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.
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?
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.
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...
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)...
The main Florida problem is a two tiered property tax structure that has primary resident property owners paying much lower property taxes than second home owners. Just do a Google on the words "florida" "taxes" "snowbird" to find a number of articles on the subject.
The second Florida problem is the high cost of home insurance.
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?
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 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
formatting link
"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".
formatting link
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.
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.
I'll just let everyone here read this and come to their own conclusions about your crediblity and sense of balance. And how you think 50,000 deaths don't matter, but spilling a single barrel of oil that covers 375 sq ft is a big deal. The point is that there are risks with most everyday developments that relate to modern living. There is risk to driving, risk to flying, risk to living in a building. Yet, according to guys like you the standard when it comes to oil exploration is that spilling a single barrel is beyond the acceptable risk. Most folks would say otherwise.
Yeah to an extremists like you. The rest of us see a leak of a barrel of oil that covered a whopping 375 sq ft. It was quickly contained and cleaned up. Big deal. But it does show how radical guys like you are.
More alarmist nonsense.
Given your ability to make a mountain out of a mole hill, you're credibility in assesing this incident is zippo. If you think a barrel of oil spilled on 375 sq feet of land and quickly cleaned up is a big deal, there is no reasoning with you. Clearly if we listened to you, we'd all be living in caves.
Here we go again with the 400 spills number. Above you claimed I lied when I attributed it to your fear mongering to block oil exploration.
Well Duh! Sure, because guys like you won't let anyone go look for it
It's American oil nitwit. The US govt would be paid for it. The drilling rights, the money spent on drilling for it, the jobs created, would be here in the USA instead of in some Arab oil field. How much of your state revenue in AL comes from oil and how low are your property taxes as a result?
Typical extremist answer, exactly as expected. Which is that you have no answer, you just know what's wrong with everything, but have no answer as to where our energy should come from.
I hope drilling comes to a town near you soon!
And this has zero to do with drilling in a tiny footprint in ANWR. We're not proposing developing ANWR, building houses, building shopping malls, and infrastructure. Those runoff conditons are a product development in an urban environment and can be found wherever there is development. How much runoff do we have from an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico? Hmmm? Nada. Compare that to the runoff from NYC or any heavily developed area. And as far as runoff, how about the environmentalist that want us to grow corn and other crops. How much runoff is that going to add, vs drilling in a tiny footprint in ANWR?
Don;t worry, it may take another 911 event, but drilling is coming to ANWR and you sooner or later.
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.
You are dishonest. I did not saying 50,000 deaths do not matter. I said there is no comparison between them, as there is no direct or even indirect link of any significant. Changing one has no effect on the other.
*You* are the fool who seems to think there is a link.
Why are you so dishonest? As I've noted, about 95% percent of the North Slope is available for oil exploration. We do *not* object to the 400 toxic spills a day in the Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex.
You are the idiot who thinks that because *we* don't want our bread basket soiled that we object to everything and anything. You are confused, greatly.
The fact is, most people (including myself) who live on the North Slope are *very* supportive of oil exploration and production!
So what's the big deal? It has been happening 400 times a year! Are we trying to shutdown oil production in Prudhoe Bay????
No. You act like we were. That makes *you* an extremist, not me.
Want we don't want is some nitwit allowing the same spills to happen in our bread basket. We don't want that because we aren't stupid...
The State of Washington is alarmist? Or is it just that you have no sense of perspective?
I was raised on Puget Sound. Don't tell me that is alarmist nonsense. Why do you think I live here instead of there!
The only one making mountains out of mole hills is
*you*, with all this dishonest shifting of what I actually do target to something that is different.
You are living in a cave. We don't want to here.
Stop denying the truth. There are more than 400 per year in the Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex. That is why both of the major oil fields there are superfund sites. That is exactly what we do *not* want to happen in specific places where it would damage our way of life.
But we do encourage oil exploration and development on roughly 95% of the North Slope. And I personally support that too.
It is only idiots like you that think we should destroy everything just for oil, money, and greed.
Not true. Why don't you learn something about this instead of creating your own "fact" from fantasy?
There are holes all around the perimeter of ANWR. None are producers. There was one hole drilled inside ANWR. We don't know what they hit, but they have never shown any further interest in ANWR. The State put up 26 tracts within the 3 mile limit just off shore of ANWR and not one bid was received, while offshore areas in other parts of the Beaufort Sea attacted more than twice as much interest as all previous Beaufort Sea lease sales.
One thing has been very obvious for several years now, and that is just how little interest the oil companies actually have in ANWR.
How much do you think the Federal Government would get? Fool...
In fact the State of Alaska is by law supposed to get
90% of the royalties, not the Feds. It is true that virtually every effort in Congress to authorize it has tried also to change that, but even if they did, the royalties are relatively small potatoes compared to oil industry profits. The big money goes to the producers. If it were American companies *that* would affect the balance of payments. But it is relatively unlikely that even 25% of whatever is done there would be by American companies.
The big deal though, since you don't seem to catch these things, is the financial boost to the State of Alaska! That is why they fund Arctic Power Inc., the lobbying group that spreads more distortions than everyone else put together. Even if *no* oil were discovered, the State of Alaska would benefit greatly from money spent on exploration.
And I might note that right behind Alaska comes the North Slope Borough, which levies a property tax on things like drill pads. The NSB would benefit.
Just so that that sinks in... a typical American citizen would gain virtually *nothing* from opening ANWR. But *I* personally would gain significantly, first as an Alaska resident and second as a North Slope resident.
Now reconsider the priorities on this. Jerks like you who would get nothing from it are all fired up to do it. People like me, who actually would see benefits are the ones who say it isn't worth doing.
Makes you appear a bit foolish...
AL is Alabama.
But my grandchildren and great-grandchildren will still be living here 50+ years later, after the oil is gone. We need to think about that too, not just how to greedily grab it all for ourselves.
Yes, that is what you continue to give. Caveman responses...
They had three drill rigs within a few miles of Barrow last winter, and at least one of them found oil. Since they were drilling in locations where local residents okayed the exploration, that was great news that we were happy to hear.
Only idiots like you cannot understand the perspective, and think we should destroy our entire way of life to get another dollar.
The tiny footprint in ANWR???? You really are dumb. The proposed drilling would affect about 1.5 million of the 1.7 million acres in the 1002 Area. "Footprint" is what we levie property tax on. It has no relationship to what is or is not affected.
You have no idea what you are proposing. The *first* thing that would be done is siesmic work on a quarter mile grid. The damage from that alone would last for at least 30 years, even if they quite and never did another thing.
Who cares what it is in NY, or the Gulf. What we do care about is the effect on *our* land. You don't have a clue, as your repeated references to "a tiny footprint" indicate. Footprint does not include gravel pits, most roads, half or so of most airports, garbage dumps, or any part of a pipeline that is not touch the surface of the ground.
Take a coffee table in your living room. Measure the area of the floor that is in direct contact with the four legs of the table. That is footprint. Now measure the area of the floor that you cannot use for dancing, that is the area with an environmental impact.
Did you just wake up? I posted that days ago and thought this nonsense was over. Again, you resort to name calling instead of seeing the obvious point. And that point is the comparison was that there are obvious risks to most modern human activity, including driving cars which results in 50,000 deaths. It shows that society has a rational acceptance of the concept of risk/reward ratios.
And I say the reward of exploring for oil in ANWR outweighs the risk. If we took your notion of a mere barrel spill being something that must be avoided at all costs and translated that into other areas of human endeavor it looks silly. Especially considering the amount of oil and natural gas that has been recovered in places like the Gulf of Mexico in an offshore environment an order of magnitude more difficult. See pictures of most of the offshore platforms toppled or sunk in Katrina? There was no significant release of oil. But you'd probably find a couple barrels that did escape somewhere and try to turn that into a major environmental disaster too. Funny how you ignore how well drilling in the Gulf, which is far more difficult, has gone. And if we listened to alarmist like you, that oil would never have been recovered either. We'd just be importing more oil from unfriendly sources and paying even higher prices.
Yeah, as long as it's done in somebody else's back yard. I live 20 miles from a nuclear power plant. Environmentalists are running around fear mongering right now to prevent it's license renewal. I'd be happy if they built more of them and added jobs, energy and tax revenue. That's because I have a reasonable assessment of the risk vs reward and am willing to share an extremely low risk for the benefit.
Bread basket? Exactly how much bread is being produced in ANWR?
Because you over react. And how logical and helpful to the environment is fleeing and going to what you consider a pristine environment? Doesn't your own presence contaminate it? Or don;t you take a crap, generate waste, drive around and consume energy? Remember all those horrifying little everday spill from the likes of a car accident that you claim are worse for the environment than a major spill? Well, the more people that do what you did and move there the more of that you are going to have.
If everybody left Puget Sound and ran off to the Noth Slope, what would the environment then become at the North Slope? How about we extend that to people moving there from every other area that they don't like for some environmental reason. I can send
10,000 from NJ here that want to flee the nuke that has been running here safely for
40 years. Follow your ideas of fleeing and soon the North Slope will be a major urban center.
There was an excellent story on this on 60 Minutes a couple years ago. And 60 Minutes is no friend of big oil or proponents of drilling. Leslie Stahl went to the frozen, barren section of ANWR where small footprint drilling was proposed. She specifically talked about the fact that today we don't know how much oil there is in ANWR because even drilling a few test wells using the best current technology to find out and answer the question has been prohibitted.
Yeah, well drilling AROUND it and drilling inside it where the oil is believed to be are two very different things.
Yeah right. LOL
The royalties from Pruhoe don't seem to bother you do they? Keeps your taxes nice and low. As far as setting royalties and dividing up who gets what that can be determined between the feds and Alaska. Then you have an auction to award the drilling rights to the highest bidder.
If you want to insure only US based company's can bid, Congress can make that a restriction too.
We'd all gain in having another source of oil. If that source were available today the price of oil could very well be $70 instead of $90.
No, it makes you appear like a name calling extremist.
More extemist nonsense.
More nonsense and name calling. That's the total area where there MIGHT be oil. The drill sites are a few acres amounting to a nit in percentage of ANWR that would be affected. You really should go find and watch that 60 Minutes story.
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.