August 31, 2015

Bitumen Emulsion Leaking Again

oil spill
Crews work to clean an oil spill near Nexen's Long Lake facility by Fort McMurray. The spill was discovered by a contractor after the safety system designed to detect ruptures failed. Garrett Barry/Fort McMurray Today/Postmedia Network
The Alberta Energy Regulator (AER) has issued a suspension order on 95 Nexen Energy pipelines in northern Alberta.
The AER said Friday that the suspension order was issued due to “noncompliant activities at Long Lake oilsands operations pertaining to pipeline maintenance and monitoring.”
The order immediately suspends 15 pipeline licences, which encompasses 95 pipelines that are carrying natural gas, crude oil, salt water, fresh water, and emulsion. Before the pipelines can be restarted, Nexen must provide “sufficient documentation” to assure the AER that these lines can be operated safely.
“Protection of public safety and the environment are the AER’s top priority,” said AER president and CEO Jim Ellis, in a press release. “Given that this company has already had a pipeline failure at this site, the AER will not lift this suspension until Nexen can demonstrate that they can be operated safely and within all regulatory requirements. We will accept no less than concrete evidence.”
In July, AER issued an environmental protection order to Nexen Energy over the leak of five million litres of oil emulsion, which is a mix of bitumen, water and sand, from a line at the Long Lake oilsands facility. The spill was discovered on July 15, when a contractor stumbled across the ruptured pipeline.
The affected area from the spill tipped in at about 16,000 square metres, mostly along the pipeline’s route.
The AER is continuing to investigate the spill. Once complete, the AER will publish its findings.

Why two Googlers left the company's top-secret lab to create an app that aims to change how people talk to each other - Business Insider

Why two Googlers left the company's top-secret lab to create an app that aims to change how people talk to each other - Business Insider

August 29, 2015

Bitumen or the Environment ?

Aboriginal groups fear the consequences if bitumen from the Alberta oilsands were to spill into the sensitive ecosystem of Great Bear Rainforest. Part of the 2015 Atkinson Series on public policy.

A humpback whale breaches the surface near Hartley Bay along the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia. First Nations in the region are vehemently opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline.
A humpback whale breaches the surface near Hartley Bay along the Great Bear Rainforest in British Columbia. First Nations in the region are vehemently opposed to the Northern Gateway pipeline.
Art Sterritt is the executive director of Coastal First Nations, an alliance of aboriginal groups in British Columbia. Though living about 1,200 kilometres west of the oilsands, Sterritt and other native leaders in the area have developed a keen interest in the production of thick black bitumen.
That’s because oilsands developers and Enbridge are proposing the $8-billion Northern Gateway pipeline be built between northern Alberta and the B.C. coast. It would move 525,000 barrels a day of diluted bitumen to Kitimat. There, it would be loaded onto tankers that would have to navigate chains of islands and narrow channels before reaching open sea en route to Asia.
The coastal First Nations in the area, known as the Great Bear Rainforest, make up the majority of the population, and they don’t want the pipeline. They particularly don’t want tankers full of diluted bitumen — which is much thicker than crude oil — in waters where salmon abound in a complex ecosystem that has supported their people for centuries.
“We are never going to allow pipelines as long as (the oil) can’t be cleaned up,” Sterritt told an audience in Calgary in June. “We know what happened just to the north of us with the Exxon Valdez.”
Haisla First Nation hereditary chiefs attend hearings on the proposed $8-billion Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C. in 2012. The pipeline was eventually approved, with 209 conditions.
Haisla First Nation hereditary chiefs attend hearings on the proposed $8-billion Northern Gateway pipeline in B.C. in 2012. The pipeline was eventually approved, with 209 conditions.
In March 1989, the Exxon Valdez supertanker struck Bligh Reef and spilled 11 million gallons of crude oil into Alaska’s Prince William Sound. It was the worst American spill up to that point, damaging more than 2,000 kilometres of shoreline and killing hundreds of thousands of birds and marine animals and untold numbers of fish.
The Northern Gateway pipeline was the subject of extensive public hearings by the National Energy Board in 2012 and 2013, during which Sterritt’s group and others registered their fears. In the end, the National Energy Board approved it with 209 conditions that must be met before it proceeds. The Harper government seconded the motion when it gave its approval a few months later.
But many doubt the pipeline will ever be built because it is the subject of 18 court cases. Enbridge has confirmed that it won’t be in service by 2018, as previously predicted.
That’s fine with Sterritt, who asserts that it is incumbent on the oil companies to figure out how to clean up a spill should a tanker rupture or capsize.
“So far they haven’t done that,” he said. “There is no technology available to clean up oil spills. They just keep telling us that the chances of a spill are very low. But that’s not good enough.”
According to the final report of the Northern Gateway Joint Review Panel, there is significant disagreement among experts about whether the heavy diluted bitumen would sink to the sea bottom if a tanker ruptured, making it much more difficult to clean up than if it were floating on the surface. Enbridge says the diluted bitumen would float, but intervenors from Environment Canada and Fisheries and Oceans testified that their studies were inconclusive.
The joint review panel decided that a spill is “not likely to sink as a continuous layer that coats the seabed or riverbed.” But some of the conditions Enbridge must now meet deal with spill response and require further research on the likelihood that diluted bitumen would sink.
Meanwhile, bitumen is being transported by existing pipelines and trains. But as production at oilsands operations increases, there will be more pressure to build a pipeline such as the Northern Gateway.
Douglas Channel is the proposed end point of the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry 525,000 barrels a day of diluted bitumen from northern Alberta to the B.C. coast. Experts say more research is needed on the effects of an oil spill involving oilsands products.
Douglas Channel is the proposed end point of the Northern Gateway pipeline, which would carry 525,000 barrels a day of diluted bitumen from northern Alberta to the B.C. coast. Experts say more research is needed on the effects of an oil spill involving oilsands products.
Source & Copytight -THE STAR

