You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is pretty damn good. Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on land in ANWR. See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed, toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology it can be done with minimal risk.
Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.
This big danger of drilling is just an environmental extremist myth, perpetuated by radicals who are against every form of energy and prefer to believe in fairy tails, like an electric car with no emissions fueled by electricity just coming out of the wall in unlimited amounts.
Since you can't refute the claim that drilling for oil has been done repsonsibly for decades here without damage to the environment, you now want to talk about comparing it to murder? The specific comment was the ban on drilling in ANWR, Alaska which is based on the false premise that it can't be done without destroying the environment. You're proposing draconian penalties for a problem that doesn't exist. And those draconian penalties would just be another roadblock to energy development and economic progress.
I agree that problems are rare. Read that again, and don't respond to it again.
**IF** problems are clear violations of the law, then there is no reason to treat violators with kid gloves. It happens, though, because violators of environmental laws tend to have friends in high places. You are fully aware of that.
Then don't start fixing problems that don't exist. You sound like the idiot politicians here in NJ. Instead of fixxing the real problems of high taxes, huge waste and corruption they instead focus on stupid nits. The latest is a bill to require auto insurance companies to make the insurance ID cards smaller so they will fit better in a wallet.
Kid gloves? LOL, you've obviously never dealt with the EPA. Bye the way, you want the CEO taken away in handcuffs like a murderer if the company "breaks laws and slobs up the place." How about if the CEO had no involvement in the incident. Suppose someone on the site did it without the CEO's knowledge? I guess that doesn't concern a lib like you, cause it's a CEO, not a murderer. Following this logic, if someone drives an HVAC truck and runs a red light and hits another car, the owner of the company should go to jail.
For decades, the EPA has not been able to get General Electric to clean up its sins in the Hudson River. Delays after delays after delays, and it's all due to friends in high places. You know that.
The buck stops at the top. The fastest way to get answers is to haul the CEO off his golf cart, like any other common criminal. We have what - 48 hours to press charges or release a prisoner? That's more than enough time for things to work themselves out.
OK so the gist of your statement is name calling extremist myth radials fairy tails. this whole statement is just simply broad brush it is akin to saying that someone who breaks the law through speeding is part of "that group of outlaws and murders who are responsible for all the violence in society"
Sorry if you think it's name calling. But I see environmental extremists all the time who stand in the way of any energy progress and are totally unrealistic.
Here;s some prime examples:
The global warming proponents say we risk a total environmental disaster that will jeopardize life on the planet in a few decades unless something is done immediately. Well, if the threat is so grave, why are the same folks dead set against building more nuclear power plants? Sure, nukes aren't perfect, but if the danger is so great, why not start using something readily available that could go online in a few years with zero CO2 emissions and also reduce our dependence on foreign energy?
Other environmentalists tell us to use wind. Here in NJ, there has been much talk about putting up windmills offshore to generate electricity. So, who's against that? Same environmentalists who now say it will harm fish and birds. Want to build a new power line? Their against that too.
What do they like? Pie in the ski crap like the electric car that you just plug in the wall. They have no concept that the energy that's on the other end of the wire has to come from somewhere. Or the hydrogen car. Great idea, but they completely ignore that the hydrogen has to come from somewhere. Their idiot answer to that problem: water. I learned in high school chemistry that it takes as much energy to break the hydrogen/oxygen bonds as you later get when you recombine them by burning it. In other words, yes you can get hydrogen from water to run your car, but the energy to do that still has to come from somewhere.
The environmental obstructionists (there's a new name for you), ignore all of that and just go on whistling past the grave yard. They're like the kid Mikey from the old TV commercial. They just don't like anything.
There are more than 400 toxic spills on the North Slope
*every* year. There have been several large oil spills, some of which have been caused by willful negligence on the part of operating companies.
The Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex is a superfund site! The whole complex! (Actually, Kuparuk is listed as one and Prudhoe Bay is listed as one, so the whole complex is listed as two superfund sites.)
quoted text -
The idea that we can drill "responsibly" just anywhere on the North Slope is patently ridiculous. That has gone to court, and the courts have ruled that it has not been shown to be true either for onshore or offshore locations. ANWR is hardly the only sensitive area of the North Slope.
That is a fact. It is not based on false premises, and has been rather well demonstrated. The exact same premises have been tried in court, in regard to the area around Teshekpuk Lake, and proposed drilling was stopped.
Your argument is baseless. So far you have not cited any specifics, and I challenge you to do so! I would be happy to go into extreme details, and to provide credible cites and references, to demonstrate what actually is true!
Poppycock. That's a bunch of political jive meant to hype voters. ANWR presents *no* significant opportunities for significant "energy development" or "economic progress" on a national basis. Try to cite figures that demonstrate it! I'll be happy to provide the context that shows why your figures are insignificant.
