Alliance Pipeline getting ready to re-start natural gas pipeline

first_imgThere was confirmation Wednesday from Alliance Pipeline that it will initiate a resumption to operational service on its mainline pipeline system today with the intention of resuming full contract firm service Thursday.Earlier this week it started burning off the poisonous gas around the clock at two Saskatchewan flare sites as it moved to dispose of the hazardous hydrogen sulphide gas which last week mistakenly got into the pipeline running from here in Northeast B.C. to Chicago.As reported earlier, Keyera Corporation, the pipeline operator, has confirmed a brief operational error which occurred during maintenance activity allowed the H2S to enter the main line.- Advertisement -It occurred a week ago today, at a gas plant about 60 kilometers southwest of Valleyview, and forced the Alliance shutdown of the nearly 4,000 kilometre system on Friday.The tainted gas, stopped in Southeast Saskatchewan, was targeted for flaring east of Estevan, and reports indicate four shipping companies were forced to make alternative short term arrangements to move their natural gas, including Crew Energy which halted production in the Montney.The pipeline, jointly owned by an affiliate of Enbridge and Veresen, ships 1.6 billion cubic feet of gas a day.Advertisementlast_img read more

Malthusian Maniac Killed Before Killing Hostages

first_imgJames J. Lee took hostages today at the Discovery Channel headquarters in Maryland, but was killed by police before he harmed anyone (see New York Times).  Lee, who authored a website called SaveThePlanetProtest.com, left a manifesto with a list of demands, calling humans “filth” and demanding the Discovery Channel inform viewers that humans were ruining the planet.  His rants included demands to saturate the public mind with indoctrination into Darwinian ideas: “Talk about Evolution.  Talk about Malthus and Darwin until it sinks into the stupid people’ brains until they get it!!”    The Discovery Institute (no connection to the Discovery Channel) used this incident to highlight the deleterious effects of Darwinian thinking.  David Klinghoffer on Evolution News and Views listed other killers who used Darwinian ideas for their rampages, and Robert Crowther on Evolution News and Views followed up with a quote from Bruce Chapman, Discovery Institute Director, on the disparity in news coverage between religious madmen and this Darwinist one: “Oddly missing from initial news accounts was any mention of Darwin,” he said; but James J. Lee made it clear that Malthus and Darwin were prime motivators of his mental anguish, as was Al Gore’s film, An Inconvenient Truth.  John West in Evolution News and Views compared the silence of major newspaper coverage about the Darwin connection to what would happen if an anti-abortion vigilante took hostages at an abortion clinic: “you can be sure the newsmedia would tenaciously track down and publicize every anti-abortion association and comment of the criminal in question,” he remarked.Update 09/03/2010: David Klinghoffer dug deeper into the case and found a stronger connection of Lee’s thinking to Darwin than with Al Gore, where the news media was focusing.  See Evolution News and Views.  For an example of whitewashing the story, PhysOrg tried to make the case that eco-terrorism is rare and usually not deadly.Every movement has nutcases.  Lee was no spokesman for Darwin any more than Charlemagne for Jesus Christ as the emperor killed pagans who refused to convert.  But consider that the misanthropic ideas of James J. Lee were not that different from university professors who have taught that human beings are a plague on the planet, and that mass death of humans would not be such a bad thing (e.g., Eric Pianka, 04/02/2006, who told the Texas Academy of Sciences that humans were no better than bacteria and got a standing ovation for saying it would be a good thing if airborne ebola wiped out 90% of humanity).    No Christian theologian familiar with Christ’s and Paul’s teachings about loving one’s neighbor and loving our enemies would ever condone genocide in the name of Christ, and certainly Darwin and Malthus would have been appalled at the actions of today’s hostage-taker.  Still, Klinghoffer’s list of recent madman who felt they were fulfilling Darwin’s laws of nature is noteworthy and disturbing.    One of Lee’s statements demanded saving the lions, tigers, giraffes, elephants, ants, beetles and other animals, but then he said, “The humans?  The planet does not need humans.”  This shows he was a nutcase, because he could not think logically about evolution.  If humans arose by a Darwinian process, then they are just as much a part of nature as beetles, and whatever they do is just as amoral, meaningless and purposeless as any other part.  If humans wipe out all other life, so what?  Why would Lee care?  His anguish is a desperate cry from his soul.  Despite his love for Darwin, he could not extricate himself from the image of God imprinted in his being.    The late Greg Bahnsen used to complain about the inconsistency of the media.  He said he wouldn’t mind reporters drawing attention to the religious beliefs of Christians who go berserk as long as they were consistent.  When a Darwinist goes nuts, why is there no connection made to his motivations?  If reporters were truly objective, they would highlight the beliefs of Darwinist madmen as quickly as they point out the religious beliefs of those who commit crimes in the name of Christ.  “This incident goes to show the danger of Darwinist ideas to promote hate and intolerance in young men,” would be a fair assessment.  “When young men’s minds are filled with ideas of survival of the fittest and view humans as responsible for wrecking the environment, it’s little wonder that they sometimes go off the deep end and take actions into their own hands.  Too bad no one shared with him the love of Christ.”  The heat death of the universe will likely occur before you ever hear that in the mainstream media.(Visited 12 times, 1 visits today)FacebookTwitterPinterestSave分享0last_img read more

Two-goal Bafana bring Afcon to life

first_img23 January 2013Bafana Bafana gave the 2013 Orange Africa Cup of Nations the lift it was desperately in need of when the tournament hosts deservedly beat Angola 2-0 in a Group A clash played at Moses Mabhida Stadium in Durban on Wednesday evening.Big tournaments of the nature of Africa’s premier football competition need the home teams to do well. After the first round of Group a matches, supporters of South Africa were a nervous bunch going into the clash with the Sable Antelopes, especially as the Angolans had looked a touch better than Morocco in their opening goalless draw, but by the end of the game most of the questions and doubts about the South African side were forgotten.Coach Gordon Igesund had made five changes from the team that started the opening match against Cape Verde, and not one of the new men let him down as South Africa delivered a far more rounded and effective performance.Dean Furman’s inclusion was a masterstroke. He played in front of the back four, brought stability to the midfield, and his fine positional play led to him picking up plenty of loose balls and put him in position to make tackles.With the middle of the field stable, South Africa was able to look wide to Anele Ngongca and Tsepo Masilela at the back and Thuso Phala and Bernard Parker up front. All four saw plenty of ball and all four played good games.Central defendersAt the back, Siyabonga Sangweni was a rock, defending with composure alongside captain Bongani Khumalo, whose only blemish was conceding a free kick right outside the box after he was caught a touch out of position. On the whole, however, the two central defenders were solid as could be and between them they kept Angola’s captain Manucho, a dangerous striker, very quiet.In the midfield, May Mahlangu showed good vision with some insightful passes, but was surprisingly substituted at the break, while up front Katlego Mphela looked a little rusty, but made a nuisance of himself.Right back Lunguinha looked to get forward whenever he could for Palancas Negras and initiated a number of good moves down the right flank. Most of the Angolan players had middling games, though, as hard work by the South African midfielders and forwards cut down the spaces and often forced a change of possession.The match began with the crowd still filing in. The 17:00 start meant many people didn’t get away from work early enough to see the kick off, but the South African goals, scored in the 30th and 61st minutes ensured the home supporters were in good cheer and by the end of the contest they were in hearty voice.PitchThe pitch looked a little heavy, slow and uneven, but ultimately it was decent enough and the game itself turned into a fair spectacle.Angola were the first to fire a meaningful shot on goal when Mateus blasted away from the right across the face of goal. South African goalkeeper Itumeleng Khune got a light touch on it and the ball went behind. The referee awarded a goal kick, which was the first of a number of decisions that he and his crew got wrong on the night.In the early going, too much of the play took place in the air, which made the contest a little scrappy, but it soon settled down.Phala narrowly missed Khumalo and Mphela with a free kick in the ninth minute and Furman had a shot blocked on the top of the box after the home team had worked a nice corner variation. He was everywhere in the early going, providing the link between backs and forwards, just like a good midfielder should.A shot by Mphela in the 16th minute struck Rantie right in front of goal. Rantie was blown up for being offsides (which he wasn’t) but a defender, nonetheless, managed to hack the ball clear. A minute later Rantie let rip with a left-footed shot, but it passed harmlessly across the goal mouth, looking more like a pass than a shot.A warningMphela sounded a warning to the Angolans two minutes later when he just beat Lama to the ball. Unfortunately for the striker, in the battle for the ball, it came off of him last and went over the line for a goal kick.It was all South Africa as the Bafana players put Angola under heavy pressure when they picked up possession and Igesund’s charges continued to press forward.After a fine build-up, Mphela received the ball in a good position the box. He should have shot with his left foot but instead passed to Rantie, whose shot was very poor, flying high over the goal.GoalIn the 30th minute, Phala was fouled by Dani Massunguna on the right. The Platinum Stars’ man popped up and quickly took the free kick, passing it towards Mphela in the box. It was too high for the striker and too high for Lunguinha as well, who managed only to knock it high and just behind him.Sangweni, meanwhile, had made a run into the box as two Angolan defenders stood ball watching. He met the ball on the volley with his left foot and fired across Lama into the opposite corner to give South Africa a 1-0 lead. One could sense the relief in Igesund, his support crew, the players and the supporters that Bafana Bafana had finally scored their first Afcon goal since the 2004 tournament in Tunisia.Two minutes later, Manucho tested Khune with a diving header from a corner, but the South African net-minder blocked the shot with his body and knocked it behind for a corner.Scuffed shotPhala almost broke free at the other end of the field, but the cover defence nipped the ball away from him. Mahlangu followed up with a nice run from deep, but scuffed his shot wide to the goalkeeper’s right.Five minutes from the break, Bafana were almost caught out by the slow surface, but Khune came out of his box to header the ball away under pressure from Manucho.Bernard Parker had the final shot of the half, forcing a save out of Lama low to his right, and South Africa went into the break a goal to the good after an impressive first half showing.South African coach Igesund brought on Reneilwe Letsholonyane for Mahlangu at the start of the second half. Angola wanted to bring on Djalma Campos too, but had to do so in the first minute after the fourth official was a little tardy in alerting the referee, much to the anger of coach Gustavo Ferrin.Greater attacking intentThe Angolans clearly exhibited far greater attacking intent than they had in the first half, but the South African players worked hard to close them down.In the 50th minute, Massunguna was shown a yellow card for a reckless challenge on Rantie, whom he had fouled on a couple of occasions in the first half.Two minutes later, after an excellent build-up initiated by Lunguinha, Mateus was set free down the right flank. He crossed to Afonso’s feet, but Afonso’s shot was stopped by Khune, who dropped down to his left to stop the goal-bound effort.Shortly after that, Mphela found Furman by knocking the ball back out of the Angolan box and the midfielder’s curling shot towards the goalkeeper’s right hand corner forced a fine save out of Lama.Telling substitutionIn the 58th minute, Igesund introduced Kaizer Chiefs’ striker Lehlohonolo Majoro, the leading goal scorer in the Premier Soccer League with his Bafana Bafana team-mate Bernard Parker. Igesund was soon rewarded.Angola put South Africa under pressure when they created a two-on-two situation, but after that attack was defused Letsholonyane picked out Majoro with a pinpoint long pass. The striker took the ball deep into the Angolan box, cut back out to create an angle, and then beat Lama through his legs to double South Africa’s advantage and give the home fans room to breathe and to really enjoy the game.Seeking a goal, Ferrin sent on veteran Gilberto, who had made his international debut against South Africa in 1999 as a 16 year old, to replace Dede.The industrious Lunguinha played a nice one-two to open up space for himself, but his shot was straight at Khune, who dealt with it comfortably.Wide under pressureMajoro did well to nick the ball away from an Angolan defender and Mphela fought strongly to gain control of it. He then crossed onto Majoro’s right foot, but Majoro was wide of the left-hand post with his shot under pressure from a defender.With a quarter-of-an-hour remaining, Khumalo conceded a free kick for holding Afonso right on the edge of the penalty area. It was a chance for Angola to pull a goal back, but Gilberto’s left-footed shot hit the wall and went behind for a corner.Shortly after that, Igesund made his final substitution, bringing on midfielder Oupa Manyisa for Mphela, a striker, which underlined the coach’s determination to finish the match with at least a two-goal cushion.Angola were trying hard to play more attacking football than they had in the opening 45 minutes, but time after time they were forced to stop and pass back, thus losing momentum, because of the hard work put in by the South African forwards and midfield.Manucho stoppedWith six minutes to play, Lingunya crossed after South Africa had cleared a ball from the middle of the box. He picked out Manucho, but the tall striker failed to get enough on the header and Khune saved.Amaro came on for Afonso and Manucho soon got onto the end of another cross, but his header was from the edge of the box and was easily dealt with by Khune.In the 89th minute, Masilela mishit a clearance from an Angolan free kick, but Khune was on hand to gather. He then picked out Majoro with a long ball. The striker attempted to lob Lama, but his effort was a little too strong and went over the opposition’s crossbar.Deep into time added on, Majoro was taken off on a stretcher for treatment. Moments later, the final whistle sounded. Igesund was happy, the crowd was happy, and the tournament had received the injection it needed.Bafana Bafana circled the field to thank the crowd and the fans responded with loud cheers.Would you like to use this article in your publication or on your website? See: Using SAinfo materiallast_img read more

Robocalypse? I Think Not.

first_imgRelated Posts Trends Driving the Loyalty Marketing Industry Guido Jouret is the Chief Digital Officer at ABB. He leads the next level of development and deployment of ABB’s digital solutions for customers globally and across all businesses. Predictions of the Robocalypse are everywhere. “Robots Are Winning the Race for Jobs,” headlines The New York Times, which linked workplace automation to the rise of despotic rulers around the world. Elon Musk warns “Robots will do everything better than us.” On one hand, 72 percent of Americans are worried about an automated future (Pew ). On the other hand, 94 percent of American workers don’t think a robot will take their job (NPR).Denial, fear (rational or irrational), or just confusion, these unsettled attitudes are understandable. The 4th Industrial Revolution – the meshing of the physical and digital worlds – is far more disruptive than the previous three. They replaced human brawn with automation. The fourth is replacing human brain. Digital automation – artificial intelligence, machine learning, analytics, smart hardware, and robotics – will soon be doing what we’ve always considered skilled human jobs.Should we be afraid of robots? In the near term, I agree with Ruchir Sharma, Chief Global Strategist of Morgan Stanley, who points out, “the robots are coming just in time.” Robots aren’t taking our jobs. There’s actually a massive shortage of talent converging with the aging of global workforces, and we need robots to do jobs there aren’t enough humans to do:The displacement of truck drivers by autonomous trucks – “robot” trucks – will supposedly create enough social dislocation to trigger “riots in the streets,” according to Andrew Yang, a New York technology executive and 2020 Democratic Party presidential hopeful. The reality? Right now there are more open U.S. truck driver jobs – 48,000 – than there are coal miners in the entire country (40,000).Japan, with its aging population, is short almost 400,000 caregivers for the elderly, and the government has a program to increase social acceptance of robotic caregiving to fill the gap.If the U.S. and other countries seal their borders, they’ll be short millions of people to work farms and meat-processing plants.There are 6 million U.S. jobs currently going unfilled for lack of proper skills.In the short term, not enough robots have shown up yet. (And 70 percent of the world’s robots, by value, are concentrated in one industry: automotive.)If we think of robots not as sci-fi monsters but simply the physical interfaces of digital automation, we can understand why many experts expect automation to create a better future, not just for wealthy elites but for multitudes.Right now, we’re in a disruptive early stage that simply doesn’t feel good to a lot of people. But over time, I agree with a recent predictionby the Progressive Policy Institute that intelligent automation can create a job-rich, “dynamic new economy every  bit as revolutionary as the advent of electricity.”Digital automation is not solely about increased efficiency, which would indeed be a job-killer. It’s about augmenting human talent to create entirely new levels of flexibility, agility, and customization in imagining and delivering new products and services – the exact capabilities that lead to more rewarding jobs and an enhanced quality of life for larger numbers of people.This moment – the early years of the 4th Industrial Revolution – is like the early years of the Age of Electricity, when fears of the unknown gave way to the steady renovation of the world. Just as everything was electrified then, today we’re in the process of adding digital intelligence to everything in our world. As Kevin Kelly of Wired put it, “Everything we formerly electrified, we will now cognitize.”And like electricity, intelligent automation will evolve from ominous mystery to a humdrum everyday enabler as it transforms the global economy and our entire civilization.How many jobs will intelligent automation destroy or create? Expert opinion varies widely, to say the least. The most commonly cited negative numbers come from three places: a 2013 Oxford study that said 47 percent of US jobs will be automated in the next few decades; an OECD study suggesting that 9 percent of jobs in the organization’s 21 member countries are automatable; and a 2017 McKinsey report saying 400 million to 800 million jobs worldwide could be automated by 2030.On the positive side, some experts, such as London School of Economics Labor Professor Alan Manning, believe intelligent automation will have zero impact on employment. The research firm Forrester foresees the net creation of nearly 15 million new American jobs in the next 10 years. The Center for the Future of Work predicts intelligent automation will replace 19 million U.S. workers while creating 21 million new jobs.I incline to the optimistic. Among other benefits, digital automation has the potential to solve the productivity conundrum that’s been holding back wages and prosperity throughout the 21st century. Take the U.S. example: For the last 10 years, physical industrie that represent 75 percent of American private sector employment  – manufacturing, energy, transportation, infrastructure, utilities – have grown at the feeble annual rate of 0.7 percent. By contrast, intelligently automated digital industries, which employ 25 percent of U.S. private workers, grew at an average annual rate of 2.7 percent in that period.Now here’s the good news: intelligent digital automation is coming to physical industries. I see it every day at work. Transformative automation could well raise economy-wide productivity and growth to digital-industry levels over the next few years, in the same way computer network­ing accelerated industrial productivity, growth, and prosperity in the 1990s.Automation’s acceleration of the broader U.S. economy to digital’s 2.7 percent annual growth rate would add $8.6 trillion in worker pay and $3.9 trillion in government revenues over the next 15 years, according to the Progressive Policy Institute.That economic surge would benefit not just the familiar coastal locations but extend to places like Kentucky, where rising e-commerce employment (warehousing, storage, fulfillment) is already enhancing the state’s economy.And the nearly $4 trillion in extra government revenue could be used for effective retraining and supportive social programs not only for those displaced by automation, but also for workers who need immediate education, reskilling, and placement services to fill those six million jobs currently going unfilled because people lack the skills to do them, or the awareness that the job openings even exist.What’s required to benefit the most from the automated 4th Industrial Revolution is preparedness in education and social policy on a nation-by-nation basis. Ominously, as I travel the world I see a universal lack of policy readiness, even in countries eager to prepare for the future of work. Every country needs broader planning engagement among leaders in government, industry, and education.Education for the automated future must go beyond the 3Rs and STEM to include skills that allow people to surf future changes and remain employable using uniquely human skills robots can’t replace – seeing the patterns around them, figuring out solutions, working in fluid teams, and adapting as situations change. It will be a long time before machines replace “HUMINT” – human intelligence.In social policy, countries must guard against painful – and politically explosive – human disruption by considering everything from a guaranteed income to all-encompassing approaches such as Denmark’s “flexicurity,” which combines portable health insurance, income support, and lifelong learning to move workers flexibly from obsolete old jobs to more rewarding new ones. (This is not as Scandinavia-utopia as it sounds: majorities of Americans support similar programs, according to Pew.)Our humane impulse – fight progress to “save jobs” – may seem compassionate, but it’s the wrong thing to do. Right now, we need robots to do jobs people aren’t available to do. In the longer term, artificially hampering or postponing innovation won’t save jobs, it will just delay automation’s benefits, including the development of more rewarding, better-paying work that’s not dirty, dangerous, or demeaning. Automation will allow humans to stop the struggle of adapting to technology as technology increasingly adapts to them.The fundamental issue is not the work digital automation will take from humans, but the better work – the better jobs – it will do with humans. Automation’s elements are merely tools empowering us to build a smarter, more humane, cleaner, more empathetic world of widespread innovation and greater abundance by augmenting human talents.Our major challenge now, globally, is to develop & implement national policies ASAP, so every country is ready to harvest the riches of the 4th Industrial Revolution, robots included. Robocalypse? I think not. Follow the Puck Guido Jouret Tags:#4th Industrial Revolution#ABB#automation#future of work#robots Why IoT Apps are Eating Device Interfaces What it Takes to Build a Highly Secure FinTech …last_img read more