August 27, 2015

NO Bitumen Tankers

Lynne Quarmby, the science-professor-turned-Green-candidate, is calling for a ban on supertankers, including vessels shipping diluted bitumen from Kinder Morgan’s Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby.
Quarmby, along with the Green’s federal leader Elizabeth May, talked about the party’s plan to ban supertankers on B.C.’s coast at an Aug.18 event in Victoria.
The ban would include Aframax tankers, the mid-sized vessels many of Kinder Morgan’s customers currently use to fill up with oil at the Westridge Marine Terminal in Burnaby, but only ones carrying diluted bitumen, according to Quarmby.
“There’s a higher risk to that,” she said. “One of the things I think is least appreciated, … is the ‘dil’ part, the diluents, they are volatile chemicals. They separate out of this stuff and go into the air. ... They are neurotoxins. … When I work with small volumes of these chemicals in the lab, I do it with a fume hood.”
Quarmby is running in Burnaby North-Seymour, the riding that encompasses the Kinder Morgan pipeline terminus and the Westridge dock. She was also among the hundreds arrested on Burnaby Mountain last fall, while protesting the pipeline.

© 2015 Burnaby Now - See more at: 

August 26, 2015

It is Puma now Bullish about Australian Bitumen Business

BP deal finalised with product to be sourced through international supply chain
Chocks away on Puma bitumen foray
Ray Taylor is bullish about Puma Bitumen.

Puma Energy’s leading position in the Australian bitumen supply chain has been nailed down with completion of its of BP business purchase.

Puma Bitumen will look to combine BP's technical products and experts with Puma's global experience, infrastructure and supply networks, the parent firm says.

The deal that surfaced earlier this year will see Puma own and operate BP's Brisbane, Townsville, Altona and Hobart sites, inheriting BP's proprietary bitumen products and 35 employees.

As part of the agreement, BP will continue to supply Puma Energy with bitumen from its Kwinana refinery until Puma's new WA fuel and bitumen terminal replaces it in 2017.

All operations will continue as normal, with the only immediate change being the rebranding of the business to Puma Bitumen.

Puma Energy Australia general manager Ray Taylor says the acquisition is a significant milestone for the company, as it expands its bitumen operations here.

"Our global capabilities in the bitumen sector gives us a unique position in the Australian market and allows us to offer customers high-quality products sourced through a secure and integrated global supply chain," Taylor says.

"This acquisition gives Puma Energy a competitive edge by taking a world-renowned, quality, technically-focused business and combining it with our already sophisticated global networks, industry-leading infrastructure and supply security promise.

