PDA

View Full Version : Drilling: worth the risk?




charrob
04-05-2010, 09:02 AM
Sunday, April 4, 2010
Great Barrier Reef rammed by Chinese coal ship

Australian officials are attempting to minimize the impact that oil leaking from the vessel might have on the world's largest coral reef.


http://www.latimes.com/media/photo/2010-04/53092818.jpg


By John M. Glionna and Ju-min Park

Reporting from Seoul - Australians on Sunday scrambled to ensure that a Chinese-owned bulk coal carrier that rammed into the Great Barrier Reef would not break apart and seriously damage the planet's largest coral reef.

Peter Garrett, the nation's environment protection minister, told reporters that the federal government is concerned about the impact an oil spill could have on the environmentally sensitive reef, which was selected as a World Heritage site in 1981.

Environmentalists said they were "horrified" at the possible damage the mishap might cause to the ecosystem, which is 1,800 miles long and comprised of more than 3,000 individual reefs, cays and islands -- providing a habitat for countless sea species.

Video taken late Sunday showed the 755-foot vessel stranded about nine miles outside the shipping lane, leaking what seemed to be a streak of oil into the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park near Great Keppel Island off the west coast of Queensland state.

Great Keppel Island is about 430 miles north of Brisbane, the capital of Queensland.

Early morning flights over the carrier identified a small number of oil patches about two nautical miles southeast from the vessel, according from a release from the Queensland government.

A light aircraft was also shown spraying a chemical dispersant on the spilled oil. Authorities said they planned to assess the success of the move before continuing with the spraying.

"This is a serious situation and we've mobilized air, sea and land resources in response," said Queensland Premier Anna Bligh.

"The situation remains serious as the extent of the damage means that there is a very real risk that the vessel may break apart. Every effort is now being made to limit the impact of this incident".

The Shen Neng 1, hauling more than 65,000 tons of coal, hit the reef at full speed late Saturday in a restricted zone of the marine park. The impact ruptured the vessel's fuel tanks, prompting Australian officials to activate a national oil spill response plan.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau will be conducting a full investigation into the incident. The carrier is aground on a shoal and is not expected to be moved without salvage assistance.

Authorities said they were trying to assess the scope of a salvage project late Sunday.

Capricorn Conservation Council, a national environmental group, said in a release that it was "horrified that a Chinese coal carrier has run aground near Great Keppel Island".

The group called for a marine pilot to be required for all vessels operating in the area.

"We can be certain that this is a sign of things to come," said spokesman Ian Herbert. "Who knows what damage will be done to our local coral reefs and marine animals from the oil spill from the ship? We are outraged that no marine pilot is required on ships between Gladstone and Cairns. This will increase the likelihood of similar events".

Elwar
04-05-2010, 09:25 AM
The risk is too great...we must become socialists ASAP to save the world from destruction.

SamuraisWisdom
04-05-2010, 09:29 AM
The risk is too great...we must become socialists ASAP to save the world from destruction.

Yup, concern for the environment = socialism :rolleyes: I think drilling for new oil is worth the risk because it will make us less dependent on the middle east for our most important resource and it might even bring down the price slightly. That being said, we still need to focus our efforts on alternative energy sources and start manufacturing more structures and automobiles that use them.

akforme
04-05-2010, 09:39 AM
I think we have other options that are off the table and that this is just political BS.

M House
04-05-2010, 09:41 AM
I don't see much alternative to oil, you use it for many things other than fuel. I'd just tap the WWIII reserve in Alaska and drill inshore and offshore. We probably have plenty of oil reserves, I mean the USA takes up a massive part of North America. I kinda think our drilling would be done more environmentally than some of our competitors.

charrob
04-05-2010, 10:00 AM
The risk is too great...we must become socialists ASAP to save the world from destruction.

Obama's proposed drilling off the east coast would take many years to take place, and considering there's hardly any oil that would be retrieved from the effort, it seems questionable whether or not it's worth the risk.

During those years, why not instead be maximizing our efforts to expand the infrastructure and technology to instead use natural gas, of which north america currently has so much of that it is shutting down the wells?

Additionally our problem is not the amount of oil we have, but instead, our ability to refine the oil for use: this is where the backup lies.

I like Ron Paul, and would vote for him in a heartbeat: however I disagree with him in that I strongly believe the government should be the ones to instill environmental laws to protect from the tragedy of the commons.

'Conservation' is a conservative stance. I see 'drill baby drill' republicans in the same way i see 'spend trillions for war' republicans: as wasteful liberals.

Danke
04-05-2010, 10:07 AM
"Drilling: worth the risk?"


Kind of a disconnect between drilling and a coal ship running aground in the coral reef.

Could well have been a Green Peace ship spilling oil (fuel).

fisharmor
04-05-2010, 10:10 AM
I don't see much alternative to oil, you use it for many things other than fuel.

I used to work with a guy who retired from a position at a refinery for DuPont.
He would often say that they would get crude in one end of their production line, and after they got out everything DuPont was interested in, their waste product was 95 octane gasoline.

People who think that we can just get rid of oil are fools. We're all fricking typing on oil, we're reading each other's posts on oil, we're wearing it, we're sitting on it, we walk on it on our way to the restroom, we heat up our lunch in it. It is EVERYWHERE.

Danke
04-05-2010, 10:14 AM
Yup, concern for the environment = socialism :rolleyes

Kinda ironic you brought that up. Norway gets its oil from the sea and is the world’s seventh largest oil exporter, third largest in Natural Gas.

charrob
04-05-2010, 10:17 AM
"Drilling: worth the risk?"


Kind of a disconnect between drilling and a coal ship running aground in the coral reef.

Could well have been a Green Peace ship spilling oil (fuel).

