$3.249 Gal. For #2 Home Heating Oil

Page 2 of 4  
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

You've been drinking again?

Hilarious concept. But false.

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.)

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.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Dec 2, 1:35 am, snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:

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!

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.
Try to cite

It's your argument that is insignificant.

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

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 <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The point is that environmental fear mongering alarmists like to use words likie "toxic spill" to scare people. A spill from a simple car accident of fuel or antifreeze isn't what most people would think of when they hear toxic spill, yet today it qualifies and clean up crews are routinely dispatched and the incident logged. And then it gets added to a list of "toxic spills" And it rarely, if ever results in an immediate threat to public health. You have to have some reference grounded in reality.
And similar fear mongering is exactly what the alarmists try to do by conjuring up superfund sites, with the image of Love Canal, when the EPA reporting standard I showed you for the Prudhoe Bay site is a few barrels of oil that cover 375 feet of ground surface.
If you look at this objectively, oil has been and continues to be extracted with minimal impact to the environment. Nothing is perfect, except in the extremist environmentalist world, where they are against just about all energy sources, except perhaps the mythical ones.
Here in NJ the fear mongerers even bitch about proposed drilling off VA, on the theory that it's gonna destroy the beaches in NJ. They conveniently ignore all the drilling in the Gulf of MExico that has been done safely. Most of the oil platforms there were heavily damaged, toppled, sunk etc during Katrina. Yet I didn't hear anything about any oil spills or environmental disaster attributable to the irresponsible oil industry? Another testimonial to the fact that it can be done today with minimal impact to the environment, unless you believe the extremists who would have us go back to caves.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Do you think they should NOT be dispatched?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

For the most part, yes, I think that as well--it's massive overreaction.
Train car of benzene, sure -- car wreck w/ a hole punched in the radiator...ummhhh, not so much...
--


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Great! We have a chemist in the discussion. Why is it illegal to dump these things into a hole in the ground?
Separate question: Tanker filled with diesel fuel - what do YOU think should be done if there's an accident and the whole load spills onto a highway?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

That's controlling a deliberate act rather than results of a minor accident.

Offload as much as possible, and pick up what can be, of course. Full-body HAZMAT suits and the whole deal they've turned it into as a welfare program for the emergency response lobby--leave it home or send it back as soon as determine what it was. If it's in a rural area, easiest solution of the residual would typically be to simply burn it off, controlling the perimeter.
--
>
>
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Think "deeper". Why is it illegal?

Pick it up of course? You said that. Why should it be picked up? The entire load has spilled. There's a teaspoon left in the tanker.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

No, what I wrote was "what can be"...

Well, it has some value if nothing else if it has pooled somewhere such that it can be.

Sh^htuff happens. Not often that _all_ is lost, however, before somebody can get there to offload the remainder. Often, if it's an actual traffic accident that caused it, the solution is already in place as previously mentioned.
It's not reasonable action I question, it's the practice of carrying those to extremes that spend thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for no useful effect on insignificant problems that I wonder about...
--
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're still missing something here. Think harder, if possible.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:

You're after a different agenda; I'm not playing (of course, I knew that from the git-go, I do recall the CCA/ACQ thread(s) and your general paranoia)...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Paranoia? No.
Do you believe petroleum products belong in your drinking water? I'll bet you do.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Obviously DPB and I agree. You need some sense of balance. When most people hear the words "toxic spill" they think of tens of thousands of gallons of something really dangerous, like dixon or nitric acid, or Love Canal, not a car accident with 15 gallons of gasoline or some antifreeze. And please show us where that ever constituted an imminent theat to public health.
The obvious point here is envrionmentalist extremists like to site numbers like "400 toxic waste spills in Alaska as a reason to ban any drilling for oil. Many of those 400 incidents could be as simple as an auto accident releasing 15 gallons of gasoline or some antifreeze on a highway, which are considered a toxic spill here today. Or it could be spilling a mere 50 gallons of oil from a barrel. And no, neither I nor anyone else here suggested those shouldn't be cleaned up. Only that incidents like this get added to the list of "toxic spills" and then distorted all out of porpotion compared to the real environmental impact. If you compare those environmental risk to any reasonable standard, like 50,000 Americans die in auto accidents every year, you come to the conclusion that the risk/reward ratio favors drilling.
I showed you 2 incidents that were part of reported superfund sites. When people think of superfund sites, they think of Love Canal. One Prudhoe Bay incident involved a spill of crude covering a whopping 375 sq ft. The other was I think maybe 50 barrels of a light oil emission that covered 50 acres. Big Fning deal. Both are easily handled, yet they get included as toxic spills and included as part of a "super fund site". And then they are used by extremists to justify not drilling in millions of acres of ANWR that has significant, and possibly huge oil deposits. In a time when we are overly dependent on foreign oil and running a trade deficit, what logic is there in that?
And to those that don't want to drill in ANWR, what exactly is your solution? Are you in favor of more nukes? More coal? How may miners die mining coal compared to those working on oil rigs? Putting windmills offshore NJ or Cape Cod? Drilling off the eastern coast or elsewhere in the US.
Or should the growing world population move into caves? Instead of telling us what you don't like and tell us what is your solution for a growing world population?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be saying that a tanker truck only holds 15 gallons of whatever. See...I used a tanker truck as an example, so we're gonna stay with that for the moment.
You also seem to be saying that a shitload of gasoline spilled on a highway would:
- Stay neatly and conveniently on the highway waiting to be cleaned up
- Never find its way into groundwater
You shouldn't say these things, or even imply them. Gasoline may not be the most toxic thing we have to contend with, as long as it stays where it belongs. But, in the wrong places, it's trouble.
YOu know that.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, I never said any such thing.

Never said that either.

Well duh! Did you figure that out all by yourself?

You don;t know what I or anyone else knows. I doubt you even know what you don't know.
Now, one more time. The point that I was making was that when someone crows about 400 "toxic spills" in Alaska, those spills could include anything from a release of gasoline from an automobile accident to a million gallons of benzene. Did you pay attention to the incident report of a barrel of oil covering 375 sq ft reported to the EPA as part of a super fund site? Does that sound like a big environmental disaster to you? BTW, don't bother with your next post falsely claiming that I said it shouldn't be cleaned up either.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Without even checking, I am positive that the 375 sq ft superfund site was an exception, unless you focus on one very small geographic area.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

He simply lied about the significance. That spill had *no* connection to the area being designated a Superfund site. The report merely indicated that the spill happened at a site *already* designated as a Superfund site.
One reason it has been so designed is the fact that there have 400 such spills *every* year for 30 years in the Prudhoe Bay complex. It is hardly insignificant, and we do realize that when the oil industry leaves it will take many decades to restore the areas they've used.
But what is it that causes the vast majority of pollution in places like Puget Sound (which has been suffering greatly from pollution for decades)??? Small toxic waste spills that are miniscule compared to anything that spreads a barrel of oil over 375 square feet!
This stuff he claims is meaningless is *exactly* what we want to prevent at critical areas on the North Slope. We do *not* object to that at Kuparuk, at Prudhoe, or on just about 95% of the North Slope! We don't want it near the food supply. ANWR, Teshekpuk Lake, the Colville River, and the Beaufort Sea Bowhead whale migration routes are areas where it is simply not acceptable.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@optonline.net wrote:

Then again, maybe he was trying to provide it.

You mean that *you* think of that sort of thing... mostly because you are clueless.
Maybe most people have a more reasonable exposure to history, and actually have sane perceptions that aren't like yours at all.

Nobody made any such statement. You are a liar.

And some of them *are* 100,000 gallons of oily sea water, or 200,000 gallons of thick crude oil.
You seem to be a bit ill informed.

You are wrong. In just about every way possible.
First, 50,000 deaths in auto accidents will not change due to anything we have been discussing regarding oil in Alaska.
Second, auto accident deaths are not an environmental risk in any way, therefore it is ridiculous to compare it to the environmental risks of drilling for oil in Alaska.
But worst of all, is that you are dead wrong about what constitutes a serious environmental hazard. It is *not* those big 200,000 gallon spills that will endanger anyone's health, but rather those little (even smaller than the ones you are citing) spills where someone dumps 10 *ounces* of gasoline or antifreeze on the ground in a parking lot. (See below, where I've provided more info.)

But you claimed those were the reasons the sites were superfund sites, and that was a lie. And in fact the levels that were involved in those two incidents *are* significant. (See below.)
We either prevent exactly that sort of thing here on the North Slope, or we will end up with an environmental disaster that will poison our food and our children.

I think of the North Slope Borough Landfill. Or Kuparuk, or Prudhoe Bay... or for reasons you'll never understand, I think of the school children in the village of Aniak 30 years ago, who were exposed to a PCB spill that should never have happened, but is now the reason for that location to be a Superfund site.
That was probably less than 100 gallons of Askeral oil that was spilled. Would you want *your* children exposed to it?

What you mean to say is that they happened *at* an already declared Superfund site. The fact that that sort of thing happens on a regular basis (400 time a year) is the reason it is a Superfund site.
And that designation is well deserved.

Are you sure? Nobody has found any oil within ANWR, or for that matter within several miles of it.

ANWR would do what for the trade deficit? Given that a foreign based multi-national oil giant would be the ones to pump it out...

You should move *out* of that cave!
Oh, here's a bit more... but first a little background to provide perspective. I was raised on Puget Sound, which we called "Putrid Sound" due to the pollution. Even the barn cats wouldn't eat fish caught there. One reason I live on the North Slope of Alaska is because I *have* experienced the environmental disaster that you want to create here.
From http://www.ecy.wa.gov/puget_sound/index.html ,
"Puget Sound is sick. We know that:
Toxic chemicals ... entering the food chain. Low oxygen levels ... are killing fish in Hood Canal ...
Critical habitat ... are damaged by poor development practices and stormwater runoff.
Oxygen levels ... suffocating fish, crab, sea stars, wolf eels, octopi and other marine creatures.
... environmental threats are causing populations of marine birds, fish and marine mammals to plummet."
What causes this, and what are the pathways and mechanism?
Here is a report issued in October, title "Phase 1: Initial Estimate of Toxic Chemical Loadings to Puget Sound".
http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/0710079.pdf
It says, for example, that every year about 22,580 metric tons of oil and petroleum products enter Puget sound from *surface* *runoff*, which is mostly roads, parking lots, and private vehicles. Less that 4% of the total comes from direct oil spills (the type you claim are the only thing worth worrying about, and only then if they are huge).
Air pollution contributes near 40 metric tons per year of lead, arsenic and carcinogenic hydrocarbons.
*You* might be ignorant enough to do that to ANWR, but I've already been there, got an education at the school of hard knocks, and I'm here to keep idiots from repeating history.
--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) snipped-for-privacy@apaflo.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It 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.