"Our terminal network, soon to increase with the commissioning of our Perth terminal, complements a full-service logistics operation including the world's largest bitumen fleet, access to refined products in multiple countries and oxidisation plants in Sydney, Brisbane and [Tanjung]Langsat [in Malaysia and bought from BP last year]."

With the sale process now complete, company is focused on "welcoming the new staff and ensuring customer service was uninterrupted". 

"We are committed to a smooth transition for existing customers and will ensure they have access to the same team and the same products they have grown to trust and respect, but will also focus on adding value by bringing new capabilities and new opportunities to the table," Taylor says.

"Our immediate plans are to consolidate and then grow.

"Long-term, we will be looking to continue expanding our footprint in the bitumen market by building new fuel and bitumen terminals, investigating future capital investment into polymer products and enhancing the Bulwer facility in Brisbane."      
Puma began its bitumen operations in Australia in December 2013 with the purchase of Caltex's Sydney-based bitumen business.

Two years later the company operates in the Brisbane, Sydney, north Queensland, Western Australian and Tasmanian bitumen markets.

Source- ATN

August 22, 2015

Peanut Butter Bitumen

How It's Different from Conventional Oil

Bitumen extracted from tar sands has the consistency of peanut butter and must be diluted to flow through pipelines. And that's just the beginning.

A handful of Canadian oil sands/Source: Suncor
When emergency responders rushed to Marshall, Mich. on July 26, 2010, they found that the Kalamazoo River had been blackened by more than one million gallons of oil. They didn't discover until more than a week later that the ruptured pipeline had been carrying diluted bitumen, also known as dilbit, from Canada's tar sands region. Cleaning it up would challenge them in ways they had never imagined. Instead of taking a couple of months, as they originally expected, nearly two years later the job still isn't complete.

Dilbit is harder to remove from waterways than the typical light crude oil—often called conventional crude—that has historically been used as an energy source.

While most conventional oils float on water, much of the dilbit sank beneath the surface. Submerged oil is significantly harder to clean up than floating oil: A large amount of oil remains in the riverbed near Marshall, and the cleanup is expected to continue through the end of 2012.

InsideClimate News spent seven months investigating what made the Marshall spill different from conventional oil spills. Part of the challenge was that there has been little scientific research on dilbit; most of the studies that have been done were conducted by industry and considered proprietary information.

The information we did find comes from government records and publicly available industry studies, plus dozens of interviews with industry analysts, federal and state officials, and several university researchers who've worked with the oil industry. We also interviewed watchdog groups that have focused on increasing dilbit regulations, including the Pipeline Safety Trust, the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Pembina Institute, a well-respected Canadian think tank that supports sustainable energy.

Experts at the University of Alberta and the University of Calgary, where tar sands research has been done, did not return requests for comment. InsideClimate asked the American Petroleum Institute and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers to put us in contact with their experts, but neither organization provided scientists or engineers for interviews.

What is dilbit?

Dilbit stands for diluted bitumen.
Bitumen is a kind of crude oil found in natural oil sands deposits—it's the heaviest crude oil used today. The oil sands, also known as tar sands, contain a mixture of sand, water and oily bitumen. The tar sands region of Alberta, Canada is the third largest petroleum reserve in the world.

What makes bitumen different from regular or conventional oil?

Conventional crude oil is a liquid that can be pumped from underground deposits. It is then shipped by pipeline to refineries where it's processed into gasoline, diesel and other fuels.

Bitumen is too thick to be pumped from the ground or through pipelines. Instead, the heavy tar-like substance must be mined or extracted by injecting steam into the ground. The extracted bitumen has the consistency of peanut butter and requires extra processing before it can be delivered to a refinery.
There are two ways to process the bitumen.

Some tar sands producers use on-site upgrading facilities to turn the bitumen into synthetic crude, which is similar to conventional crude oil. Other producers dilute the bitumen using either conventional light crude or a cocktail of natural gas liquids.

The resulting diluted bitumen, or dilbit, has the consistency of conventional crude and can be pumped through pipelines.

What chemicals are added to dilute the bitumen?

The exact composition of these chemicals, collectively called diluents, is considered a trade secret. The diluents vary depending on the particular type of dilbit being produced. The mixture often includes benzene, a known human carcinogen.

If dilbit has the consistency of regular crude, why did it sink during the Marshall spill?
The dilbit that spilled in Marshall was composed of 70 percent bitumen and 30 percent diluents. Although the dilbit initially floated on water after pipeline 6B split open, it soon began separating into its different components.

Most of the diluents evaporated into the atmosphere, leaving behind the heavy bitumen, which sank under water.
According to documents released by the National Transportation Safety Board—a federal agency that is investigating the spill—it took nine days for most of the diluents to evaporate or dissolve into the water.

Can conventional crude oil also sink in water?

Yes, but to a much smaller extent.

Every type of crude oil is made up of hundreds of different chemicals, ranging from light, volatile compounds that easily evaporate to heavy compounds that will sink.
The vast majority of the chemicals found in conventional oil are in the middle of the pack—light enough to float but too heavy to gas off into the atmosphere.
Dilbit has very few of these mid-range compounds: instead, the chemicals tend to be either very light (the diluents) or very heavy (the bitumen).
Because bitumen makes up 50 to 70 percent of the composition of dilbit, at least 50 percent of the compounds in dilbit are likely to sink in water, compared with less than 10 percent for most conventional crude oils.

How do you know whether a particular type of crude oil will sink or float?

The industry classifies different crude oils as light, medium or heavy, based on their densities. There is debate over the cutoffs for these categories, but bitumen falls into the "extra heavy" category because it is more dense than water. The diluted bitumen that spilled from 6B was lighter than water and considered heavy crude oil.

But density alone doesn't determine whether a particular type of crude oil will sink or float, said Nancy Kinner, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at the University of New Hampshire who studies submerged oil. Weather and other conditions can change the buoyancy of crude oils: for example, crudes that are lighter than water can sink if they mix with sediment.

That's exactly what happened with the bitumen from 6B. In general, the density of bitumen ranges from slightly heavier than water to barely lighter than water. The bitumen that spilled in Marshall was at the lighter end of the scale. Marc Huot, a technical and policy analyst at the Pembina Institute's Oilsands Program, said the bitumen's density was so close to that of water that it was in "a gray area. It may or may not float depending on [conditions]…think of a log—it floats, but not very well."

But as the bitumen mixed with grains of sand and other particles in the river, the weight of the sediment pulled the bitumen underwater.

Why has it been so hard to clean up submerged oil in the Kalamazoo?

Existing cleanup procedures and equipment are designed to capture floating oil. Because the Marshall accident was the first major spill of dilbit in U.S. waters, cleanup experts at the scene were unprepared for the challenge of submerged oil.

The EPA has supervised the cleanup of nearly 8,400 spills since 1970, but in multiple interviews with InsideClimate News, agency officials said the Marshall spill cleanup was unlike anything they'd ever faced.
"[It's] not something a lot of people have dealt with," said Kinner. "When you can't see [the oil], you don't know where it is, so it's very hard to clean it up."

Once cleanup crews locate submerged oil, it's hard to remove it without destroying the riverbed. Cleanup workers in Marshall were forced to improvise less invasive procedures that balanced oil cleanup with protecting the ecosystem.

On July 16, 2010, just nine days before the Marshall accident, the EPA warned that the proprietary nature of the diluents found in dilbit could complicate cleanup efforts. The agency was commenting on the State Department's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) of the Keystone XL, a proposed pipeline that would carry Canadian dilbit across six U.S. states and the critically-important Ogallala aquifer.

"First, we note that in order for the bitumen to be transported by the pipeline, it will be either 'diluted with cutter stock (the specific composition of which is proprietary information to each shipper) or an upgrading technology is applied to convert the bitumen to synthetic crude oil,'" the EPA wrote. "…Without more information on the chemical characteristics of the diluent or the synthetic crude, it is difficult to determine the fate and transport of any spilled oil in the aquatic environment.

"For example, the chemical nature of dilutent may have significant implications for response as it may negatively impact the efficacy of traditional floating oil spill response equipment or response strategies. In addition, the Draft EIS addresses oil in general and as explained earlier, it may not be appropriate to assume this bitumen crude/synthetic crude shares the same characteristics as other oils."

How does dilbit affect pipeline safety?