-this article states it's already lost two of the thousand tons of oil it's carrying:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1845370/officials_battling_oil_spill_in_great_barrier_reef/

Danke
04-05-2010, 10:26 AM
-this article states it's already lost two of the thousand tons of oil it's carrying:

http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1845370/officials_battling_oil_spill_in_great_barrier_reef/

Correct. As any ship could. Ships carry a lot of fuel. This has nothing to do with drilling.



The Shen Neng 1 was moving at full speed when it struck Douglas Shoals in Queensland on Saturday, and according to various reports, it suffered a breach of its fuel tank and has started spilling oil.

In a statement released Monday morning, Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ) noted that the ship has already lost two of the 1,000 tons of oil it is carrying, resulting in a 100-yard slick that is two miles long.

fisharmor
04-05-2010, 10:32 AM
Correct. As any ship could. Ships carry a lot of fuel. This has nothing to do with drilling.

Unless the implication is that we should stop having ships run on oil, too.

Not gonna happen. There's a reason for things being the way they are. There isn't a better way to power cargo ships, period.

Plus, the amusing thing here is how nobody stops to consider the fact that people's lives are going to be ruined over this. Besides all the fines, how much does a thousand tons of oil cost? That ain't beer money. And they have a severely damaged ship, too.

It's not like these evil capitalists are only in business to crash ships full of oil into world heritage sites. They're not getting out of this without losing a couple shirts.

dannno
04-05-2010, 10:49 AM
I like Ron Paul, and would vote for him in a heartbeat: however I disagree with him in that I strongly believe the government should be the ones to instill environmental laws to protect from the tragedy of the commons.


"Polluters should be directly liable in court to any and all parties they harm, rather than bureaucrats at the EPA." -Ron Paul

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=238965



Environmental regulations are really bad because it allows industry to collude with government and harm the environment and harm people's private property without due compensation.

dean.engelhardt
04-05-2010, 10:54 AM
Would not drill for domestic oil reduce risk since we would not have to transport half way around the earth?

dannno
04-05-2010, 10:56 AM
The EPA is basically like "hey Monsanto, I know that stuff you're using is toxic, and we know it's going into the environment so we're going to limit how much of it you spew, and we're also going to stack a bunch of regulations on this so nobody else can spew this shit into the environment except for you."

Then when people go to sue Monsanto for spewing the shit onto their property or hurting them, Monsanto has the EPA right there to back them up and say that what they are doing is ok.

Elwar
04-05-2010, 11:38 AM
Yup, concern for the environment = socialism :rolleyes:

followed shortly by the OP's response...


I strongly believe the government should be the ones to instill environmental laws to protect from the tragedy of the commons.


Environmentalism is being used as an excuse, not as a cause.

Come back when you actually want to "save the environment".

MelissaWV
04-05-2010, 11:49 AM
Would not drill for domestic oil reduce risk since we would not have to transport half way around the earth?

This, to a very great extent.

* * *

Though more importantly... what dannno said.

This could have been a cruise ship, a garbage barge, a military craft, a Green Peace boat, or any number of watercraft that use oil as fuel. The coal is not falling into the ocean here.

Anti Federalist
04-05-2010, 01:11 PM
"Drilling: worth the risk?"


Kind of a disconnect between drilling and a coal ship running aground in the coral reef.

Could well have been a Green Peace ship spilling oil (fuel).

Or a university vessel:

Who Cut the Cheese?

A year after a UM research vessel ran aground on a protected reef, a persistent odor lingers

By Kirk Semple Thursday, Aug 17 1995
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1995-08-17/news/who-cut-the-cheese/
The University of Miami had plenty to be embarrassed about a year ago, when their oceanographic research vessel, the Columbus Iselin, smashed into a fragile reef in the Florida Keys. The accident severely damaged four of the federally protected reef's delicate spur-and-groove formations, fingerlike coral structures that have taken centuries to form. In a bitter irony, at the time of the grounding the vessel was carrying a group of marine researchers from around the world.

The official cause of the August 10, 1994, grounding, according to a U.S. Coast Guard investigator, was "negligence." The investigator, Chief Warrant Officer Russ Baer, says that at the time of the incident both the ship's captain, Michael Dick, and the helmsman, John Cawley, had left the wheel house. "The master wasn't paying close enough attention to the circumstances surrounding him, as a prudent mariner should at all times," Baer explains.

To some, however, that explanation carries a whiff of incompleteness. Ever since the incident, a malodorous rumor has lingered regarding the reason the two men simultaneously abandoned the ship's controls: One of them, it is said, passed gas.

A recently published report in a national maritime-trade publication fanned the flatulence theory. "Two crew members have indicated that both the captain and [the helmsman] on watch had walked out to separate bridge wings just before the grounding because of offensive odors in the relatively confined wheel house of [the vessel]," reads an item in the June/July issue of the Portland, Maine-based Professional Mariner.

The article does not identify the two crew members. The author, magazine editor Gregory Walsh, says he heard the rumor from a Columbus Iselin crew member who called about an unrelated matter. Maritime accident reports, Walsh adds, are a staple of Professional Mariner's industry coverage.

Anti Federalist
04-05-2010, 01:12 PM
Unless the implication is that we should stop having ships run on oil, too.

Not gonna happen. There's a reason for things being the way they are. There isn't a better way to power cargo ships, period.

Plus, the amusing thing here is how nobody stops to consider the fact that people's lives are going to be ruined over this. Besides all the fines, how much does a thousand tons of oil cost? That ain't beer money. And they have a severely damaged ship, too.

It's not like these evil capitalists are only in business to crash ships full of oil into world heritage sites. They're not getting out of this without losing a couple shirts.

Power with coal.

No risk of damage from a spill.

dannno
04-05-2010, 01:22 PM
Come back when you actually want to "save the environment".

I think she does, I'd be interested to know what she thinks about Ron Paul's position based on my post above regarding regulations being destructive to the environment.

I always described my political philosophy as "green libertarian" for at least 6 or 7 years... now I just describe it as a libertarian, cause libertarians believe in property rights and that principle can do much more to protect the environment than bureaucrats. I just never understood that concept until Ron Paul talked about it.

dannno
04-05-2010, 01:26 PM
Or a university vessel:

Who Cut the Cheese?

A year after a UM research vessel ran aground on a protected reef, a persistent odor lingers

By Kirk Semple Thursday, Aug 17 1995
http://www.miaminewtimes.com/1995-08-17/news/who-cut-the-cheese/
The University of Miami had plenty to be embarrassed about a year ago, when their oceanographic research vessel, the Columbus Iselin, smashed into a fragile reef in the Florida Keys. The accident severely damaged four of the federally protected reef's delicate spur-and-groove formations, fingerlike coral structures that have taken centuries to form. In a bitter irony, at the time of the grounding the vessel was carrying a group of marine researchers from around the world.

The official cause of the August 10, 1994, grounding, according to a U.S. Coast Guard investigator, was "negligence." The investigator, Chief Warrant Officer Russ Baer, says that at the time of the incident both the ship's captain, Michael Dick, and the helmsman, John Cawley, had left the wheel house. "The master wasn't paying close enough attention to the circumstances surrounding him, as a prudent mariner should at all times," Baer explains.

To some, however, that explanation carries a whiff of incompleteness. Ever since the incident, a malodorous rumor has lingered regarding the reason the two men simultaneously abandoned the ship's controls: One of them, it is said, passed gas.

A recently published report in a national maritime-trade publication fanned the flatulence theory. "Two crew members have indicated that both the captain and [the helmsman] on watch had walked out to separate bridge wings just before the grounding because of offensive odors in the relatively confined wheel house of [the vessel]," reads an item in the June/July issue of the Portland, Maine-based Professional Mariner.

The article does not identify the two crew members. The author, magazine editor Gregory Walsh, says he heard the rumor from a Columbus Iselin crew member who called about an unrelated matter. Maritime accident reports, Walsh adds, are a staple of Professional Mariner's industry coverage.

That's pretty funny right there.

Anti Federalist
04-05-2010, 01:30 PM
I get more than a little peeved at stories like this.

Almost every day that goes by, somewhere on the world's seas, a fellow mariner is losing his life at sea.

This fact gets zero coverage, outside of where it happened, if it was near shore.

The only time any maritime casualty gets reported, is if it damages some undersea preserve, or animals or birds.

The only other exception is if the mariner(s) in question wore spiffy government uniforms.

It's a thankless, dangerous and unappreciated way to make a living, that's for sure, one that most people don't know a thing about, but is absolutely vital to commerce and industry.

dannno
04-05-2010, 01:34 PM
I get more than a little peeved at stories like this.

Almost every day that goes by, somewhere on the world's seas, a fellow mariner is losing his life at sea.

This fact gets zero coverage, outside of where it happened, if it was near shore.

The only time any maritime casualty gets reported, is if it damages some undersea preserve, or animals or birds.

The only other exception is if the mariner(s) in question wore spiffy government uniforms.

It's a thankless, dangerous and unappreciated way to make a living, that's for sure, one that most people don't know a thing about, but is absolutely vital to commerce and industry.

You'd at least think they would be able to arm themselves.

Anti Federalist
04-05-2010, 01:35 PM
That's pretty funny right there.

You want to hear something really funny?

I confirmed that story, years after the fact.

I had one of the officers onboard as a mate years later.

He told me the thing was true.:D

Anti Federalist
04-05-2010, 01:39 PM
You'd at least think they would be able to arm themselves.

I can't even keep a damn line throwing gun onboard.

Have to use these damn Eurofag rockets instead.

John Taylor
04-05-2010, 01:40 PM
I can't even keep a damn line throwing gun onboard.

Have to use these damn Eurofag rockets instead.

Hillarious. What about some really mean-looking potato guns?

Vessol
04-05-2010, 01:40 PM
I think if State's set aside environmental laws in order to protect their lands, then that is fine.

John Taylor
04-05-2010, 01:43 PM
I think if State's set aside environmental laws in order to protect their lands, then that is fine.

I don't think individual states should restrict the private property rights of individuals. We need to have private property rights in resources in order to protect them from the tragedy of the commons. Privatizing property and defending the individuals' rights through law is the solution.

ChaosControl
04-05-2010, 01:48 PM
I think we should move away from oil entirely.

So my answer would clearly be no.

John Taylor
04-05-2010, 01:52 PM
I think we should move away from oil entirely.

So my answer would clearly be no.

Shouldn't private individuals be free to weigh and decide for themselves whether to drill for oil and bring their product to market? If we ensure that tort law, property law and contract law is enforced, a person can do whatever they wish with their property so long as they don't harm other people's property.

I fail to see why we should abandon the non-agression axim here?

ChaosControl
04-05-2010, 01:54 PM
Shouldn't private individuals be free to weigh and decide for themselves whether to drill for oil and bring their product to market? If we ensure that tort law, property law and contract law is enforced, a person can do whatever they wish with their property so long as they don't harm other people's property.

I fail to see why we should abandon the non-agression axim here?

I think if we had true property rights where the polluter was 100% liable to all those who suffered some form of damage or loss in any way, I would agree.

However, I still think we should move away from oil, even if drilling for it and selling it was to remain perfectly legal.

John Taylor
04-05-2010, 02:07 PM
I think if we had true property rights where the polluter was 100% liable to all those who suffered some form of damage or loss in any way, I would agree.

However, I still think we should move away from oil, even if drilling for it and selling it was to remain perfectly legal.

