance of keeping the equipment in good running order and fully operational must be impressed upon the oil companies, But a MILLION DOLLARS. Get serious!
EVERY single organization out there is only USING this incident to further their own political agendas.

   

So should all the cat owners be charged for the hundreds of birds killed by their pets? Or the car owners for the road kill? It was a horrible accident to be sure, but accidents do happen.

   

On the right is Syncrude...

   

cats are a brutal example because that's nature, I wish I could argue with you on the car owners one though hopefully someday we'll figure something out about animal crossings and highways.

   

but the point still remains that this kind of a accident can not be ignored and can not be condoned.

   

Again, intent (or mens rea) is not an element of the offence. Whether it was accidental or not is immaterial to the offence. It falls upon the company to establish due diligence defence, in toher words demonstrating that they did everyhting a reasonable person would have to prevent this from happening.

Also, for your edification and enlightnement, domestic cats rarely kill ducks.

   

The deaths of the ducks were easily preventable, and that's what it comes down to - all they had to do was make sure they had their "bangers" or "boomers", or whatever they're called, in place. They didn't do that, and the fine is intended not to recoup a monetary value of the ducks, but to ensure they take the appropriate measures next time.

   

Please learn how to spell enlightenment, everything, and other before you start trying to enlighten anybody. Anybody can be a smartass. And I believe ducks are still a type of bird? So cats don't kill ducks, but they still kill a shitload of birds, why don't we charge every single cat owner for every single bird killed by their cat? Why don't we charge every single car owner for every little animal their car hits?

The article discusses that there was a system in place but the weather prevented its deployment. There's the defense.

Even after the incident, they put their employees at risk to try to save the ducks, and not only that, if the article is correct...they used a corporate jet to try to save five of the birds who didn't die in the pond.

It was an accident, at worst they should be told to set up the system and then maybe donate a few hundred dollars to the local animal shelter.

   

And I agree they should set up the defense, but if they had a legitimate reason for not having it up (they said weather, and I, like you, I presume, have no idea how these systems work, so I can't verify that) but a $1,000,000 fine for what might have been something they have a true reason for, then it seems kind of excessive.

   

Well, that's certainly an opinion one could have. Of course, they "might" have just screwed up, and the fine "seems" entirely reasonable.

In this case, the thread title seems to apply.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5  Next