Some watchdog groups contend that dilbit is more corrosive than conventional oil and causes more pipeline leaks. The industry disputes that theory, and there are no independent studies to support either side. In late 2011, Congress passed a bill that ordered the Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to study if dilbit increases the risk of spills. Results are expected in 2013.

The industry says that Canadian tar sands oil is very similar to conventional heavy crudes from places such as Venezuela, Mexico and Bakersfield, California. Those crude oils, however, aren't transported through the nation's pipelines. The Bakersfield oil is processed at on-site refineries, while the Venezuelan and Mexican imports are shipped via tankers to refineries on the U.S. Gulf Coast.

The same watchdogs that criticize dilbit say that synthetic crude—which is also made from bitumen—poses no additional threats to pipeline safety. The U.S. currently imports more than 1.2 million barrels of Canadian dilbit and synthetic crude per day, and that figure is expected to grow dramatically in next decade. Most of the increased production will come from dilbit—because Canada's synthetic crude upgraders have reached capacity, and because it's more financially lucrative for U.S. refineries to process dilbit.

Does the government regulate dilbit differently from conventional crude oil?

For the most part, no.

Dilbit is not subject to any additional safety regulations, and PHMSA doesn't track the specific kind of crude oil that flows through each pipeline. This is one of the reasons why it's hard to compare dilbit's safety record with that of conventional crude.

But oil from the tar sands is regulated differently when it comes to taxes. The oil industry pays an 8-cent-per-barrel tax on crude oil produced and imported to the U.S. The tax goes into the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund, which provides emergency funds for oil spill cleanup and claims. Both the Marshall and BP Gulf Coast spills have tapped that fund.

In early 2011, five months after the Marshall spill, the IRS ruled to exempt dilbit and synthetic crude from paying this tax. The energy and environment news service E&E Publishing reported that the exemption was made "at the request of a company whose identity was kept secret."

Some say the oil from Canada's tar sands is so different based on its chemistry, behavior and how it's produced, that it should not be considered crude oil.

"One would not consider tar sands typical crude," said Kinner, the University of New Hampshire professor. "It's not considered crude oil by most people who deal with oil and oil spills."

Kinner co-directs the Coastal Response Research Center, a collaboration between the university and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The center conducts research on innovations in spill response and recently launched a Submerged Oil Working Group.  

The tar sands boom is part of a larger industry trend of producing heavier crude oils, whether that's bitumen or conventional heavy crudes, Kinner said. "All the lighter stuff has been used up…we wouldn't be taking tar sands if it wasn't economically viable…and with time, there will be more [spills with] submerged oil."
Anthony Swift, an attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council who has spent years studying the tar sands industry, said the Marshall spill points to the need for more stringent dilbit regulations.

The Marshall spill is not the largest oil spill in U.S. history, but it is by far the most costly. Using figures from PHMSA's pipeline incident database, Swift calculated that the average cleanup cost of every crude oil spill from the past 10 years was $2,000 per barrel. The Marshall spill has cost upwards of $29,000 per barrel.

"When you have something that isn't the biggest spill we've had, but turns out to be far more damaging and difficult to deal with, that raises the question, what about this spill was different?" Swift said. "And what was different is what spilled."

Researcher Lisa Schwartz contributed to this report.

August 21, 2015

Pipe Line - Weighs or Out-Weighs the Economic Sense ?

Trans Mountain says pipeline will boost economy as critics cite flawed process

Trans Mountain says pipeline will boost economy as critics cite flawed process

VANCOUVER — An expanded Trans Mountain pipeline would add $18.2 billion to Canada's gross domestic product over 20 years, benefit First Nations and reduce environmental harm, Kinder Morgan says.

The energy giant filed its final written submissions to the National Energy Board on Thursday, arguing the $5.4-billion proposal is a safe and viable option to transport diluted bitumen from Alberta's oilsands to British Columbia's coast.

"The scrutiny and rigour this project has undergone, both inside and outside of the formal NEB process, is unprecedented," said Ian Anderson, president of Kinder Morgan Canada.

"Our team takes pride in the efforts made to consider input and present the very best scientific and technical evidence to both the public and the regulator," he said in a statement.

Kinder Morgan hopes to triple the capacity of its Trans Mountain line by laying almost 1,000 kilometres of new pipe from Edmonton to Metro Vancouver. The project would increase the number of tankers to 34 per month from five in Burrard Inlet.