Fair enough. I think we should make this our goal, not trying to force other people to live as we think they should.

Ultimately, I think the consumers must vote scarce resources, including oil, towards its most highly valued end. If that means leaving it on the ocean floor, so be it, but if that means exploring and utilizing it, so be that as well.

fisharmor
04-05-2010, 02:37 PM
Power with coal.

No risk of damage from a spill.

Ok... how?
Going back to steam power?
There's a reason steam was abandoned in all applications except high-end military craft and stationary power generation, too - the boiler requirements are ridiculous, and a lot more dangerous.
Or we could extract coal gas, meaning you'd have a huge tank of compressed gaseous fuel aboard, or we could make synthetic liquid fuel from coal, which can spill.
Same with trains, and automobiles, and planes. There's no better way. If there was, it'd be getting done.

Elwar
04-05-2010, 02:37 PM
I think she does, I'd be interested to know what she thinks about Ron Paul's position based on my post above regarding regulations being destructive to the environment.

I always described my political philosophy as "green libertarian" for at least 6 or 7 years... now I just describe it as a libertarian, cause libertarians believe in property rights and that principle can do much more to protect the environment than bureaucrats. I just never understood that concept until Ron Paul talked about it.

Definitely. If someone were to spill a shitload of oil on my property, they wouldn't be able to get away with a slap on the wrist and a fine from the EPA which would then go toward some social program. They'd be paying for clean up until I was satisfied that everything was back to the condition it was in before the spill.

If someone comes to your house and destroys the place, you don't just have them arrested. You sue their asses for damages.

BenIsForRon
04-05-2010, 02:49 PM
Definitely. If someone were to spill a shitload of oil on my property, they wouldn't be able to get away with a slap on the wrist and a fine from the EPA which would then go toward some social program. They'd be paying for clean up until I was satisfied that everything was back to the condition it was in before the spill.

If someone comes to your house and destroys the place, you don't just have them arrested. You sue their asses for damages.

You know there are animals that don't stay on any one piece of property. Birds and mammals wonder across miles and miles looking for food. Should there be no penalty for poisoning a large population of animals, especially if they are endangered? They aren't your property, they're no one's property.

Anti Federalist
04-05-2010, 03:27 PM
Ok... how?
Going back to steam power?
There's a reason steam was abandoned in all applications except high-end military craft and stationary power generation, too - the boiler requirements are ridiculous, and a lot more dangerous.
Or we could extract coal gas, meaning you'd have a huge tank of compressed gaseous fuel aboard, or we could make synthetic liquid fuel from coal, which can spill.
Same with trains, and automobiles, and planes. There's no better way. If there was, it'd be getting done.

It was less the danger angle and more the cost angle.

I've fired and sailed on plenty of steam powered vessels in my time, and they are no more dangerous than slow speed diesels, given proper maintence.

They are more manpower intensive and thus more costly, I'll grant you that.

Soon however, the cost of insuring against a potential spill might make it more economically feasible.

Hell, I'd like to see a return to sail. Now that's "green".;)

ruthie
04-05-2010, 03:34 PM
Don't worry, we won't be drilling any time soon; that was just a dog and pony show by Obama so he can claim credit, as usual, for having done something he hasn't really done.

Anti Federalist
04-05-2010, 03:38 PM
Don't worry, we won't be drilling any time soon; that was just a dog and pony show by Obama so he can claim credit, as usual, for having done something he hasn't really done.

Salvo for the n00b.

+1

Welcome to the board.:D

Old Dragon
04-05-2010, 03:39 PM
Don't worry, we won't be drilling any time soon; that was just a dog and pony show by Obama so he can claim credit, as usual, for having done something he hasn't really done.

Exactly, drilling will never happen as long as the Marxist are against it.:mad:

ruthie
04-05-2010, 03:40 PM
Thanks anti.

nbhadja
04-05-2010, 03:56 PM
Yup, concern for the environment = socialism :rolleyes: I think drilling for new oil is worth the risk because it will make us less dependent on the middle east for our most important resource and it might even bring down the price slightly. That being said, we still need to focus our efforts on alternative energy sources and start manufacturing more structures and automobiles that use them.

Giving the power to a government to dictate where private companies can drill is an action that opposes freedom and small government.

There is no risk- that is a bunch of establishment BS just like global warming.

nbhadja
04-05-2010, 04:00 PM
Obama's proposed drilling off the east coast would take many years to take place, and considering there's hardly any oil that would be retrieved from the effort, it seems questionable whether or not it's worth the risk.

During those years, why not instead be maximizing our efforts to expand the infrastructure and technology to instead use natural gas, of which north america currently has so much of that it is shutting down the wells?

Additionally our problem is not the amount of oil we have, but instead, our ability to refine the oil for use: this is where the backup lies.

I like Ron Paul, and would vote for him in a heartbeat: however I disagree with him in that I strongly believe the government should be the ones to instill environmental laws to protect from the tragedy of the commons.

'Conservation' is a conservative stance. I see 'drill baby drill' republicans in the same way i see 'spend trillions for war' republicans: as wasteful liberals.

Environmental regulations have failed just as badly as economic regulations. Ron's stance of free market environmentalism is the best.

Well by you supporting the power for a government to deny private companies the right to drill where ever they want on unowned land, you are giving the gov great power.

The only way we will ever become truly efficient in energy is if we deregulate and allow competition in the energy market. Handing the government more power will only make things worse.

GunnyFreedom
04-05-2010, 04:19 PM
Giving the power to a government to dictate where private companies can drill is an action that opposes freedom and small government.

There is no risk- that is a bunch of establishment BS just like global warming.

While I agree that we need to be drilling, you can't say there's NO risk. Hell, there's risk involved in getting out of bed in the morning and drawing breath. If we are to say there's no risk, then we will come off as delusional, and our arguments & positions will be written of without being given a fair hearing.

I happen to believe that there is less risk involved in drilling domestically than there is in shipping oil in from foreign shores. But I'd never say there was NO risk. For point of fact there is no such thing as "no risk."

ruthie
04-05-2010, 04:33 PM
This lovely planet Earth itself leaks, or "seeps" huge amounts of oil into the oceans, more than has leaked from any offshore rig. Check out US Geological Survey Site Oil Seepage Studies.

charrob
04-06-2010, 09:39 PM
You know there are animals that don't stay on any one piece of property. Birds and mammals wonder across miles and miles looking for food. Should there be no penalty for poisoning a large population of animals, especially if they are endangered? They aren't your property, they're no one's property.

your point is well taken; the harm to wildlife does not seem worth the risk. Here is a fully, well-written, report that details the effects of offshore drilling on wildlife: http://na.oceana.org/sites/default/files/reports/Toxic_Legacy_FINAL.pdf

Here are some additional quotes from various sources:


The Promise
Oil development takes place in harmony with healthy wildlife populations.
The Reality
Oil and gas exploration and development harm wildlife and habitat
Marine life
Offshore development impacts to wildlife can be even more serious. Seismic testing produces sonic shockwaves that can interfere with the way marine mammals communicate and detect prey. In extreme cases seismic testing can damage hearing and even cause death of marine species.25 Also, both incremental oil spills and catastrophic ones pose threats to seafl oor benthic life, fi sh, walrus, seals, whales, seabirds, and potentially also coastal wildlife.26 As one example, scientists estimate that if an oil spill were to occur from the Northstar oil fi eld in the Beaufort sea, as many as 70 polar bears could be oiled.27
Future development
These and many other impacts to wildlife continue to accumulate on Alaska’s North Slope. As drilling proponents press to expand operations offshore, both marine and terrestrial species will face increased impacts from seismic testing, air, land, and marine
traffi c, and the industrial infrastructure required to support oil development. Oil and gas development not only puts species at risk, but also affects the livelihoods of local people who depend on these animals for food, cultural traditions, and income.

http://wilderness.org/files/Broken-Promises-8.pdf



Effects of Oil on Marine Life:
Once oil makes its way into the environment, it poses a range of threats to marine life.
Animals coated by even small amounts of oil may be unable to swim or fly properly, maintain their body temperature, feed or even reproduce. Oil can also cover beaches and other vital habitats, making it difficult for animals to find uncontaminated food and nesting and resting places.
Some animals are more vulnerable to oil than others. For example, young may be less able to deal with either coatings or exposure to toxic substances than adults due to their size, underdeveloped immune systems and behaviors. Marine mammals, seabirds (especially penguins) and sea turtles are all particularly vulnerable to oil on surface waters as they spend considerable amounts of time on the surface feeding, breathing and resting.
Turtles and marine mammals are vulnerable to floating oil at all life stages as they do not appear to avoid oil slicks and they must inhale large amounts of air prior to diving. Turtles also feed in convergence zones, areas where air flows and currents meet, which tend to collect floating oil.
Fish embryos are also particularly vulnerable to oil exposure, even at extremely low concentrations of less that one part per billion. Consequently, even traces of oil pollution at levels often considered safe for wildlife can cause severe damage to fish. Animals that become coated in or ingest oil often die quickly. Large numbers of animals were killed immediately after the Exxon Valdez spill, including as many as 300 harbor seals, 900 bald eagles, 2,800 sea otters and 250,000 seabirds.
Exposure to oil can also result in non-lethal impacts, including liver and eye damage and skin irritations. While these effects may not cause immediate death, they can reduce survival rates by compromising an animal’s ability to find food and shelter, reproduce and avoid predators.

http://na.oceana.org/en/our-work/stop-ocean-pollution/oil-pollution/learn-act/effects-of-oil-on-marine-life




The Exxon Valdez Legacy, 20 Years Later
March 24, 2009 in Environmental Health | by Liz Borkowski

Twenty years ago today, the Exxon Valdez ran aground in the Prince William Sound and spilled nearly 11 million gallons of crude oil. Hundreds of miles of Alaska’s coastline were coated in oil, a quarter of a million seabirds died, and one estimate puts local fisheries’ losses at nearly $300 million, reports TIME’s Bryan Walsh.

In 1991, Exxon reached a civil settlement with the federal and Alaska government and agreed to pay $900 million for restoration of the affected area; $180 million of that has gone to research. At the same time, Exxon funded its own research efforts. I’m sure few of our readers will be surprised to hear that the Exxon-funded researchers’ conclusions often differed from those of government researchers. Lila Guterman writes in Science:

For example, one of the largest efforts has been to track the fate of the oil remaining in the sound years after the spill. In 2001, a team led by Jeffrey Short, a chemist then with NOAA, randomly sampled 91 beaches in the oiled parts of the sound, digging 9000 pits. Short estimated that 55,000 liters of oil remained, spread across and underneath 11 hectares of beaches.

David Page, an Exxon-funded chemist at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine, insisted, after conducting his own sampling, that the government estimate was too high. Even though he later came to accept Short’s results, he and others still questioned whether the lingering oil is affecting wildlife. They argue that other sources of hydrocarbon pollution outweigh what little oil remains from the 1989 spill. The remaining oil, says Page, is sequestered. “If it were available to be harming wildlife, it would have been long gone.”

Government researchers challenge those claims. In 2005, Short’s team resampled 10 of the beaches where oil remained in 2001. They reported in 2007 in Environmental Science & Technology that the oil was decaying at just 0% to 4% per year. “It will persist for decades up to a century,” says Short, who retired from NOAA a few months ago and now works for Oceana, a marine conservation group. In another study reported last year in Marine Environmental Research, Short’s team found that biologically active contaminants in the region were predominantly from the oil spill; he also thinks that biomarkers such as a particular liver enzyme reveal that organisms have been exposed to oil.

It’s good to hear that there are a few areas of agreement: According to Guterman, both government and Exxon-funded scientists agree that bald eagles, cormorants, salmon, river otters, and other species have recovered. But government scientists are still concerned about killer whales and sea otters, whose populations are still low in the areas that sustained the most damage. Both scientists and fishermen are particularly concerned about the herring stock, which has collapsed and imperiled many livelihoods.
The Seattle Times’ Hal Bernton focuses his article on John Renner, a fisherman from Cordova, Alaska, who had been preparing for the spring herring harvest when the oil spill occurred:

The year after the spill, Renner concluded that something was seriously wrong with the herring inside these pens. Instead of laying their roe in flat sheets across the kelp, the herring deposited the eggs in weird little towers.

In 1991, Renner noticed that some of the herring ring never spawned at all. He cut them open, and found they appeared to have reabsorbed the eggs.

“I had never seen anything like it and was horrified,” Renner said.

A few years after the 1993 crash, there was hope that the herring populations were on the mend. State officials allowed three years of small commercial harvests that ended in 1998 when the herring populations plummeted again.

There have been no herring harvests in the past decade, leaving Prince William Sound fishermen dependent on the vagaries of salmon fishing.

Even when salmon runs have been strong, prices for pinks were often at rock-bottom levels. Many fishermen had financial problems as they struggled to pay off debts for boats and harvest permits.

Bernton reports that many fishermen are collecting damages from Exxon Mobil, but “more than 100 fishermen risk having all or part of their checks claimed by the state of Alaska to pay down debt for permit loans.” Fisherman had to take out these loans after the spill ruined their harvest – and with the herring population failing to rebound, their economic future still looks shaky.

The New York Times’ Andrew Revkin points out one silver lining of the disaster: Over the past 20 years, the amount of oil moved has increased, while the amount spilled has decreased. Another less-noticed effect is more sinister. As Sheldon Krimsky explained here in 2007, Exxon was able to get its punitive damages reduced from $5 billion to $2.5 billion after funding academic researchers who would publish articles finding that juries are not competent in awarding punitive damages. Then, in 2008, Andrew Revkin noted that the Supreme Court had reduced the damages to $500 million. Other companies facing stiff punitive damages will no doubt be citing the Exxon-funded research for many years to come.

The toll of this disaster is still very much in evidence, but will our elected officials bear it in mind as they make decisions about how we’ll meet our energy needs in the decades to come?

http://thepumphandle.wordpress.com/2009/03/24/the-exxon-valdez-legacy/




Oil Pollution: Overview"

Offshore drilling operations are a source of insidious leaks, and catastrophic spills and blowouts. Oil that is obtained from drilling operations then needs to be transported via pumps or tanker vessels to refineries and then on to points of distribution and use. Each of these stages are vulnerable to accidents that can result in various forms of pollution entering the ocean that have considerable impacts on marine wildlife.

http://na.oceana.org/en/our-work/stop-ocean-pollution/oil-pollution/overview





"My waste, and that of millions of other people in this country, are robbing future generations because I don't believe that we will ever come up with a replacement for what Mother Nature has provided us over millions of years. It is also comical to me that so many people in this country want to "drill baby drill" and more rapidly use up what reserves we have so that we become totally dependent on foreign oil! Is that foolish or what?! The bottom line is, too much waste that could be reduced relatively easily if we had the will. If we think we have energy problems (and water and food problems) with 300 million Americans and 7 billion in the world, wait till we hit 400 million and 8 billion worldwide! "

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=125378223&ft=1&f=1025



"This makes no sense. America needs to break its addiction to oil. And you don’t break an addiction by increasing your supply. To make an analogy, if America had an alcohol problem, you wouldn’t solve the problem by hunting around for liquor stores where you could buy more and cheaper vodka.

Boosting the fuel efficiency of vehicles is a necessary step. But this effort to convince people to conserve fuel will be undermined if we simultaneously pillage our shorelines and foul our natural landscapes in a desperate scramble to make gas cheaper. The cheaper the gas, the less people care about fuel efficiency.

In a global sense, programs to reduce greenhouse gas emissions will never go anywhere if our country’s energy strategy is to exploit every last ounce of fossil fuel before we move on to cleaner power sources, such as wind and solar. Let’s start moving in this direction now."

http://cbf.typepad.com/bay_daily/2010/03/drilling-off-the-mouth-of-the-chesapeake-would-be-a-punch-in-the-mouth-for-the-bay-think-dont-drill-baby--the-obama-ad.html


http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs371.snc3/23828_116431551703804_100000108791083_292824_45136 3_a.jpg

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs371.snc3/23828_116431555037137_100000108791083_292825_71778 16_a.jpg

http://photos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs391.snc3/23828_116431561703803_100000108791083_292826_14491 43_a.jpg

http://photos-g.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs391.snc3/23828_116431565037136_100000108791083_292827_50284 61_a.jpg

http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash1/hs431.ash1/23828_116431571703802_100000108791083_292828_31028 68_a.jpg

http://photos-e.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs391.snc3/23828_116431951703764_100000108791083_292830_10576 35_a.jpg

http://photos-c.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc3/hs391.snc3/23828_116431955037097_100000108791083_292831_65621 68_a.jpg

charrob
04-06-2010, 10:02 PM
I think if State's set aside environmental laws in order to protect their lands, then that is fine.

