ANCHORAGE, United States (AFP) - Environmental workers in Alaska were racing to clean up 111,300 gallons (423,000 liters) of oily water that spilled from a leaky oil pipeline, officials told AFP.
Some 80 workers were battling to clean up the oily water that covers about two acres (0.8 hectare) in what ranks as one of the largest industrial spills ever seen in the oilfields of northern Alaska's North Slope region.
The leak of oil-contaminated water was discovered Saturday in an oilfield operated by ConocoPhillips Alaska, Inc in Kuparuk, the Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation said.
"Around 111,300 gallons (421,000 liters) of a mixture of seawater and produced water, which is a mixture of water and crude oil, was released to both gravel pad and tundra," said the department's Amanda Leffel.
Produced water is water that has been separated from the mixture of crude oil and liquid natural gas that is produced by oil wells. The oil content of the water amounts to about 50 gallons (190 liters), Leffel said.
The leaky pipeline carries produced water from a separating plant back to the Kuparuk production facility where it is injected back into the ground to help maintain pressure in the oil field to allow better oil yields.
"The exact cause of the leak is yet to be determined," the department said in a statement.
"A line excavation and inspection may be required before the cause can be determined. A repair plan for the pipeline is being developed," it added.
The largest water spill in the area involved nearly 758,000 gallons (2.87 million liters) of diluted seawater leaked in March 1997, according to a 2003 report by the National Research Council, making the latest spill the third worst.
The largest spill of crude oil was nearly 39,000 gallons (147,000 liters) in July 1989.
2 acres? That only leaves us millions upon millions.
You're not looking at the big picture - what's really important:
Press releases and fundraising letters for the environmentalists.
classicman2
04-21-05, 04:43 PM
Speaking of energy & ANWR - the House just passed (by a rather margin - 90 votes or so) the energy bill.
It's quite similar to the Bush energy bill of 2001.
X
04-21-05, 04:51 PM
They took out the MTBE liability immunity section, didn't they?
Pretty funny that the environmentalists were pushing MTBE so hard here in California and it's so good that the manufacturers want liability from lawsuits concerning the damage it's done.
classicman2
04-21-05, 04:59 PM
The bill limits MTBE liability.
X
04-21-05, 05:17 PM
That will be a problem in the Senate.
X
04-21-05, 05:24 PM
I've never heard of "natural gas hydrates"...
US "better have" a national energy policy-Greenspan
WASHINGTON, April 21 (Reuters) - Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan said on Thursday the United States had "better have" some sort of national energy policy for both economic and national security reasons.
When asked at a hearing of the Senate Budget Committee if he thought America needs a national energy policy, Greenspan said, "I think that we better have one because it's something which is integrated not only into our economic system but into our national security system as well."
He said it is possible new technologies will lead to alternative sources for the fuels consumers use now.
"There's an awful lot of what we call natural gas hydrates (of which) we have in the United States huge reserves. Which is sort of a methane that's encased in ice crystals and which we're now only beginning to look at," the Fed chief said.
Natural gas hydrates are solid, crystalline, ice-like substances made of water, methane and other gases. They are found mostly in permafrost areas and on the ocean floor, according to the Energy Information Administration.
"If we are capable of creating a significant increase in output from that source and the so-called newer technology of what they call gas-to-oil conversion, which is actually taking gas and putting it into a liquid form, it's conceivable we may find many years down the road significant alternate sources of types of fuel which we use today," Greenspan said.
OldDude
04-21-05, 06:48 PM
They took out the MTBE liability immunity section, didn't they?
Pretty funny that the environmentalists were pushing MTBE so hard here in California and it's so good that the manufacturers want liability from lawsuits concerning the damage it's done.
Well, the manufacturers weren't the ones who put it in leaky tanks so it would get in the ground water. Hell, California and some other states DEMANDED MBTE so they have would have an alternative to farmers and ethanol. But of course, the manufacturers have deeper pockets than gas station owners with leaky tanks so it is obvious who should be sued.
X
04-21-05, 07:03 PM
I believe MTBE also exacerbated the leaky tank problem as it's fairly corrosive.
This is a case where the "environmentalists" and the manufacturers who found a lucrative outlet for what was essentially a waste product are both to blame.
House Resources chairman disses key provision of energy bill
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Shortly before the House began debate Wednesday on an energy bill aimed primarily at making the country less dependent on overseas oil, a House committee chairman involved in the legislation bluntly dismissed a key provision to boost the use of hydrogen fuels.
House Resources Committee Chairman Richard Pombo, R-California, a key proponent of drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska, whispered, "This is bulls--t," to House Majority Whip Roy Blunt as the two men stood listening to Rep. John Doolittle, R-California, talk about the benefits of hydrogen fuel at a crowded Capitol Hill news conference.
The remark, which was meant to be private, was overheard by a CNN reporter standing next to Blunt.
After the event, CNN asked Pombo why he made the off-message comment about the $2 billion alternative vehicle program proposed by President Bush and backed by the Republican congressional leadership.
"It's not a short-term solution because we just don't have the technology to produce it," he said, adding that the promised hydrogen-powered vehicles are "multimillion-dollar prototypes that nobody's going to buy."
He said, "They're just not done economically that the average person can afford them. Hopefully, if this stuff all works, 10 years from now they'll be able to produce them."
In the comments that drew Pombo's whispered comment, Doolittle said the alternative vehicle program would "turbocharge" development of pollution-free hydrogen vehicles in the United States.
"The goal is to have hydrogen vehicles on our roads by 2020," Doolittle said enthusiastically. "We presently have the technology. It's not decades away, it's not five years from now. Hydrogen fuel cells exist now."
Pombo said afterward that despite his dismissive comment he thinks it's important the hydrogen technology gets funded in the bill, which is expected to pass the House Thursday before going to the Senate where it faces an uncertain future.
"Long term it's good energy policy, but this is something that's out 10 years from now,' he said.
A White House communications aide agreed, saying hydrogen-powered cars are part of the administration's long-term energy strategy. Dana Perino noted that when Bush first proposed the hydrogen program in January 2003, he said his goal was that the first car that a child born at that time would drive would be powered by hydrogen.
Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman also spoke at the news conference.
Ironically, Pombo, whose turn to speak at the event came right after Doolittle, opened his comments by saying last year he had a hydrogen-powered vehicle on his ranch.
"It was a lot of fun," he said.
bfrank
04-21-05, 07:13 PM
Goldberg74 rotfl :up:
There is no more debate on this the lines were drawn long ago. The sad part for me is I could support this if it was Clinton but Bush's record shows he can not be trusted to do this in a balanced way.
Buy: