Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Alaska's current oil spill biggest ever

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU
 
donsu Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:36 AM
Original message
Alaska's current oil spill biggest ever

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/5694.html


Largest oil spill detected in Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska

An oil spill at the Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska has turned out to be the biggest ever in the region, according to official estimates. Around 267,000 gallons (one million litres) of crude leaked out from a corroded transit pipeline near the northern tip of the state. This was detected on March 2 and was immediately plugged, but the spill could wreck havoc on the delicate environmental balance in the region.

The report on the spill prepared by Alaska's Department of Environmental Conservation said that this was the worst disaster in the history of Trans-Alaska Pipeline system. "I can confirm it's the largest spill of crude oil on the North Slope that we have record of," said Linda Giguere of the department.

-snip-

A quarter-inch hole in the pipeline was responsible for the leak and as mentioned is thought to have been caused by corrosion. This plant handles around 100,000 barrels of oil daily and till the situation comes under control, an alternate pipeline is being used to drill about 5,000 barrels a day. This spill once again shifts the focus on President Bush's desire to drill for oil very near to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

Environmentalists say this would spell disaster for the ecosystem in the area. Officials have also confirmed that another leak has been discovered, this time in a site belonging to ConocoPhillips. The volume of the leak has not yet been disclosed.
---------------------------------


a quarter-inch hole bringing death and destruction to life in that area

shit
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:39 AM
Response to Original message
1. Why are we not seeing this on the major news outlets?
The * cabal is suppressing this spill.....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:39 AM
Response to Reply #1
2. My thoughts exactly; why is this story being hidden? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. because they want to drill there. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tesha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 01:53 PM
Response to Reply #6
9. It would hurt their plans for ANWR. (NT)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NoAmericanTaliban Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
3. So much for the 'safe' oil drilling propaganda....
that is used to try to sell the opening of more oil drilling in Alaska. Their agument for oil drilling is based based on the selling point that the technology is safe now & wouldn't hurt the environment. This recent oil spill blows a big hole in that selling point. Probably why it's not mentioned in the news a lot, but it should be headline news in my opinion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gristy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:45 AM
Response to Original message
4. You might want to edit your headline.
It's the biggest spill in the region of the Prudhoe Bay field in Alaska, not the biggest spill in Alaska.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hatrack Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:46 AM
Response to Original message
5. Approximately 6,300 barrels - about 1/7th of an Exxon Valdez
With Earth Day only about a month away, look for a specially rich flourishing of greenwash in the nation's newspapers and on the airwaves.

Something tells me we'll be hearing a great deal about "environmentally responsible development" and "stewardship".

:puke:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogday Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:48 AM
Response to Original message
7. It only makes good press when a drunk Captain
is responsible I guess....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
klook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 11:53 AM
Response to Original message
8. 200k+ gallons - CBS News web site
The CBS News web site has some info about this. They say the spill is "only" between 201,000 and 267,000 gallons, much smaller than the 11 million gallons spilled when the Exxon Valdez ran aground in 1989.

The source of the spill was a quarter-inch hole apparently caused by corrosion inside the three-mile line that leads to the trans-Alaska oil pipeline.
Sheesh! How long does it take for 200,000 gallons of oil to leak out of a quarter-inch hole??? Isn't anybody paying attention up there?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rainscents Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. NW-News channels are reporting this spill.
Edited on Mon Mar-13-06 01:57 PM by Rainscents
It's NOT good! You can bet, oil company is going to get away with this shit (as always) and let the tax-payers flip the bills for the clean up.:banghead:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 02:52 PM
Response to Reply #8
19. How long does it take for 200,000 gallons of oil to leak out of a quarter-
Depends on the pressure and viscosity.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
klook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 03:16 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. OK, makes sense -- but
wouldn't it at least be a matter of hours? Especially at very low temperatures such as were present at the time and location of this leak (wind chill of 70 below zero at Prudhoe Bay when the leak occurred). At this temperature, I can't imagine that much oil could flow through a quarter-inch opening in minutes, even if the oil is low viscosity and under high pressure.

However, I'm not an engineer or a petroleum expert, so I'm just conjecturing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #20
22. I find it funny that they lost a days production through this little hole.
An the first estimates were on the order of 25000 Gallons! The difference between my losing $25 and $250.

My point, not well expressed, is that it's calculatable. We can figure it out how long it took to seal it, if we know the pressure the line operates at. Also crude is highly viscous, like molasses.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
klook Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:20 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. OK, we're on the same page.
Lots of thick oil lost through a little bitty hole. I'm also interested in knowing how long from the time the leak was discovered until it was plugged. I can imagine it ain't easy, but anybody in the oil biz should be required to have measures in place that would stop this magnitude of a leak from this small of a hole.

Oh, but that would require government regulation and penalties with teeth. Sorry, what was I thinking? :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lonestarnot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
10. black dripping death!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Nutmegger Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 01:55 PM
Response to Original message
11. Damn the "liberal media"!!!
:sarcasm:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jsamuel Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 01:56 PM
Response to Original message
12. "corrosion"?! That is the worst reason! So basically, NEGLECT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Berserker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 02:00 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I would venture to say
that if corrosion caused this leak there is more than one 1/4 inch spot to worry about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mom cat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 02:07 PM
Response to Reply #14
17. I am sure that the quarter inch hole is just the beginning of the
corrosion problems. The pipeline shoukd be immediately shut down and inspected, repaired or shut down. This spill is already a disaster and now there is a new hole. It should be shut down before there is any more irreversable damage.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Lone_Star_Dem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 02:00 PM
Response to Original message
15. How many even know of the 3 million gallons in the Gulf on Nov. 11?
Edited on Mon Mar-13-06 02:03 PM by Lone_Star_Dem
Hardly heard a peep about that either. They were more concerned with getting the oil flowing again than mentioning the results of rushing the tankers back in.

We're killing our world at an alarming rate.


edit to add link:

A double-hulled tanker barge now drained and floating upside down at a dock off Mobile Bay was responsible for what appears to be one of the Gulf of Mexico's largest oil spills, which received scant attention when it occurred in the early morning of Nov. 11. A gash in the hull 35 feet long and 6 feet wide released up to 3 million gallons of oil off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas.

Federal officials said the 442-foot ship's hull ruptured and spilled the oil after it collided with a submerged oil platform wrecked by Hurricane Rita in September. Federal records show at least 167 Gulf platforms were damaged or destroyed during the 2005 hurricane season. Many are submerged or so damaged that the warning beacons on them no longer work, and federal officials say they have no idea how many have working marker lights.

At least two more vessels have collided with submerged platforms since the Nov. 11 incident, federal records show.

Coast Guard officials said the spill, and the $35 million cleanup associated with it, might have been avoided if the owners of the oil platform had marked the submerged wreck with a lighted buoy, as required by federal law. But the wreck was marked only with floating plastic balls described as "cherry fenders." Such buoys are not lighted and would be difficult to see at midnight, about when the accident happened.
http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/frontpage/index.ssf?/base/news-4/1137826855222050.xml
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftofthedial Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 02:02 PM
Response to Original message
16. The only coverage of this I have seen anywhere has been here on DU
in linked articles

NOTHING at all from the corporate propaganda channels
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
raccoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 02:20 PM
Response to Reply #16
18. And the Exxon Valdez spill happened in March 1989
"On March 24, 1989, shortly after midnight, the oil tanker Exxon Valdez struck ... "
www.epa.gov/oilspill/exxon.htm

17 years ago. My, how times have changed.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
donkeyotay Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Mar-13-06 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
21. That's why this story is being censored
"This spill once again shifts the focus on President Bush's desire to drill for oil very near to Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

Another GOP policy from the CEO Disaster Monkey having a brutal encounter with reality. Geez, people will start to talk.'

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Xithras Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:27 PM
Response to Original message
24. Because as oil spills go, this one was minor.
It happened on land, so the oil stayed right alongside the pipeline. It also happened in the middle of the winter, so the oil quickly cooled and became viscous...keeping it from running off. While this WAS a lot of oil, the actual damage was confined to a tiny area. Unlike tanker disasters where hundreds of miles of shoreline are polluted, this basically only affects animals immediately adjacent to that particular stretch of the pipeline. Cleanup should also be fairly simple.

Also, remember that before we started drilling, there were naturally occurring pools of oil and tar on the ground in the north slope where some of it seeped to the surface. From an environmental perspective, this isn't particularly unusual or damaging.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:38 PM
Response to Reply #24
25. Yep, not much of a spill
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 04:39 PM by TX-RAT
We have spills around here all the time, (Permian Basin) the oil cleans up just fine. It's the saltwater that does the long term damage, it will kill the soil for 20 to 30 years. Theres a salt scald down by Texon TX, thats had the soil killed for over 50 years. We had a small oil spill on my place last year ( 430 barrels ), thats already starting to green up.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:41 PM
Response to Reply #24
26. Different enviromental implication...
I assume that much of this pipeline is built upon quickly thawing permafrost, I imagine that the aging pipline cannot handle the stress of sinking into the soil, so could this be a prelude to a larger disaster just around the corner?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TX-RAT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:45 PM
Response to Reply #26
27. Could be, pipelines need maintenance just like everything else.
Most of the leaks on my place are due to old pipelines, tanks, or well heads.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Solon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Mar-14-06 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #27
28. Yeah, I doubt the supports are all the way down to bedrock...
Edited on Tue Mar-14-06 04:58 PM by Solon
Buts its hundreds of miles of pipeline to begin with, and maintaining it is going to be even harder when permafrost thaws, which is what it has been doing lately. I would imagine that even in a gradual thawing will lead to more breaks in the pipes, and also will slow down the reaction times of maintenance workers. Imagine the muck they would have to have their vehicles go through, especially when the roads themselves sink into the mud.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 07th 2024, 05:24 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (01/01/06 through 01/22/2007) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC