ooseven and his liberal weak

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by ooseven
No but we should be more responsible in our oil production and use.

For example,
[list=1]

• Oil tankers should have been double hulled to reduce the chance of catastrophic spillage’s
• Oil transport should have been more closely regulated.
• Transit routs should have been moved further away from shoreline and coastal routes

If these three simple thing where done, then Exxon would not of been holed and the accident would of be averted.
 
Now Gman... open wider and inset second foot into mouth ;).

That was what, 1988? It\'s probably an older boat and I\'m sure Exxon has newer and safer ones. There are a lot of old tankers out there still chugging along and have had no problems until it hits something. Eventually those will be done away with. What happened with the Valdez has NOTHING to do with the oil ON Alaska. The accident happened due to ONE person\'s negligence.

So you want the US to keep depending on OPEC? Hell no. You guys can but not us. It\'s time the Middle East get money the in another way : get modern, educate their people, become more secular and less controlled by fanatics, stop raising the prices on oil by producing less and making us pay more.

Ya see, yer feeble mind can\'t grasp the whole picture of this oil thing. You just pick one incident. Are you going to want the US to stop nuclear plants from providing cleaner power to the country because of Three Mile Island and Chernobyl too?

So... We should just sweep thing under the carpet and hope that none of the Old Tankers hit anything.

:gman:

Hey Gman..you used to say you were in the Navy.....

So you will know that one man can make a big impact to a whole organisation or Fleet if he\'s THE CAPTIAN of a Ship.

Not only does it reflect on the blatant negligence of the ship’s crew for nor removing him of his command.

But the Whole Company for not appointing and training a suitable crew to command a tanker with 53,094,510 gallons of crude oil.

The National Transportation Safety Board investigated the accident and determined that the probable causes of the grounding were:
1. The failure of the third mate to properly maneuver the vessel, possibly due to fatigue and excessive workload;
2. The failure of the master to provide a proper navigation watch, possibly due to impairment from alcohol;
3. The failure of Exxon Shipping Company to supervise the master and provide a rested and sufficient crew for the Exxon Valdez;
4. The failure of the U.S. Coast Guard to provide an effective vessel traffic system
5. The lack of effective pilot and escort services

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by ooseven
So... We should just sweep thing under the carpet and hope that none of the Old Tankers hit anything.

:gman:

Hey Gman..you used to say you were in the Navy.....

So you will know that one man can make a big impact to a whole organisation or Fleet if he\'s THE CAPTIAN of a Ship.

Not only does it reflect on the blatant negligence of the ship’s crew for nor removing him of his command.

But the Whole Company for not appointing and training a suitable crew to command a tanker with 53,094,510 gallons of crude oil.

I never said I was in the Navy. The tanker\'s crew are no where near like that of a Navy ship, this comparison of yours is ridiculous. By your argument, if a person drives a Ford car and hits a bus, so Ford is responsible? Get real.

They are if its a manufacture fault with the brakes.

......

Remember the Company have a Duty of care and responisbility to the oil they produce and transport.

This extends from oil production... to oil refinement.

So yeah Company is lable for the actions of a person under their employment....

Even if its one Captain on a VERY LARGE SHIP !

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by ooseven
They are if its a manufacture fault with the brakes.

......

Remember the Company have a Duty of care and responisbility to the oil they produce and transport.

This extends from oil production... to oil refinement.

So yeah Company is lable for the actions of a person under their employment....

Even if its one Captain on a VERY LARGE SHIP !

And you know Ford is not responsible for bad drivers. Exxon does however, have that responsibility, true. They are liable, yes. My point is Alaska has had one bad incident in its 60 years of oil production. There are more oil for America to drill from there so that

1) depending less and less on OPEC. Brits have no choice. You can suck it.

2) Keep our prices down. You guys pay waaay too much.

3) With current technology, disasters are less likely to happen

4) the ecological impact is kept to a minimum. In fact, we\'ve had the Alaskan pipeling for years without disasters.

5) Bush had to foresight to look for an alternative other than the Middle East oil. But tree huggers whine too damn much.