The Metro Vancouver regional council and North Vancouver's Tsleil-Waututh Nation are among the interveners who staunchly oppose the project, citing environmental and public health risks and little benefit to the economy.

The energy board will make a recommendation to the federal government in January.

In documents filed Thursday, the company addressed scathing evidence issued by interveners earlier this year. One expert report from Metro Vancouver found toxic benzene fumes from a spill could make up to one million people sick.

Kinder Morgan said the report, conducted by Levelton Consultants Ltd., is misleading because it presents a worst-case scenario without qualification and doesn't account for its planned $100-million investment in spill response.

It also vowed to meet 145 draft conditions issued last week by the energy board, but asked for scheduling changes. For example, the board asked for some reports to be filed a year before construction, but the company hopes to begin some work in June 2016.

The company said it has signed 28 mutual benefits agreements with First Nations and promised to create employment and training opportunities for aboriginal communities.

Trans Mountain spokeswoman Ali Hounsell said public feedback has prompted changes to the project, including thickening pipeline walls in cities, and routing to avoid 22 major river crossings.

"We believe that the input and feedback we've received has made a better project — a stronger, safer, more responsible project. And we will continue to listen."

Spencer Chandra Herbert, environment critic for B.C.'s Opposition New Democrats criticized the board for only requiring Kinder Morgan to respond to written questions rather than face oral cross-examination.

"Just imagine any trial, in any court in this land, where the judge and jury would not have the benefit of cross-examination," he said. "The process wouldn't work.

"Yet, the National Energy Board and Kinder Morgan want us to think that's OK here, for a project of such high risk to millions of people."

Vancouver's deputy city manager Sadhu Johnston defended the city's expert reports, including its spill model, which found oil would float into English Bay in two hours.

He said the model was done to National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration standards, while Kinder Morgan's model appeared to be "something they came up with on their own."

Johnston said the company had two months to reply to the reports, while interveners now have just two weeks before responding at hearings in Burnaby in September. 

He also lambasted the energy board for not considering climate change in its review.

"This proposal is saying the project is in our best interests, when we're facing one of the worst droughts in our history," he said. "This process is an embarrassment for the NEB."

— Follow @ellekane on Twitter.
Laura Kane, The Canadian Press

August 19, 2015

No to supertankers, bitumen pipelines



Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, 

MP for Saanich-Gulf Islands, 

at Clover Point on Tuesday. Aug. 18, 2015   

“Meanwhile, we’re still fighting ridiculously, badly 

conceived pipeline projects,” she said.

The Saanich-Gulf Islands MP held her news conference in Victoria as NDP Leader Tom Mulcair took his
campaign up-Island, announcing a three-point plan to protect Canadians from the worsening effects of climate change.
Mulcair pledged more money for disaster training, prevention and relief programs as wildfires rage across B.C.
“The NDP is taking action to ensure Canadians and their homes are safer with an effective and modern
approach to coordinated disaster assistance,” he said in a statement.
“The NDP understands the urgent need for a strong national plan to help prevent, mitigate and respond
to wildfires and floods in the face of climate change.”
University of Victoria political scientist Kimberly Speers said the Greens and NDP appear headed for a
number of close battles on the Island, particularly in Victoria where former CBC radio host
Jo-Ann Roberts is up against incumbent NDP MP Murray Rankin.
“I think it’s going to be pretty close just given the close results in the last election,” she said.
Rankin edged the Green Party’s Donald Galloway in a 2012 byelection by just over 1,100 votes.
The Conservatives and Liberals finished well back.
Roberts was among the candidates on hand as May announced her strategy to defend Canada’s
coastal communities. She said Green MPs will work with the other parties in what she expects
will be a “minority Parliament” to enhance environmental laws, develop a national energy plan
with a commitment to climate action, and embed the “right to a healthy environment”
 in Canada’s constitution.
She also called for a moratorium on drilling for oil and gas in the Gulf of St. Lawrence.
May said she believes a minority government is a “foregone conclusion” based on the
popularity of the parties in recent years.
“I don’t take any one week’s polls seriously; they jump around,” she said. “But this has been
consistent over a period of years that we’re looking at minority territory for one of the other parties.”


AUGUST 18, 2015 05:56 PM
- See more at: