In the Canadian province of Alberta, 80,000 people have been ordered to evacuate the Fort McMurray area, where a wildfire has burned 1,600 buildings and more than 10,000 hectares (about 24,700 acres). The cause of the fire is unknown, but "very high temperatures, low relative humidities and some strong winds" are said to favor its spread.
Coverage:
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
80,000 Evacuated Ahead of Alberta Fire
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 32 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 05 2016, @01:50PM
It's very early for the usual forest fires in the West. It wouldn't be surprising if arson or accidental ignition were to blame. There was a recent case [nydailynews.com] in California where a woman set a bunch of forest fires. She did set them in the summer, though, to mask their cause.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:00PM
El nino has made canada warmer and much drier this year.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:24PM
Gotta feel bad for Alberta in the last few years. I'm sure it was only two years ago they had massive flooding and I'm sure last year they had issues with fires as well.
Top that with oil prices dropping, investors are pulling out of the oil sands so now they have a ton of infrastructure to maintain, less money coming in and most of their workers (who weren't originally from Alberta) are moving back to where they came from. Exact same sort of economic stuff happened back in the 80's when oil prices were high.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:51PM
Top that with oil prices dropping, investors are pulling out of the oil sands so now they have a ton of infrastructure to maintain, less money coming in and most of their workers (who weren't originally from Alberta) are moving back to where they came from. Exact same sort of economic stuff happened back in the 80's when oil prices were high.
What's different from the 80s is that this is expected. Anyone who has been in the industry for more than a few years already has survived one or more such downturns. The moment prices come back up to a profitable level, they'll resume production.
(Score: 2) by Vanderhoth on Thursday May 05 2016, @03:18PM
Yeah, I'd expect that, but it could be 10 to 15 to even 20 years. I mean there was a bust on oil prices in the 80's and prices didn't spike, to the point the oil sands became profitable again, until the early 00's. I think a big issue for them is as oil becomes less important, because of alternative sources and decreased usage, it's just not going to be worth sucking it out of sand. As soon as electric vehicles become a viable norm, which I expect in the next 10-20 years, oil demand will drop like a stone.
I expect coal to become more popular though as more power plants are built to meet an increase in demand for electricity. It's cheaper than building nuclear plants and has far less restrictions on it. I think wind, tidal and solar will be good supplements, but I don't think they'll be able to meet primary demand in the short term without some significant advances. More for logistic reasons than anything, they just require too much land coverage and too much maintenance, spread out over that huge land coverage, compared to just digging up black rocks and tossing them in a fire.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by RedGreen on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:08PM
Must not be following the recent trends though they have plenty of coal as well, more than oil I do believe, the tide is against a new coal plant being built in North America let alone there where they are shutting theirs down. Natural gas again which they have plenty of is the new low cost electrical production method in favour at the moment. They have a good deal of wind resource which they are starting to take advantage of and the southern part of the province is the best place in Canada for solar again starting to take off. Your electric car fantasy is just that at 10 million cars a year production it will take ~40 years to replace all the gas powered vehicles on the road at the moment in Canada and the US and that is nowhere near happening. Some time in a century or so it may get done hell in about 20-30 years electric may be half the production on a yearly basis but they are definitely going to have to sort out a better electrical grid in that time to get it done too....
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 05 2016, @09:46PM
Yeah, I'd expect that, but it could be 10 to 15 to even 20 years. I mean there was a bust on oil prices in the 80's and prices didn't spike, to the point the oil sands became profitable again, until the early 00's.
I think it won't take that long. First, where's the cheap oil coming from now? My take is competing OPEC members who are rapidly depleting their cheaper reserves. Second, why is oil cheap now? Because a few countries, particularly, China, are temporarily cutting back on demand.
As soon as electric vehicles become a viable norm, which I expect in the next 10-20 years, oil demand will drop like a stone.
Won't happen. Cheap oil is the primary obstruction to electric vehicle adoption (I would rank it over infrastructure support). Electric vehicles just aren't viable until oil remains expensive to the vehicle owners either by taxation/penalties or reduced supply. OR the cost of electricity and electric vehicles drop through the floor (which means that oil may be cheap, but it would be relatively expensive compared to the electric vehicle alternative).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:25AM
two years ago they had massive flooding
[...]last year they had issues with fires as well.
Top that with oil prices dropping
There are certain groups who would be quick to point out that, in 2015, Alberta (which had had a Right Wing gov't for decades) voted in a Liberal gov't. ;-)
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 06 2016, @06:14AM
Actually they voted in a NDP government, socialist, as the right wingers had mismanaged the Provinces finances so badly. At one time Alberta had a $5 Billion rainy day fund and now due to tax cuts (conservatives always seem to cut taxes when things are good lately rather then considering that downturns are a regular thing) they have such a huge deficit that the socialists looked like an improvement.
This fire is going to cost a fortune with currently a projected $9 billion insurance payout, makes the Slave Lake fire of a couple of years back look small.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @09:35PM
Ah, someone else here who uses words he doesn't understand.
The New Democratic Party doesn't even put "Socialist" in their name.
Let's see if some -actual- Socialists ever use the S word in describing NDP.
So, no. What NDP is is Social Democrats of the Franklin Roosevelt|Lyndon Johnson type--just as their name indicates.
the socialists
It would be a good idea for you to become better informed.
Look up Eugene Debs [counterpunch.org] and the platform of the Socialist Party in e.g. 1936 to see what actual Socialists look like. [google.com]
Prepare to be shocked; they are about THE COLLECTIVE OWNERSHIP OF THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION.
conservatives always seem to cut taxes when things are good
Now, that part you got right--except that you're talking about RADICALS who have mislabeled themselves.
An -actual- Conservative recognizes that that tack is counter to what Ike's Federal Reserve Chairman said was the right thing to do in good times. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Gravis on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:21PM
yes but she didn't cause any of the large fires.
humans are wierd.
(Score: 2) by EvilSS on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:37PM
Damn dendrophobics. Why can't we all just get along. It's not like trees chose to be trees, they were born that way!
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:33PM
Global Warming is making wildfires worse and more common.
One experiment run at Biosphere 2 showed that plants grow faster when there is more CO2 in the air.
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 06 2016, @06:21AM
There's been a lot of fires in Western Canada the last few years, even here on the coast things got pretty scary last year, what with the drought and warm weather. This spring it has been fairly dry and we keep breaking record high temperatures.
As for CO2 causing plants to grow faster, it seems to be a short term thing as other nutrients run out, and besides turning the north greener just means it's darker and absorbs more solar heat, especially comparing white versus green.
Even further south, the light green deciduous trees are being replaced by darker green conifers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by jdccdevel on Thursday May 05 2016, @02:56PM
Just watched some dash-cam footage of one mans escape from Beacon Hill [www.cbc.ca], one of the worst hit areas of the city.
I was on 30 min evacuation notice in '98 due to wildfires. I remember packing everything important we could with the smoke, and ash falling while we waited at home for the word to go. This is far, far more harrowing than that! You have to see it to believe it.
What strikes me the most though, is just how orderly the evacuation was! As far as I have heard, everyone made it out, and no-one died. Which is absolutely incredible if it's true.
Especially when you look at the video.
WOW.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:07PM
Some notes on that youtube [youtube.com] video in your link. The smoke at that intensity got to be really bad news for the lungs. Better stock up on a portable air filtration device, if one is going to live in a such area. Blue lights obviously penetrates the smoke better than red. Something to perhaps consider when outfitting the car, or bringing a flashlight.
Then, how does one drive such conditions. Infrared camera?, LIDAR? Radar? They aren't that expensive anymore so it's not out of the question.
(Score: 2) by VanderDecken on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:05PM
There were two fatal vehicle accidents on the highways but not directly related to the fire. Other than that, the entire city has been evacuated other than emergency workers. Which is pretty impressive.
The two most common elements in the universe are hydrogen and stupidity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @09:29AM
No panic, no stampede, no shouting, no violence. Where's the fun in that? Fscking Canadians.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:17PM
How common are property and life threatening forest fires in Canada? or other natural disasters like floods or earthquakes?
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:53PM
Well Canada is a big country with lots of forest. However, the north is sparsely populated.
I think the West cost may get some earth-quakes (though don't recall one). Southern Manitoba is a flood-plain (they built a berm around Regina).
(Score: 2) by Scruffy Beard 2 on Thursday May 05 2016, @04:55PM
Oops, Winnipeg is the capital of Manitoba, Regina is in Saskatchewan, IIRC.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:09PM
Yes, WInnipeg is in Manitoba, Regina in Saskatchewan.
And they build a berm to protect farmlands near Winnipeg during a flood maybe a decade or two ago. And Winnipeg has a permanent dike around it.
I don't know what they have done in Regina.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:16PM
Not particularly common. Most recent was probably the slave lake forest fire in 2011, which destroyed most of the town. However, that was a much smaller place than Fort McMurray. This one will be up among the most destructive fires ever to hit the country.
(Score: 2) by goodie on Thursday May 05 2016, @06:23PM
Floods are typically a lot more common during thawing season, pretty much all throughout the country. Scary thing is that it's about 30 degrees celsius over there right now, there was not that much snow so the soil is relatively dry. I wonder if there are any oil operations close by that are at risk... The Canadian Red Cross collects funds and those are matched by the Canadian government $ for $ for those interested in helping out!
https://donate.redcross.ca/ea-action/action?ea.client.id=1951&ea.campaign.id=50610&_ga=1.240116611.1828677915.1462472538 [redcross.ca]
http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/fort-mcmurray-federal-response-red-cross-1.3567828 [www.cbc.ca]
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Vanderhoth on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:03PM
Not so much for the East coast. We get quakes pretty often, but they're really small. Large enough you could mistake them for a large truck driving by your house, but small enough that you wouldn't think about it until the news was like, "So yeah how about that quake last week.", then you're like, "Wut?", I can't stress how small they are, last one I remember actually noticing was over 25 years ago, but we do get quite a few of them. http://earthquaketrack.com/r/nova-scotia-canada/recent [earthquaketrack.com]
Flooding also isn't much of an issue here, there's some in New Brunswick more toward Quebec, but an advantage to living near the coast for the rest of us is the water actually has some where to go.
Hurricanes have become more of a problem in the last 10-15 years, but it's the snow storms that are getting really out of control. This winter was pretty good, but last year I had a snowbank at the end of the season that I could effortlessly walk up on to the roof of my house from the drive way. Pretty much like clockwork last year every Wednesday we'd get another two to three feet from pretty much the start of March to the middle-end of May. This year there was almost nothing though, it's going to be a bad year for farmers.
"Now we know", "And knowing is half the battle". -G.I. Joooooe
(Score: 2) by goodie on Friday May 06 2016, @05:04AM
True for hurricanes... For the East coast I was thinking of high tides that wreak havoc in some areas and have been increasingly big over the past few years from what I understand. There are a lot of properties built right around lakes and rivers in Quebec and those tend to get flodded every spring as well.
(Score: 2) by bitstream on Thursday May 05 2016, @08:56PM
Perhaps those sand oil fields are at risk of actually burning for a very long time because there's fuel to supply it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 06 2016, @12:30AM
Before giving money to one of those organizations, you might want to find out what their executive officers are paid.
The amount of your donation that gets skimmed off [google.com] before any goes to people in need
is pretty shocking. [google.com]
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday May 06 2016, @06:31AM
The last few years have seen quite heavy fire seasons through out the west though this is really early, it's still early spring up there with the dry grass from last year and no leaving out on the trees yet. Northern BC has also had a half dozen communities on evacuation watch or evacuated and we can't even send help to Alberta due to needing it here.
Couple of years back Calgary got hit with a big flood again and before that Slave lake (smallish town) half burned.
Luckily the population is so sparse that the fires usually don't come close to populated areas.
As for earthquakes, the west coast is due for a 9+, which will really be a disaster.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 05 2016, @05:38PM
And just recently they've had to evacuate one of the sites they evacuated people to.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:06PM
80,000 Evacuated Ahead of Alberta Fire
If I saw a massive wall of fire roaring towards me, I'd probably evacuate myself too.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 05 2016, @07:12PM
I hope you won't try to evacuate a head of Alberta fire.