Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Thrawn on November 19, 2002, 12:57:25 PM
-
Theis is about twice as bad.
"Battle rages to stave off the world's biggest environmental disaster
By Elizabeth Nash in La Coruņa
19 November 2002
Leading article: A test for the principle that the polluter must pay
Rescue craft from across Europe were racing to the stricken oil tanker Prestige, 60 miles off the Portuguese coast, last night in a desperate attempt to stave off a looming ecological disaster.
More than 4,000 tons of oil has already smothered Spain's rugged Galician shoreline of the Costa de la Muerte from Finisterre to La Coruna. The shoreline is the main source of a wide variety of shellfish, from scallops and mussels to exotic delicacies such as Percebes (goose barnacles) and spider crabs, vital to the Spanish region's depressed economy."
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/environment/story.jsp?story=353586
-
The ship has sunk this morning. It still has about 73.000 tons of fuel-oil on her holds :(.
-
.
-
That's awful.
-SW
-
This isn't as bad as what's being reported. Sure it's a mess but it was fuel oil, they lucked out there.
I worked on the Valdez spill from the 2nd day of the accident through to the beach surveys 6 years after the spill. We surveyed and dug pits in the areas that got NO human cleanup help. What we found was in pits 3 1/2 meters deep there, on average, was little noticeable oil left.
The intertidal zone was not totaly uneffected though. The IZ had a boost in the little critters that the ADEC scientists said would suffer the most in those areas.
Lamentable, yes, an ecological disaster...not hardly in my eyes.
The worst impact is on the local economy, it won't be like in Valdez where the people that make a living at sea actualy benifited monitarily because of the spill.
-
Why isn't someone able to get in there and skim all of the oil up? Is it because they can't get resources to the area before the oil comes ashore? They have skimmers now that can reclaim up to 70 tons of oil AN HOUR, why aren't they there?
-
Those numbers that skimmer manufacturers claim are under ideal conditions. In seas 4ft or greater the oil simply goes under even a heavy seas type boom or sea curtian.
So, yes, they can skim off large quantities of oil with skimmers but it's the process of corraling the oil that is most problematic in rough water.
-
Wait'll the holds that still contain oil start to rust and it leaks out.
-
Why? Maybe because the government played the "blame the other" game since the first moment instead of doing something to solve or alleviate the problem. Now they are playing the "it's Gibraltar fault" card (the ship was heading there). That way they put the blame on a third party, AND gain support on the Gibraltar affair. It's amazing, if you follow some of the media (those with stronger bonds to the political party in power), in this country, ALL the problems are due to the Vasque terrorism, the Gibraltar sovereignty, and any other subject that suits their agenda. But, as president Aznar says, "Espaņa va bien" (Spain is fine). Yeah... :rolleyes:
-
Where's Nelson when we REALLY need him?
-
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9949-2002Nov19.html
Fuel oil is more environmentally damaging than crude oil, said Maria Jose Caballero, who leads the coastal protection project for Greenpeace in Spain
Originally posted by MrLars
This isn't as bad as what's being reported. Sure it's a mess but it was fuel oil, they lucked out there.
-
One way to mitigate the spread of leaking oil is to construct a metal 'tent' that will channel the rising oil for underwater vacuum devices to suck up. This method is being used to capture escaping natural gas in a few places now.
It's not very likely that this method will be used though, since they are still trying to figure out just who is responsible and the cost of such a large underwater construction project is huge.
I have some old friends from NOAA that are there now doing surveys, creating flow models and helping in the planning of the cleanup process and procedures. There are some VERY highly skilled people working on this spill so be assured that everything and anything is either being done or is in the plans to be done if at all possible.
The only limiting factor is just whose money is going to fund the cleanup, that is where the State of Alaska lucked out. Almost 3 billion dollars will have been spent by Exxon by FY'03, almost 500 million of that in ongoing scientific research funding.
BTW, double hull tankers, while being safer in cases of groundings, are more susceptible to swamping and sinking when a catistrophic hull breach occurs. If the outside hull is breached in a longitudinal manner under the waterline the resulting increase of water weight could make the ship sink even faster, if the inner hull is also breached, than a single hulled vessel. Add a breach in both hulls due to a heavy collision and even if the ship doesn't sink, her maneuvering capibility will be severly affected by the added weight of the water between hulls, this would be a major concern in coastal waters.
The only way to effectively prevent seagoing tanker oil spills is to stop using them, period. Until then....shit happens, how fast the industry reacts and contains the spill is the only important issue now.
-
Originally posted by Kanth
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9949-2002Nov19.html
Um, Greanpeace isn't known for their 'good' science.
Their statement is most likely the most selfserving one they could come up with at the moment.
-
I'm just wondering how long it will be until somebody blames the USA for this.
-
It's the US's fault.
-
Geezus that was quick! :)
-
MrLars, you seem to know a lot about oil spills. What should have been done to prevent that accident or, at least, mitigate the effects?
Some people is saying that they should have tried to tug the ship to a port or an estuary, and there, in calm waters, extract the oil from the ship tanks, instead of sailing it to open waters in very rough sea, where a cargo transfer to another ship was a lot more difficult, and, as finally had happened, the damaged hull could break due to the increased stress of rough weather. What was the sensible option?
-
...with their rock and tree climbing SUV's ;)
-
Originally posted by funkedup
Geezus that was quick! :)
heheh :D
-
Originally posted by DA98
MrLars, you seem to know a lot about oil spills. What should have been done to prevent that accident or, at least, mitigate the effects?
While I do have experience in more than a few spills, each one is unique.
Towing a disabled vessel closer to shore could be a viable option IF:
The area slated for mooring isn't an environmental 'hotbead'.
If the targeted area has easy access for clean-up/salvage ops.
If the sea conditions as well as the vessels permit the safe maneurving of the vessel close to shore.
Without being there I'll let the real experts figure out the what ifs.
Until then, I'm content to sit back and watch Greanpeace and the media make fools of themselves by using alarmist tactics with very little 'true' science to back up their claims.
Y'all figure out that I have 'issues' with Greenpeace? :D
-
MrLars, I appreciate that the Valdez area has recovered nicely. Exactly how many seabirds, fish and mammals were killed in the spill? A lot I recon.
Saying that all is well because it has recovered is like saying the holocaust was no big deal because the Jews are doing fine today.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Saying that all is well because it has recovered is like saying the holocaust was no big deal because the Jews are doing fine today.
This is one reason i hate analogies and never use them , because analogies are always wrong. The Valdez oil spill has nothing to do with the holocaust.
A) valdaz was a accident , holocaust was done on purpose.
B) valdaz killed some wildlife, holocaust murdered 6 million humans.
44MAG
-
Analogies are only "always wrong" if you lack the wit to see the connection.
I'm sorry, because you are missing out on a great deal of educational potential by failing to comprehend the "analogy".
BTW, Jesus was very fond of them.
-
All animals suffered in the Valdez spill to be sure but the impact on the total ecological picture of PWS is minimal.
I'm reminded of one of the video images that a lot of people have seen. It's of a man standing knee deep in tidal waters dressed in a 'mustang' survival suit < bright orange > holding up a dead otter by the hind feet. That image was splashed all over the news and Greenpeace publications, a very famous < rather infamous IMO > video clip...
As Paul Harvey would say, 'Now for the REST of the story'.
That otter was hauled in to Valdez for a post mortem exam and guess what? The final repot on it's death was from a .38 calibre projectile. Seems that the fishermen in Alaska on average kill about 400 otters a year. They calim that the otters voracious appitite ruins 'their' fishing grounds. :) Seabirds are used for target practice on just about every fishing vessel that isn't under some corporate eye.
The calls of gloom and doom were perpetuated by interest groups that have more to gain with an alarmist attitude than not.
So, yes it was an ecological disaster but in the scheme of the total ecological health of PWS it was nothing more than a bump in the road. Infact, in the 6 years after the spill only one year was the salmon catch less than the average. All the other years were record years.
My take on that is that there wasn't all that much more fish but there were quite a few more boats launched because of the windfall profits that a lot but not all of the fishermen made...more boats = more fish taken yaknow.
I went on many seabird surveys, although there were great numbers lost to the spill, the overall impact was very minimal...there's gazillions of them there and recovery of the varrious species affected wasn't ever an issue scientificaly.
Green Island was impacted heavely in the first weeks of the spill. I stood knee deep in emulsified oil the second week of the spill. GI is a peniped haulout area, it recieved, as well as other designated pupping areas, intensive cleanup attention both mechanical and manual. The first images of workers cleaning up rocks with absorbant pads by hand were from GI.
I went on a shoreline survey of GI in '94, we dug up to 2 1/2 meters deep and found that the combination of mechanical cleanup as well as the biomediation techniques left little visual traces of oil. The resulting bloom in intertidal critters was attributed to the great increase of oleophilic bacteria, that was the goal of the technique.
I could go on for days about oil spills, I spent 15 years chasing them and one thing is constant in all of them...the junk science that results from special interest groups will ALWAYS make headlines while the true science is published in respected and scientificaly credible publications years after the story has lost interest.
-
yes targte...you are uneducauted sometimes...
What is alot of birds too you??..lololo
Classic...
no need to respond...we already know u are wrong..
Jews being murderd and an accidenlat oil spil??? Oh My God,,,,
AH BB brings all kinds togehtere....Jesus Christ....save them all..well maybe not all
Love BiGB
xoxo
-
Is it possible to burn the oil away?
-
Here in the states, no. The various bureaucracys would debate the effectiveness of insitu burning well beyond the window of oportuntiy for it to be effective.
There? They can but as it stands now it wouldn't be effective enough. There's some 12 million barrels that will be seeping up for the next 20-30 years or until the figure out a way to go down 11,000+ feet and suck it out...not likely, IMO.
The best option from what I've seen its the use of chemical dispersants. Since it's fuel oil the slick is going to be much larger than crude would be...thinner but larger. In seas of 2-4 feet dispersants work well. Also, there's a beautiful Connie fitted out with dispersal equipment that some co-ops keep in Arizona, she can do a good job if the conditions are right.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Analogies are only "always wrong" if you lack the wit to see the connection.
Geez MT, a little arrogant here aren't we, especially when you were rightfully called on a hyperbolic analogy.
Oh wait... I do get it...Big Oil is Hitler......The Captain is Hess, the Exxon Valdez is Aushwitz, and the birds are humans....ahhh..ok, I guess I still lack the "wit" to see your connection.
How about this. The area recovered after a horrible, and avoidable, oil spill. While wildlife suffered a great loss, it did recover in this area, and nature made a comeback, although we shouldn't expect to continue to abuse our planet this way and expect it to keep coming back and recovering.
Cobra
-
Originally posted by MrLars
Until then, I'm content to sit back and watch Greanpeace and the media make fools of themselves by using alarmist tactics with very little 'true' science to back up their claims.
When the majority of the population have no idea about the science involved, alarmist tactics can be very effective. What greenpeace says may sound stupid from a scientific point of view, but from a political point of view their response is perfect.
-
Being natural from La Coruņa, this thing makes me (to say the least) furious, only so-called self-called "ecologists" who knows little about anything but alarmism make me even more furious.
I'm mostly with MrLars point of view.
The worst aspect of the accident is, from my point of view, that we have now roughly 50.000 Tons of oil under 3.500 mts. of water, and nobody knows for sure what is going to happen with this in the coming years.
Nobody can tell for sure if we have a coffin or a time bomb buried.
Another silly face of this is the legal nature of the Tankers business. The whole labirithn is absolute rubbish. I can understand very well the reasons behind, but it holds abosolutely no justification, but the economic one. It's absurd we carry on living with tankers without a clean, precise and enforceable chain of responsibilities about the consequences of accidents.
And it's absurd, too, have them passing closer than 20 miles from the shoreline.
If we want to use oil, we HAVE to stand the risks. That's for sure. But while I will happily take the risks, as I want to buy gasoline for my car, fuel for my home's heating system, electricity form Thermal generators, I am not ready to accept the dilluted responsibility between captain, crew, convenience flag, shipowner, charter, etc., etc., etc. I want all the risk included in the price we pay for oil, and have all the responsibilities claimed on the ones responsible for accidents.
Accidents happen, but it needs to be clear who is responsible for them, and he has to pay in full for it. I want a single responsible to claim on. If there is more than one, all of them are responsible in full and will pay for all the damage.
Just my 2 cts.
-
"Bahamas-flagged tanker Prestige.. "
hmm, wonder why its registered there??
-
Its interesting to see how people panic nowadays when ONE of these vessels "spills".
Its bad yes, but hell, how is this one lousy tanker compare to the hundreds of ships (including fuel tankers) that were sunk in the last set of world wars?
The oil is biodegradable, if it was a huge load of silly putty or some other plastic junk id say "holy $#@$#", but oil? Yes it will kill wildlife, yes it may seriously affect the economy of the affected region... and yet its one ship in more than a decade to have had this kind of accident, hardly a catastrophe.
Link to info on the Valdez spill research, 10 years after:
http://www.valdezscience.com/wiens/index.html
Now granted, the full impact that the valdez spill wouldve had was seriously diminished by human cleanup efforts. Once this spill has a similar (even if half-assed) effort it should turn out the same.
-
Originally posted by OIO
Link to info on the Valdez spill research, 10 years after:
http://www.valdezscience.com/wiens/index.html
Now granted, the full impact that the valdez spill wouldve had was seriously diminished by human cleanup efforts. Once this spill has a similar (even if half-assed) effort it should turn out the same.
I have never seen that site but the surveys I participated in are represented in it and their conclusions are what I expected.
It's good to see all the hard work of the scientists, biologists and support people come together in an informative site that's easy for people to understand like that.
-
Thanks for the informative posts MrLars.
Is oil spill clean up your job?
-
me thinks ppl would freak if they knew what was pumped out of the holds on tankers daily all around the world before they pull into port empty
its much cheaper to do it at sea than have the shipyard do it for them
thank goodness mother nature is as strong as she is
read/heard somewhere that more oil seeps through cracks in the earth crusts on the ocean floor than any man made oil spill has ever produced - just gets ground up in the scheme of things
-
Originally posted by Eagler
"Bahamas-flagged tanker Prestige.. "
hmm, wonder why its registered there??
Eagler..you will find VERY VERY few American registered fleets. Most ships are registered in Panama, Liberia, Bahamas and Bermuda...even US cruise liners.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Thanks for the informative posts MrLars.
Is oil spill clean up your job?
No, I worked for a production company that specialized in oil industry safety issues. The '69 blowout of Platform A in Carpinteria, Ca. < my home town > piqued my interest in the prevention/cleanup of oil spills.
Creating safety and training films for the varrious Oil Spill Co-ops throughout the country gave me and my crew the experience and knowledge necessary, as well as training, to work in the field during spills of all sorts.
Once you get your name known in the business, especialy if you deal with highly sensitive issues and are trusted with that information, you are included in their list of who to call when an incident occurs.
So, a scientist I'm not, just more of an industrial visual documentarian. I used to be a grunt with a gun, then it was more like I was a geek with a bunch of cameras ;)
It's been 8 years since I was in that business now I'm simi retired and operate a large screen projection rental business.
-
Originally posted by Cobra
Geez MT, a little arrogant here aren't we, especially when you were rightfully called on a hyperbolic analogy.
Oh wait... I do get it...Big Oil is Hitler......The Captain is Hess, the Exxon Valdez is Aushwitz, and the birds are humans....ahhh..ok, I guess I still lack the "wit" to see your connection.
How about this. The area recovered after a horrible, and avoidable, oil spill. While wildlife suffered a great loss, it did recover in this area, and nature made a comeback, although we shouldn't expect to continue to abuse our planet this way and expect it to keep coming back and recovering.
Cobra
I might have been a little rude, but arrogant? I don't think so. My point wasn't that my analogy was so good, only that analogies are not "always wrong".
And while I appreciate your little poke, the point is this:
Lack of permanent damage does not equate to no assault.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Lack of permanent damage does not equate to no assault.
While true, an assult doesn't always have long lasting tragic results.
What the 'environmentalists' were saying about the lasting adverse effects of the spill in Valdez just didn't come to pass.
In fact, if someone had the incentive and balls to be arrogant enough to state that the PWS is better off now than if the spill hadn't occured, the true science couldn't disprove his position.
The marine ecosystem of PWS is now most likely THE most studied ecosystem in the US, much of that is a direct result of the Exxon Valdez spill and Exxons deep pockets.
-
Regarding sunk warships - there's a British ship torpedoed in Scapa Flow that has recently started spewing diesel. There's a large slick floating above it.
-
Originally posted by Dowding (Work)
Regarding sunk warships - there's a British ship torpedoed in Scapa Flow that has recently started spewing diesel. There's a large slick floating above it.
there's a U-Boat off the coast of Aruba (not to far off the beach)which does the same thing
-
A synthetic aperture radar image of the oil spill, dated 17-nov, when the ship was still afloat (it can be seen as one of the white dots at the left extreme of the oil slick)
(http://ravel.esrin.esa.it/images/envisat/detail3_oil_spill.jpg)
For more info:
http://www.esa.int/export/esaSA/ESAGFD7708D_earth_0.html