Virginia just elected a republican governor who is pushing the hardest to get things going in his state. However, the drilling being performed 50 miles of the coast of Va., is actually closer to Ocean City, Maryland than it is to Virginia Beach, Va. Additionally, if oil rigs get placed off the north point of Delaware, this will be within 10 miles of Cape May, New Jersey. Both Maryland and New Jersey are strongly against offshore drilling yet they become harmed because of states wishing to go forward with it.

Volunteers have worked for decades cleaning up the Chesapeake Bay; an oil leak could destroy it.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-06-2010, 10:07 PM
Oil drilling is essential for global economic growth. Oil is the fuel that the world economy needs to survive. There is not much that compares. You have coal, but what else? Nuke is heavily subsidized garbage, um, and solar/wind is pre-industrial age crap. We need more oil and coal exploration!

We should also land on the moon and extract titanium from there (can be used to build spaceships). There's also water ice to use as rocket fuel. it would be great to launch spaceships from the Moon. the moon is our natural harbor to the universe. we need a colony out there

charrob
04-06-2010, 10:20 PM
The risk is too great...we must become socialists ASAP to save the world from destruction.

Human nature lends itself to selfish greed:

example1, Easter Island, when native polynesians found this tropical paradise and lived the good life while pillaging its resouces... in the 1600's? the Europeans found the natives on this island, dying, because they had killed that last tree. Now they couldn't even make canoes to transport themselves off the island. Had the Europeans not found them, they would have all died. -sure, that last tree could have been used by its rightful property owner to build a fine hut...but, the tragedy of the commons, caused the entire island to never be able to grow another tree.

example2, IF a rancher owns the last remaining buffalo -- a small herd of say 60
AND, that rancher is offered a million dollars per buffalo ($60 million total) by an Asian businessman for their gall-bladders and other body parts on condition that it is an all or nothing deal -- all the buffalo must be killed for their parts. [ The reason for the all or nothing, is that by having the last remaining parts, they become invaluable, and the businessman will be able to charge a very high price for concoctions made from those parts. The concoctions are believed to cure ills and enhance virility. ]

Question: Should the rancher be allowed to kill the last buffalos?
Answers:
A. Yes. They are his private property.
B. No. There is a greater good involved which outweighs the rancher's self-interest. These are not just buffalos, but the last remaining ones. Buffalos will become extinct which will be a loss to all mankind, present and future.

There needs to be an impartial set of men "a government" to create laws to prohibit from the tragedy of the commons. Going to court and filing a lawsuit after the last Buffalo dies is too late-- the Buffalo is gone forever. Just because current government is bad government, doesn't mean you get rid of government. It means you make government better.

This is not "socialism". It's common sense.

charrob
04-06-2010, 10:28 PM
Oil is the fuel that the world economy needs to survive. There is not much that compares. You have coal, but what else?


Natural Gas. We have so much natural gas that we are shutting down the wells.

Decrease imports of oil, and the markets will correct itself and quickly find alternative sources and the means for converting to sources such as Natural Gas.

You don't stop an addiction by constantly feeding it: example:
When gasoline went up to $4 a gallon, people were trading in their SUVs for Honda-Fits and energy efficient cars. Then when gasoline prices went down, what do you know, people traded in their energy efficient cars for SUVs.

Additionally, even if we obtain more oil nothing changes because the backlog is not in the amount of oil we have but, instead, in our ability to refine that oil.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-06-2010, 10:29 PM
Natural Gas. We have so much natural gas that we are shutting down the wells.

Decrease imports of oil, and the markets will correct itself and quickly find alternative sources and the means for converting to sources such as Natural Gas.

You don't stop an addiction by constantly feeding it: example:
When gasoline went up to $4 a gallon, people were trading in their SUVs for Honda-Fits and energy efficient cars. Then when gasoline prices went down, what do you know, people traded in their energy efficient cars for SUVs.

Additionally, even if we obtain more oil nothing changes because the backlog is not in the amount of oil we have but, instead, in our ability to refine that oil.

Why do that? Demand wants oil. Feed them oil! We don't need any intervention.

charrob
04-06-2010, 10:37 PM
I think we should move away from oil entirely.

So my answer would clearly be no.

me too. :)

charrob
04-06-2010, 10:38 PM
Why do that? Demand wants oil. Feed them oil! We don't need any intervention.

Have you heard of the term "peak oil"?

JosephTheLibertarian
04-06-2010, 10:39 PM
Have you heard of the term "peak oil"?

The free market will adjust. Government never does anything right. We can go a good 50 years or so. Much time for changes yet

charrob
04-06-2010, 10:57 PM
The free market will adjust. Government never does anything right. We can go a good 50 years or so. Much time for changes yet

what is the point of using every last drop of oil? what if, in the future, our grandchildren's grandchildren might need a small amount for something specific? the conservative approach is not to use every single drop. the conservative approach is to find alternate solutions to this very finite resource. the shortsightedness of pillaging the earth for this just makes me shake my head in wonder.

the entire amount of oil obtained from opening up the east coast, the add'l parts of the gulf, and northern alaska that Obama just opened up == ONE YEAR OF OIL. Is it worth the possible devastation of wildlife and destruction of an entire tourism industry up and down the east coast for ONE YEAR OF OIL ?

wildlife may never recover from this. if you read the long explanation of effects to wildlife above, you would see that even a very small amount of oil on a seabird could prohibit its ability to fly. species may become extinct. does any of that mean anything to you?

the Constitution states to protect the "general welfare". There is no better case for that then the environment and wildlife. Just because "government never does anything right" does not mean you get rid of government: it means you make government better. Private individuals will not have the protection of the "general welfare" in their minds when it comes to drilling, destroying the last of a species, etc.; this is a case that needs to be decided by an impartial government.

JosephTheLibertarian
04-07-2010, 07:26 AM
well, news flash, I aint a conservative :) we need free market solutions to this problem. alternative fuels are already becoming cheaper, why do we need govt to pick winners and losers? remember the last time conservatives chose a "winner"? they subsidize ethanol? yeah, it took more energy to produce it than there was to use! lol. that's funny. nah, people will adjust, I can tell you have no faith in humanity.

and there are still plenty of untapped natural oil reserves below the surface, it's just that government won't allow the exploration needed to find them. government impedes progress. once we start drilling everywhere we need to you will see oil prices go down. that would be good for everyone oh, and Obama didn't open it up. the congress has a contract to allow the drilling all over the US coast, but Obama limited it to certain areas. despite his rhetoric, he actually is holding up progress. I believe the west coat will be open in 2016.

you just made a great argument for private land ownership. extinctions, eh? well, if those lands were owned by private citizens, instead of govt, those animals would have protection. but theyre not. if govt says "ok we do this" then it's a universal outcome. it's not my fault the state is indirectly fucking things up.


what is the point of using every last drop of oil? what if, in the future, our grandchildren's grandchildren might need a small amount for something specific? the conservative approach is not to use every single drop. the conservative approach is to find alternate solutions to this very finite resource. the shortsightedness of pillaging the earth for this just makes me shake my head in wonder.

the entire amount of oil obtained from opening up the east coast, the add'l parts of the gulf, and northern alaska that Obama just opened up == ONE YEAR OF OIL. Is it worth the possible devastation of wildlife and destruction of an entire tourism industry up and down the east coast for ONE YEAR OF OIL ?

wildlife may never recover from this. if you read the long explanation of effects to wildlife above, you would see that even a very small amount of oil on a seabird could prohibit its ability to fly. species may become extinct. does any of that mean anything to you?

the Constitution states to protect the "general welfare". There is no better case for that then the environment and wildlife. Just because "government never does anything right" does not mean you get rid of government: it means you make government better. Private individuals will not have the protection of the "general welfare" in their minds when it comes to drilling, destroying the last of a species, etc.; this is a case that needs to be decided by an impartial government.

tangent4ronpaul
04-07-2010, 08:16 AM
I don't see much alternative to oil, you use it for many things other than fuel. I'd just tap the WWIII reserve in Alaska and drill inshore and offshore. We probably have plenty of oil reserves, I mean the USA takes up a massive part of North America. I kinda think our drilling would be done more environmentally than some of our competitors.

There are carbon2fuel and algae to fuel projects that should go commercial in about 10 years. Drilling at home would make the middle east pretty irrelevant and that is the real reason for our conflicts there.

As to the bolded part of your statement above, you've been lied to. The USA does not take up that large of an area of the America's, comparatively. Just about every map you've ever seen will display the country as much larger than it really is.

http://www.reachandteach.com/store/index.php?l=product_detail&p=495

YouTube - Arno Peters: Radical Map, Remarkable Man TRAILER (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=osQN7aSQV9w&feature=player_embedded)

Which is bigger, Greenland or China? With the traditional Mercator map Greenland and China look to be the same size but in reality China is almost 4 times larger! In response to such discrepancies, Dr. Arno Peters created an equal area map, a new world map that dramatically improves the accuracy of how we see the Earth.

One of the most controversial images of the world, the Peters Map was first introduced by Dr. Arno Peters in 1974, and generated a firestorm of debate. Peters was one of the first to assert that maps are unavoidably political. His map claimed to show "Fairness to All Peoples" providing an area accurate portrayal of the world. Today, this equal area map continues to have passionate fans as well as staunch critics.

This new map shows all areas - whether countries, continents or oceans - according to their actual size. Accurate comparisons become possible.

-t

tangent4ronpaul
04-07-2010, 08:24 AM
the entire amount of oil obtained from opening up the east coast, the add'l parts of the gulf, and northern alaska that Obama just opened up == ONE YEAR OF OIL. Is it worth the possible devastation of wildlife and destruction of an entire tourism industry up and down the east coast for ONE YEAR OF OIL ?

Obama speaks with a forked tongue. While claiming to do one thing - opening up drilling - he actually did the opposite - made large areas no drill zones. Just Alaska should have over 10 years worth of oil.



the Constitution states to protect the "general welfare".

Now you've done it! The "general welfare clause" is preamble, not an enumerated power granted to Congress. Yes, I know Congress regularly and illegally passed laws under the pretext that this clause grants them power to do what they want. I'll let someone else hand you your ass on this issue.

Time to make some popcorn and wait for the fireworks.... :D

-t

libertarian4321
04-07-2010, 08:28 AM
Obama's proposed drilling off the east coast would take many years to take place, and considering there's hardly any oil that would be retrieved from the effort, it seems questionable whether or not it's worth the risk.



We are going to need oil for many years into the future.

Almost all of the large spills have NOT come from drilling or drill rigs, they come from TANKERS running aground or sinking or leaking.

Given that fact, you can either 1) drill in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria and haul it thousands of miles in a tanker or 2) get some of it locally- in the oceans or the Gulf of Mexico- where it will spend FAR less time in a tanker (if any time at all).

There is far less danger of spill damage if you obtain the oil locally and ship it less distance.

When was the last time you heard of a major spill from a rig in the North Sea, where the UK and Norway get their oil (and, incidentally, in far worse conditions than we have off the coast of California, Virginia, or Texas)?

Sometimes "environmentalists" get so worked up in their "oil is evil" mantra that they forget to think.

I'll repeat- shipping oil in tankers over long distances is the biggest spill hazard. By drilling off your own shore, you significantly reduce tanker transport, and thereby reduce the danger to the environment.

I know, that's counter-intuitive to the standard leftist environmental mantra, but it's true.

I'm an environmental engineer and I do what I can to help the environment on a personal level, but you can't just accept the noise you get from the "progressives" as fact.