And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a "toxic spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway and gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill. But is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course not.
Now let's look at the facts behind this alarmist report intended to scare. Sure sounds bad. But let's see what it takes to get on the list of Superfund sites today. From the EPA description of Superfund sites here are the two sites referenced above:
Prudhoe Bay-
On April 12th, 2005 BP discovered and reported a release of natural gas and an undetermined amount of condensate from a damaged flowline at drill site 14 in their Greater Prudhoe Bay crude oil production field on the North Slope of Alaska. An updated volume of 1.4 million standard cubic feet of gas and a range of 10-20 barrels of liquids was provided by BP. The source of the release is a gas line that transports pressurized natural gas to the drill site for injection into the reservoir to aid in crude oil recovery. Initial reports indicate a weld failure caused the release. The release resulted in gas condensate / crude oil being misted onto the well pad, the manifold building, various piping associated with the production pad and onto the surrounding frozen, snow covered tundra. The material lightly misted the surface of a large area around the pad; the impact area size is estimated to be app 4,600 feet long by 500 feet wide, app
50 acres. Winter conditions currently exist on the North Slope with frozen tundra covered by snow. Daytime temperatures are -2F with 9 mph winds from the east. The light mist appears to be on the surface of the snow only. Clean-up activates will involve removal of contaminated snow surface that is misted with condensate droplets and cleaning of well pad surfaces and structures. BP is mobilizing additional spill responders through Alaska Clean Seas, (ACS) the North Slope clean-up co-operative , app. 40 personnel are involved in the site clean-up. ADEC has a responder on site for state oversight of response operations. EPA will coordinate oversight through ADEC and RP and keep stakeholder informed of response progress.
Kuparuk-
On March 9th at 16:15 local time Conoc Philips operator of the Kuparuk Crude Oil Production Field on the North Slope of Alaska reported a produce water spill from a 24 inch flowline running from thiere Drill Site 2M to the Central Crude Oil Processing Center # 2. A fast tank was place under the line within 30 minutes of discharge discovery however intial reports from responders indicate that approximated 375 square feet of snow covered tundra was impacted. The pipeline has been shutdown and is being depressurized to allow workers to strip off insulation and locate the source of the discharge. Efforts are ongoing to fully delineate the spill size including the impact area. EPA acessed the OSLTF and tasked our START contractor to utilize a BOA with a Historic Properties Specialist to perform a cultural resources check.
So, in the case of Prudhoe Bay, this big superfund site consists of a discharge of natural gas and some light condensate mist on the surface which was quickly caught by Arco and self-reporte to the EPA and cleanup begun. It covered 53 acres, but considering it was light airborne mist and easily cleaned up, it sure doesn't sound like a mega disaster or what most people would think it would take to even be on a superfund site list.
In the case of Kaparuk, a pipeline leak was discovered within 30 mins of occurence and a whopping 375 sq ft of surface area was contaminated. Again, the incident was promptly reported to the EPA.
Any reasonable assessment of this would conclude that:
1 - These 2 incidents are very small and had very minimal impact on the Alaska environment.
2 - They were quickly detected and further damage avoided. The spills were promptly self-reported to the EPA and cleanup begun, which show responsible and competent action by ARCO.
3 - Today, it doesn't take very much at all to qualify to be on the Superfund list, but it is easy to then try to spin it into something it isn't.
So, far from being some big negative, these incidents are in fact a demonstration of how responsibly ARCO has acted and how oil can be extracted with minimal impact. If you compare these incidents to the benefits of recovering oil from these areas, most reasonable people would conclude the benefits far outweigh the risks.
But, not the extremist environmentalists. Just imagine the same scare tactics applied to other modern technology. Suppose the airplane had just been invented. Can you imagine the scare tactics? Why, they could fall from the sky and kill everyone on board. On the ground too. What about the impact to birds? They will pollute and destroy the ozone layer. Yet, they fly every day. Everyone including the kook environmentalists rides on them. Why? Because the benefits far outweigh the risks.
Bottom line, get ANWR open!
quoted text -
Courts don't make policy. At least they are not supposed to, but more and more today some try to. Opening up ANWR is not up to a court, it's up to Congress.
Everyone can take a good look at your alarmist reaction to the 2 superfund sites that you brought up and draw their own conclusions about false premises.
I just did and smashed your whole house of cards. We're supposed to take you seriously after claiming an oil spill covering 375 sq ft of ground is a prime reason NOT to drill in ANWR? LOL
You should know about hype.
ANWR presents *no* significant
Yeah, environmental extremists like you have been saying that for years. The truth is, we don't even know how much oil is in ANWR? Why? Because the EE's won't allow even limited test drilling to find out. Based on what we do know, there's enough there that we should be drilling right now. And the ultimate amounts could be huge.
Another argument every time there is an energy shortage and price spike from the EE's has been "If we start today, we won't have oil for
6 years" Well, if people stopped listening to extremists and started
6 years ago, we'd have it now. Is it an answer to all our energy problems? No. Is it part of the solution? And is it enough supply to bring the price down from $95/brl? Yes.
You meant to say that you are in trouble because somebody who actually knows something about this decided to take you to task for the absurd statements you make.
Actually, there is. There have been, since the late
1970's, more than 400 reported toxic spills *every* year. The EPA of course defines exactly what must be reported.
Correct. What's your point? As I said, there have been more than 400 toxic spills reported at the Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex every year. That is true.
Except this does not describe the reasons for Kuparuk and Prudhoe Bay being designated as Superfund sites, and insinuating that it does is dishonesty on your part.
Arco didn't catch anything. Your above two statements refer to BP and Conoco Phillips.
That you are dishonest.
Those two particular incidents are but two of *many* that have happened. Those incidents are not the reason the two oil fields are rated as Superfund sites. The designation existed prior to 2005.
Why did you bring them up? Why not talk about the incidents that had maximal impact?
ARCO of course had nothing to do with it.
Then again, since you don't even know that ARCO operations on the North Slope were sold to BP 7 years ago, and *none* of your discussion involves ARCO, it kind of opens up the question of just how grossly ill informed are you?
Regardless of that BP in 2005, the same year you listed that one incident, also was charged with failure to report two spills. And Conoco-Phillips suffered a major spill at Kuparuk where over 100,000 gallons were dumped.
In 2006 BP's pipelines suffered two major spills, including the largest spill ever on the North Slope. They were at one point also forced to shutdown 57 well due to leaks reported by whistleblowers.
BP has in the past been fined millions and put on probation for re-injecting toxic wastes into drill holes, for safety violations, for improper maintenance, and just about ever manner of risky behavior possible.
Indeed, once again just last week BP plead guilty and was fined $20 million in criminal penalties for negligence in last year's oil spills. They will be on probation for 3 years.
Keep trying to tell us how safely the oil industry works! When the Exxon Valdez hit a reef, the response facility that was supposed to be in place was found to be non-existent. No boats. When some nutcase shot a hole in the Trans-Alaska Pipeline, it took days to plug it because the required by law device to stop the leak did not exist. And the above negligence that went to court included having discovered significant corrosion in a feeder pipe in the 1990's, yet making no further checks to determine the integrity of the pipe until they burst.
Since you are both too ignorant to know that ARCO has nothing to do with it, and dishonest in presenting facts, why would anyone believe that your conclusions are valid?
Can you just imagine if we ran airlines the way we allow oil companies to be operated?
Do you have any idea what is involved in just so much as changing one rivet that holds down the skin on a commercial airliner?
If we applied the same "scare tactics" to oil production that we do to the air transportation industry, imagine what that would be like!
Why? There are almost no benefits!
They do arbitrate *facts* though. And the facts are not what you claim.
And Congress keeps voting against it...
Everyone can look at your discussion and easily determine that you are both ignorant and dishonest. Calling me an alarmist isn't helping your position either.
Except of course that is just a fabrication that you made up. 200,000+ gallons of oil spilled due to negligence is not exactly an insignificant event.
And in fact spills covering only 375 sq ft, when there are more than 400 of them a year, are not insignificant either.
So you do admit that we don't actually have any reason to expect any significant benefits.
We don't know that at all. For example, the State of Alaska put up for bid 26 tracts of state owned and just offshore of ANWR (within 3 miles, as farther out than that it is Federal). Not one bid was placed. Yet in other offshore bids in that offering there were more bids, by a factor of two, than all previous Beaufort Sea bids had ever received. You could get the idea that the oil companies don't think there's any oil there at all!
Another way to judge this is that while ANWR is on the east side of Prudhoe Bay, the National Petroleum Reserve
-- Alaska is on the west side. The USGS has done similar resource studies on each, and says they have about the same amount of oil.
We have been drilling holes in the NPR-A since the late
1940's. There are several known reservoirs. Yet there is not one production well in the NPR-A.
Apply that to ANWR, and what it means is that we could be searching there for the next 50 years and not find a hole that produces enough oil to make it worth building a pipeline to it. In fact, that is the *most* likely scenario!
Try 50 years, you'll be less annoyingly inaccurate in your fantasies.
It is? Since when? If we found twice as much as the highest claim, and found it all within 6 years... it might add about 2% to the crude supply, and that could even drop the price of a barrel by 1 dollar. That means you might pay 8 cents less for a gallon of gasoline.
Of course that is the wildest pie in the sky estimate we can come up with... and it still has insignificant results!
Sure sonny. Tell us more about how ARCO operates safely on the North Slope?
-- Floyd L. Davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
Depending on the location, it might be an immediate threat to public health. I will not give you the obvious examples because your reason for being in this discussion is to disagree.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.