Originally posted by GmanJoe
Bush had to foresight to look for an alternative other than the Middle East oil. But tree huggers whine too damn much.

Why not look for an alternative to oil altogether?

[GmanJoe]

Originally posted by Black Samurai
Why not look for an alternative to oil altogether?

Didn\'t he invite the Big Three automakers at the White House 2 years ago that had those electric and hybrid cars?

Originally posted by GmanJoe
Didn\'t he invite the Big Three automakers at the White House 2 years ago that had those electric and hybrid cars?

Big news for ya Brainiac....

Iceland Plan to be Fossil Fuel Free by 2020.

This includes Cars, Power Production... heck even their Fishing FLEET.

Anyway Lest go back to the source and your Dumbass Statment about there being no oil Accidents in Alaska...well your comments speak for themselfs...

And as for it never happening again .....:rolleyes:

Oil pipeline disaster \'imminent\'
Employees blow the whistle on the safety of the trans-Alaska pipeline



The Guardian, Monday July 12, 1999

Michael Sean Gillard, Andrew Rowell and Melissa Jones

An ecological disaster far worse than the Exxon Valdez catastrophe in Alaska 10 years ago could happen at any moment, according to six senior employees of the company that runs the 800-mile Alaskan oil pipeline.

The six whistleblowers have written to BP Amoco\'s chief executive, Sir John Browne, and three US congressmen warning of an imminent threat to human life and the Alaskan environment from irresponsible oil operations there.

The letter contains evidence of compliance failures, falsified safety and inspection records, intimidation of workers and persistent violations of procedures and government regulations. The whistleblowers fear a possible rupture of the ageing pipeline or an explosion at the Valdez oil tanker terminal. BP Amoco owns 50% of the company, Alyeska, which operates both installations on its behalf.

The Exxon Valdez disaster was one of the most ecologically destructive spills ever. The Alaska state government blamed oil industry complacency and broken promises. The whistleblowers, all senior employees on the 22-year-old Trans-Alaska Pipeline System (Taps), believe conditions exist today for an even worse disaster. "It\'s not a matter of if it is going to happen, it\'s when it is going to happen," said one. The group provided the Guardian with evidence of compliance failures, illegalities and mismanagement:

o Alyeska\'s quality assurance programme, vital to the safe operation of Taps, is being deliberately undermined by middle management.
o Alyeska executives turn a blind eye to "the culture of harassment, intimidation, retaliation and discrimination".
o Alyeska executive management instructed middle managers not to issue critical audit reports of Taps safety and quality compliance because it could "negatively influence" their employment prospects.
o Alyeska executive management instructed middle managers "to disregard and/or circumvent" compliance manuals and codes of conduct and to "tone down, alter or delete negative reports including internal audits and surveillance reports".
o Maintenance and inspection records before 1996 are lost and audit results were falsified to make it seem otherwise.
o Record keeping is "totally dysfunctional" and Alyeska executive management is hiding the problem from government regulators.

The six whistleblowers are risking their careers. They say they represent a much bigger group of concerned employees who are too afraid to speak out because of an embedded "shoot the messenger" culture in the Alaskan oil industry.

The scandal is a blow to Sir John, who has spent two years repositioning BP as the leading "green" oil and gas company. The letter demands "immediate intervention" by the chief executive and the US government to "send credible and qualified auditors to verify the evidence" that the whistleblowers are willing to provide.

The Guardian has established that senior executives in Alaska were made aware of many of these problems. But the group says Alyeska is gambling with people\'s lives and the environment by not addressing the problems. "It\'s more dangerous now than it ever was because Alyeska is being run by spin doctors," said one whistleblower.

The last time senior Taps inspectors blew the whistle, in 1993, there was a congressional investigation in Washington. An audit questioned the integrity and safety of the pipeline, which carries 1m barrels of oil a day. BP Amoco and Alyeska\'s other main owners, Exxon and Arco, were told to address the many "imminent threats" identified by the auditors. Six years later, the whistleblowers say these safety issues have been "consistently disregarded". Last night no one from BP Amoco was available to comment.

This latest scandal could threaten BP Amoco\'s proposed merger with the US oil giant Arco, announced last April. The $26bn deal would give the company a near monopoly in Alaska with 74% of the oil fields and 72% of the pipeline.

However, the merger is under anti-trust investigation by the European Commission - with a decision due in October - and by the US senate.

Environmental and safety considerations could now be used by political and environmental lobbyists to frustrate the merger. This is especially so in Alaska, where Alyeska\'s licence to operate the pipeline is also under government review.

In Britain, safety concerns have been raised in the North Sea, where BP Amoco is the largest producer. Charles Woolfson, a senior lecturer in industrial relations at Glasgow University, said cost-cutting across the oil industry was creating the conditions for another Piper Alpha disaster. "Testimony from offshore workers suggests they feel safety is being compromised," he said. "The Exxon Valdez didn\'t happen out of the blue. There were serious indications of potentiality for an incident. We are living through the same period here, now, and the question is will those reports and testimony be heeded."

The Exxon Valdez didn\'t happen out of the blue. There were serious indications of potentiality for an incident. We are living through the same period here, now, and the question is will those reports and testimony be heeded."

Oh... and its not restricted to the past ... or America..

Remember the Prestige ?

Almost a year after she sank, the tanker Prestige is still polluting the picturesque coast of north-west Spain.

Campaigners say thousands of tonnes of her cargo are floating offshore, and occasionally washing on to the beaches.
They say the oil spilt and the coast affected by the loss of the Prestige exceed the damage caused by the Exxon Valdez accident in Alaska in 1989.

The Prestige spill is estimated to have killed 300,000 seabirds, making it one of Europe\'s worst wildlife disasters.
The campaigners, from WWF, formerly known as the Worldwide Fund for Nature, accuse the Spanish Government of failing to clean up the coast of Galicia, the province worst affected by the spill.

In a report, The Prestige: One Year On, A Continuing Disaster, they say the tanker has spilt 64,000 tonnes of heavy fuel oil, 60% more than estimated at first.
Conservationists sceptical

The report says 5-10,000 tonnes are still floating offshore, with some reaching the coast from time to time - and 13,000 tonnes remain in the wreck.

The vessel sank on 19 November 2002, polluting about 3,000 kilometres (1,800 miles) of coastline.

The economic cost of the disaster to fishing and tourism is put at about 5bn euros (£3.4bn). The report criticises Spain for re-opening the fishing grounds too soon, and says some local fishermen\'s groups say their catches have fallen by 80%.
Raul Garcia of WWF-Spain, the report\'s author, said: "If the Spanish Government continues to declare that the situation is under control, this looks like a cover-up rather than a clean-up.
"Until now, its management of the catastrophe has neither been driven by environmental criteria, nor has it been transparent."
Dr Simon Walmsley, a WWF marine pollution expert, said: "We need a fundamental change in the way the shipping industry is operated and regulated globally.

"Governments and the industry must meet their responsibilities to protect the environment by making sure substandard ships do not go to sea.

Fears for fishing
"Restricting tanker movements around sensitive marine areas, by designating them as Particularly Sensitive Sea Areas, will also mitigate the potentially disastrous impacts of oil spills."
The report says the large quantity of oil which sank to the sea bed in shallow water may release contaminants which will enter the food chain, including commercially caught species like sea bass, octopus, shrimps and crabs.

It also says the total investment in research into the Prestige spill will be less than 10m euros (£6.8m), which it compares unfavourably with the 270m euros ($310m) spent on research into the Exxon Valdez incident.

The Alaskan spill affected 1,300 miles (2,100 km) of coastline and discharged 39,000 tonnes of crude oil into Prince William Sound.
The birds which were killed by the Prestige\'s cargo were mainly common guillemots, Atlantic puffins and razorbills.
Optimistic Galician

The press counsellor at the Spanish Embassy in London, Fernando Villalba, told BBC News Online he was surprised by WWF\'s criticisms.

He said: "I\'m from Galicia myself, and I was back there on holiday in August. The tourist numbers might have been a little bit down in July, but in August they were back to normal.
"The beaches were clean, though there may have been some oil on rocks below the water line.
"The government has made great efforts - it sent the army in to join the volunteers who were cleaning the coast, and there were up to 5,000 people involved every day for months on end.
"The Prestige isn\'t an issue in the Spanish media any more. I think perhaps WWF lacks knowledge of what\'s happened."

and then there is the Sea Emperess

The motor tanker SEA EMPRESS loaded with a cargo of 130,018 tonnes of Forties light crude oil grounded off the Middle Channel Rocks in the approaches to Milford Haven at 2007 hrs on 15 February 1996. A pilot was on board and the vessel was entering the Haven via the West Channel. Although the main engine was stopped, put astern and both anchors dropped the vessel continued to run ahead and came to rest aground, approximately 5 cables northeast of the initial grounding position. The weather was fine and clear with a west-northwesterly force 4/5 wind.

The vessel is constructed with some side ballast tanks but no double bottom tanks. The starboard side cargo and ballast tanks were ruptured when the vessel first grounded resulting in a heavy trim by the head and a starboard list. A quantity of oil was released from the damaged cargo tanks.

Both the Milford Haven Port Authority\'s Emergency Plan and the Marine Pollution Control Unit\'s National Contingency Plan were implemented promptly. Within hours the managers of SEA EMPRESS had accepted an offer of assistance from a salvage consortium on the terms of Lloyd\'s Standard Form of Salvage Agreement, "No Cure - No Pay" (LOF95).

SEA EMPRESS was manoeuvred into deeper water where she could be anchored and held in position with the aid of the harbour tugs from Milford Haven. This was achieved without further loss of cargo and the intention was to lighten the casualty as soon as possible so as to allow her to enter the Haven and discharge the remainder of her cargo. A suitable lightening vessel was identified and preparations were commenced to ready SEA EMPRESS for this operation.

The prediction of gale force winds led to the decision to turn the casualty and re-anchor her so that she would be heading into the wind. This operation was carried out on 17 February while the preparations for lightening were still underway. It was just after this turning operation, and when the weather conditions had already deteriorated, that control of the casualty was lost and she grounded off Saint Ann\'s Head.

For the next four days efforts by the salvors to regain control of the casualty were unsuccessful and the casualty went aground again on a number of occasions, both off Middle Channel Rocks and Saint Ann\'s Head. It was not until 21 February that the casualty was successfully refloated and brought under control. She was then taken to a berth inside the Haven where the remainder of her cargo was discharged.

There was no loss of life or serious injuries.

The cause of the initial grounding has been found to be due to pilot error.

The main factors, apart from the bad weather, which resulted in the salvage operation taking so long, were insufficient tugs of the appropriate power and manoeuvrability, together with a lack of full understanding of the tidal currents in the area.

The initial grounding resulted in approximately 2,500 tonnes of crude oil escaping and about a further 69,300 tonnes was lost to the sea during the period of the salvage operation.

A number of recommendations have been made, which are addressed to Milford Haven Port Authority, the Department of Transport/Marine Safety Agency, The Coastguard Agency and Acomarit (UK) Ltd.

Concerns over the Northstar project in Alaska...

Northstar

BP\'s Alaska subsidiary, British Petroleum Exploration (Alaska) Inc. (BPXA), plans to drill for oil by building an offshore platform on an artificial island, and then to transport that oil to shore through a pipeline buried beneath the Arctic Ocean. This proposal is known as the Northstar Project.

Northstar would be the first true offshore oil and gas facility in the Arctic; unlike previous such developments, there would be no causeway linking the drilling island to shore, just the undersea pipeline. It would be using new and untested technology in a harsh, unpredictable environment. Sea ice in the region continually gouges and scours the sea floor, raising concerns about the safety of the pipeline. The US Army Corps of Engineers notes that "the calculated total probability of one or more large spills (greater than 1,000 barrels [42,000 gallons]) from any source is approximately 11% to 24% over the 15-year project life."

Additionally, there are concerns about the likelihood of chronic spills even being detected. Although pipeline are normally monitored once a week, Northstar requires monitoring only once a month; given the immense difficulties of detecting any leak, however frequent the monitoring, by drilling randomly through ice in conditions of near-total darkness, it is likely that any leak which occurred in winter would go unnoticed until spring, if even then. Those same conditions would make it extremely difficult to undertake any spill response in time.

A major spill from Northstar could prove disastrous for the biologically-rich arctic ecosystem. It would imperil endangered bowhead whale populations and threaten subsistence hunting by Inupiat Eskimo communities. It could also kill large numbers of polar bears, ringed seals and sea ducks.

Iceland Go the Fossile Fule Free Route

In cities like Madrid, Amsterdam and Hamburg, hydrogen buses will represent only tinkering at the edges.

For Iceland, it is the start of something much bigger. Converting all the country\'s 180,000 vehicles and 2,500 fishing trawlers to hydrogen won\'t happen overnight — Iceland is giving itself 30 to 40 years to kick the oil habit completely — but the launch of the energy plan a year ago was a watershed.

The scheme is backed by DaimlerChrysler, which will build the first buses, together with energy giant Royal Dutch Shell and Norwegian industrial group Norsk Hydro All three firms have invested in a new company called Icelandic New Energy and plan to use Iceland as a test-bed for a technology that some scientists think holds the key to mankind\'s energy needs after the oil runs out.


"Thirty years ago people said it was nonsense," Mr. Arnason said. "But slowly people have come round to the idea — especially with the involvement of big companies. Now, all around the world, people are starting to look at hydrogen."

While technical problems remain, the technology of fuel cells has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last 10 years. Mr. Arnason reckons hydrogen fuel cells are now approaching competitiveness with oil.

At an oil price of $20 (U.S.) a barrel, Icelandic hydrogen would be two or three times as expensive as gasoline but this is balanced by the fact that fuels cells are two to three times more efficient than internal combustion engines.

At first sight, it might seem odd that Iceland should be bothering with hydrogen and worrying about greenhouse emissions. After all, 93 per cent of all houses are already heated by eco-friendly geothermal energy.

But Iceland\'s tiny population of 280,000 faces a paradox — its large fishing fleet and energy-intensive metal smelting industry make it one of the world\'s largest per-head producers of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. That is a major frustration for a country which takes its environmental commitments seriously, yet has few options for expanding its economy.

Switching Iceland\'s vehicles and ships — which today account for two-thirds of carbon dioxide emissions — from fossil fuels would give a lot more flexibility to build up industry while still meeting Kyoto Protocol guidelines. Jon Bjorn Skulason, general manager of Icelandic New Energy, says the potential is considerable, since Iceland has so far tapped only 15 per cent of its hydro and geothermal reserves. The government is champing at the bit to expand the industrial base. Only last week, it announced the start of formal talks with Alcoa on construction of a new 320,000 ton smelter that would double aluminum production. With its cheap energy resources, Iceland has a chance to lead the world in the coming hydrogen economy, Mr. Skulason believes.

Running tankers full of liquid hydrogen from Iceland to markets in Europe is one option, although any surplus from the tiny domestic economy means Iceland would probably never supply more than a small European market, such as Denmark.

Meanwhile, there are some major technical issues to resolve. Safety is one. The image of the 1937 Hindenburg airship disaster is hardly reassuring, although experts argue that hydrogen is no more explosive than gasoline and the Hindenburg\'s flammable casing, rather than hydrogen, was largely to blame. But storing the lightest element in the universe in a convenient form remains a big problem.

BMW is planning to develop cars that would carry it as liquid, but most other car makers think gas under pressure makes more sense.

Either way, the storage tank will be bulky. That may be surmountable for buses but it is major headache for cars and Iceland\'s fishing trawlers, which need to carry enough fuel for several weeks.

One intermediate-stage option being examined in Iceland is to store hydrogen in methanol, which could be synthesized using carbon dioxide emitted by the metals industry. It is not a perfect solution since burning the methanol would still release some greenhouse gases.

But Mr. Arnason thinks it could be a useful halfway house while the country waits for long-term storage solutions, such as carbon nanotubes.

....hmmmm now have a nice cup off...

[Jumpman]

you rule rumpy