• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

AP Investigation: Ike environmental toll apparent

Robor

Elite Member
Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is a hot topic lately. I'm on the fence because it would be a while before we'd see any relief and I have questions about the environmental impact. Seems every time the possibility of an accidental spill is mentioned we're told how safe modern drilling is and there's nothing to worry about. Based on this story it appears as though hurricane Ike did quite a bit of damage to existing infrastructure and it would have been a lot worse if they weren't 'lucky'. If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

Story on Yahoo

By DINA CAPPIELLO, FRANK BASS and CAIN BURDEAU, Associated Press Writers 1 hour, 48 minutes ago

WASHINGTON - Hurricane Ike's winds and massive waves destroyed oil platforms, tossed storage tanks and punctured pipelines. The environmental damage only now is becoming apparent: At least a half million gallons of crude oil spilled into the Gulf of Mexico and the marshes, bayous and bays of Louisiana and Texas, according to an analysis of federal data by The Associated Press.

In the days before and after the deadly storm, companies and residents reported at least 448 releases of oil, gasoline and dozens of other substances into the air and water and onto the ground in Louisiana and Texas. The hardest hit places were industrial centers near Houston and Port Arthur, Texas, as well as oil production facilities off Louisiana's coast, according to the AP's analysis.

"We are dealing with a multitude of different types of pollution here ... everything from diesel in the water to gasoline to things like household chemicals," said Larry Chambers, a petty officer with the U.S. Coast Guard Command Center in Pasadena, Texas.

The Coast Guard, with the Environmental Protection Agency and state agencies, has responded to more than 3,000 pollution reports associated with the storm and its surge along the upper Texas coast. Most callers complain about abandoned propane tanks, paint cans and other hazardous materials containers turning up in marshes, backyards and other places.

No major oil spills or hazardous materials releases have been identified, but nearly 1,500 sites still need to be cleaned up.

The Coast Guard's National Response Center in Washington collects information on oil spills and chemical and biological releases and passes it to agencies working on the ground. The AP analyzed all reports received by the center from Sept. 11 through Sept. 18 for Louisiana and Texas, providing an early snapshot of Ike's environmental toll.

With the storm approaching, refineries and chemical plants shut down as a precaution, burning off hundreds of thousands of pounds of organic compounds and toxic chemicals. In other cases, power failures sent chemicals such as ammonia directly into the atmosphere. Such accidental releases probably will not result in penalties by regulators because the releases are being blamed on the storm.

Texas Gov. Rick Perry also suspended all rules, including environmental ones, that would inhibit or prevent companies preparing for or responding to Ike.

Power outages also caused sewage pipes to stop flowing. Elsewhere, the storm's surge dredged up smelly and oxygen-deprived marsh mud, which killed fish and caused residents to complain of nausea and headaches from the odor.

At times, a new spill or release was reported to the Coast Guard every five minutes to 10 minutes. Some were extremely detailed, such as this report from Sept. 14: "Caller is making a report of a 6-by-4-foot container that was found floating in the Houston Ship Channel. Caller states the container was also labeled 'UM 3264,' which is a corrosive material." The caller most likely meant UN3264, an industrial coding that refers to a variety of different acids.

State and federal officials have collected thousands of abandoned drums, paint cans and other containers.

Other reports were more vague. One caller reported a sheen from an underwater pipeline and said the substance was "spewing" from the pipe.

The AP's analysis found that, by far, the most common contaminant left in Ike's wake was crude oil ? the lifeblood and main industry of both Texas and Louisiana. In the week of reports analyzed, enough crude oil was spilled nearly to fill an Olympic-sized swimming pool, and more could be released, officials said, as platforms and pipelines were turned back on.

The Minerals Management Service, which oversees oil production in federal waters offshore, said the storm destroyed at least 52 oil platforms of roughly 3,800 in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-two more were severely damaged. But there was only one confirmed report of an oil spill ? a leak of 8,400 gallons that officials said left no trace because it dissipated with the winds and currents.

Air contaminants were the second-most common release, mostly from the chemical plants and refineries along the coast.

About half the crude oil was reported spilled at a facility operated by St. Mary Land and Exploration Co. on Goat Island, Texas, a spit of uninhabited land north of the heavily damaged Bolivar Peninsula. The surge from the storm flooded the plant, leveling its dirt containment wall and snapping off the pipes connecting its eight storage tanks, which held the oil and water produced from two wells in Galveston Bay.

By the time the company reached the wreckage by boat more than 24 hours after Ike's landfall, the tanks were empty. Only a spattering of the roughly 266,000 gallons of oil spilled was left, and that is already cleaned up, according to Greg Leyendecker, the company's regional manager. The rest vanished, likely into the Gulf of Mexico.

Ike's fury might have helped prevent worse environmental damage. Its rough water, heavy rains and wind helped disperse pollution.

Air quality tests by Texas environmental regulators found no problems even in communities near industrial complexes, where power outages and high winds in some cases knocked out emergency devices that safely burn off chemicals. But the storm also zapped many of the state's permanent air pollution monitors in the region.

"We came out of this a lot better than we could have been, especially thinking where the storm hit," said Kelly Cook, the homeland security coordinator for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality.

Katrina ranked as among the worst environmental disasters in U.S. history, with about 9 million gallons of oil spilled. But Ike's storm surge was less severe than feared ? 12 feet rather than 20-feet plus ? and the dikes, levees and bulkheads built around the region's heavy industry mostly held.

Much of that infrastructure is protected by a 1960s-era Army Corps of Engineers system of 15-foot levees similar to the one around New Orleans that failed catastrophically during Katrina. In that storm, floodwaters dislodged an oil tank at a Murphy Oil Corp. refinery in Meraux, La., spilling more than 1 million gallons of oil into the surrounding neighborhoods, canals and playgrounds.

Ike's toll on wildlife is still unfolding. Only a few pelicans and osprey turned up oiled, but the storm upended nature. Winds blew more than 1,000 baby squirrels from their nests. The storm's surge pushed saltwater into freshwater marshes and bayous, killing grasses where cattle graze and displacing alligators. Flooding also stranded cows.

The storm also may mangle migration. The Texas coast is a pit stop for birds heading south for the winter. But Ike wiped out many of their food sources, stripping berries from trees and nectar-producing flowers from plants, said Gina Donovan, executive director of the Houston Audubon Society, which operates 17 bird sanctuaries in Texas.

"It is going to cause wildlife to suffer for awhile," she said.

Along the Houston Ship Channel, a tanker truck floating in 12-feet-high flood waters slammed into a storage tank at the largest biodiesel refinery in the country, causing a leak of roughly 2,100 gallons of vegetable oil. The plant, owned by GreenHunter Energy Inc., uses chicken fat and beef tallow to make biodiesel shipped overseas. It opened just months earlier.

Oneal Galloway of Slidell, La., called to report oil in his neighborhood. The town, north of Lake Pontchartrain, was flooded with Ike's surge. He said oil had washed down the streets.

"It looked like a rainbow in the water," Galloway told the AP. "The residue of the oil is all over our fences, there were brown spots in the yard where it killed the grass."

The likely culprit was not a refinery or oil well, according to Shannon Davis, the director of the parish's public works department, but a neighbor brewing biodiesel in his backyard with used cooking grease.
___

Cain Burdeau reported from Texas.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

When ANWR is available? Not really.

Maybe Cheney and Palin can go up there, shoot all the caribou, so we don't have to worry about them anymore.
 
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

When ANWR is available? Not really.

Maybe Cheney and Palin can go up there, shoot all the caribou, so we don't have to worry about them anymore.

There's not much oil in ANWR. It's a political smoke screen.
 
A very small percentage of platforms were damaged releasing a relatively small amount of oil into the water. I would bet dollars to doughnuts that the platforms that where damaged where some of the very old structures still producing in the gulf.

The recent spill in the Mississippi river was larger, much more harmful to the environment and much more costly to our economy. We are going to use X amount of oil regardless of who it is purchased from. I would much rather deal with relatively small spills then to deal with the potential of much larger oil spills due to increased tanker traffic.

At the same time, we should be enticing the oil companies to replace some of the aging infrastructure that is usually the cause of these small spills.

Another thing to keep in mind, La is the top oil producing state in the country and Tx is 2nd. Combined they produce over half of ALL oil produced in this country and the vast majority of it comes from "The Patch" which is a relatively small area off the coast of west La and east Tx.

The refineries are another problem but I don't see anything we can do about it. They are built close to the supply and already have the infrastructure necessary to run them. We can't build power lines to get wind power to the grid so I highly doubt we will be able to not only build more refineries inland but also build the necessary pipelines/infrastructure.
 
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

When ANWR is available? Not really.

Maybe Cheney and Palin can go up there, shoot all the caribou, so we don't have to worry about them anymore.

There's not much oil in ANWR. It's a political smoke screen.

Wait.. Not much oil in ANWR? So we can make money, through leases, off of big oil for a worthless piece of land? Why haven't we already done this? Its not like they are going to drill just for the hell of it, especially considering how expensive it has to be to drill in the Arctic Circle.
 
"Enough oil to fill an Oympic-sized swimming pool" is hardly any oil at all - maybe 3000 cubic meters or so. F'ing ignorant journalist drama queens. The biggest problem with the environmental movement isn't that its cause is bad, it's that its most visible proponents are journalists who have no idea what they're talking about. Another example from the front page of CNN.com today. There are about 10 billion ways I can demonstrate climate change, yet this guy uses appeals to emotion because he doesn't understand any of them.
 
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

When ANWR is available? Not really.

Maybe Cheney and Palin can go up there, shoot all the caribou, so we don't have to worry about them anymore.
McCain and Obama are against ANWR so it's not gonna happen. Also, it has 18 months worth of oil relative to US consumption, it's not even worth the time.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

When ANWR is available? Not really.

Maybe Cheney and Palin can go up there, shoot all the caribou, so we don't have to worry about them anymore.
McCain and Obama are against ANWR so it's not gonna happen. Also, it has 18 months worth of oil relative to US consumption, it's not even worth the time.

Are we asking you do go drill there personally or something. Whose time is being 'wasted'?
 
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

When ANWR is available? Not really.

Maybe Cheney and Palin can go up there, shoot all the caribou, so we don't have to worry about them anymore.
McCain and Obama are against ANWR so it's not gonna happen. Also, it has 18 months worth of oil relative to US consumption, it's not even worth the time.

Are we asking you do go drill there personally or something. Whose time is being 'wasted'?
Time is being wasted = we could have put that money to something more useful, i.e. finding alternative sources that will give us oil independence (or even offshore drilling). To reiterate: a measly 18 months of oil isn't worth the investment, whereas offshore drilling could yield 10X that amount. It's why McCain and Obama are against ANWR drilling.

 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

When ANWR is available? Not really.

Maybe Cheney and Palin can go up there, shoot all the caribou, so we don't have to worry about them anymore.
McCain and Obama are against ANWR so it's not gonna happen. Also, it has 18 months worth of oil relative to US consumption, it's not even worth the time.

Are we asking you do go drill there personally or something. Whose time is being 'wasted'?
Time is being wasted = we could have put that money to something more useful, i.e. finding alternative sources that will give us oil independence (or even offshore drilling). To reiterate: a measly 18 months of oil isn't worth the investment, whereas offshore drilling could yield 10X that amount. It's why McCain and Obama are against ANWR drilling.

What money are 'we' putting into it? I was under the impression that the US government was collecting leases while the oil companies handle the infrastructure.
 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Time is being wasted = we could have put that money to something more useful, i.e. finding alternative sources that will give us oil independence (or even offshore drilling). To reiterate: a measly 18 months of oil isn't worth the investment, whereas offshore drilling could yield 10X that amount. It's why McCain and Obama are against ANWR drilling.
I don't think you have a grasp of how much money oil companies could obtain from this drilling. 18 months demand at 20 million barrels per day at $100/barrel is $360 billion. Capital costs would be in the single digit billions. Leasing and transportation would be another relatively small chunk of change. It's a lot of oil that would be relatively easy to produce with absolutely minimal environmental impact, assuming directional offshore drilling would be used.
 
QUESTION:

How many gallons of water are in the Gulf of Mexico?

ANSWER:

The concise Brittanica Encyclopedia estimates the surface of the Gulf of Mexico to be

1,550,000 km2 that is 1,550,000,000,000 m2

e maximum depth of the Gulf is 5203 m.

The average depth is somwhere between 0 and that value. I guess 1/4 the maximum depth (because it gave me an almost round number) of 1300 m.

Multiplying 1,550,000,000,000 m2 x 1300m = 2.015 x 10 E 15 m3 or

5.3 X 10 E 17 USGallons


So basically, this is a non-issue.
 
Do not worry about the oil loss, there is plenty more oil where that came from😉

They allow drilling off the coast of my state (in the gulf). It employs a sizable number of people (well compensated) and from what I have heard, fishing is great around the offshore platforms (the fish caught are healthy), just like off of Louisiana's shore:
http://www.outerlimitcharters....ishing-Rig-Fishing.htm
 
yeah, lets stop drilling in the gulf and instead grow more corn with megatons of fertilizers which go down the mississippi and causes a dead zone the size of new jersey!



🙁
:heart: raw oysters
 
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
Time is being wasted = we could have put that money to something more useful, i.e. finding alternative sources that will give us oil independence (or even offshore drilling). To reiterate: a measly 18 months of oil isn't worth the investment, whereas offshore drilling could yield 10X that amount. It's why McCain and Obama are against ANWR drilling.
I don't think you have a grasp of how much money oil companies could obtain from this drilling. 18 months demand at 20 million barrels per day at $100/barrel is $360 billion. Capital costs would be in the single digit billions. Leasing and transportation would be another relatively small chunk of change. It's a lot of oil that would be relatively easy to produce with absolutely minimal environmental impact, assuming directional offshore drilling would be used.
First, you forgot to mention land reclamation costs. Second, that investment in ANWR offshore drilling could be better invested in the Gulf where there will be no conceivable reclamation because more oil exists there. Third, you forgot to call both presidential candidates stupid because they oppose your idiocy. If it was such a wise investment, then why are both cand's against it?
 
Originally posted by: loki8481
seems like a good argument for diversifying where we're drilling and drilling more in less hurricane-prone areas.

That's sort of what I was getting at.

 
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
First, you forgot to mention land reclamation costs. Second, that investment in ANWR offshore drilling could be better invested in the Gulf where there will be no conceivable reclamation because more oil exists there. Third, you forgot to call both presidential candidates stupid because they oppose your idiocy. If it was such a wise investment, then why are both cand's against it?

You act as though investment in ANWR somehow excludes investment in the Gulf. Exxon has enough money to do both.

Both candidates oppose it because they're imbeciles, and unlike the current President, they don't have the guts to tell the Sierra Club to go fvck themselves.
 
Originally posted by: Deudalus
QUESTION:

How many gallons of water are in the Gulf of Mexico?

ANSWER:

The concise Brittanica Encyclopedia estimates the surface of the Gulf of Mexico to be

1,550,000 km2 that is 1,550,000,000,000 m2

e maximum depth of the Gulf is 5203 m.

The average depth is somwhere between 0 and that value. I guess 1/4 the maximum depth (because it gave me an almost round number) of 1300 m.

Multiplying 1,550,000,000,000 m2 x 1300m = 2.015 x 10 E 15 m3 or

5.3 X 10 E 17 USGallons


So basically, this is a non-issue.

Good thing oil mixes with water or we might have it washing ashore and causing all kinds of that there pooluting thing.
 
Originally posted by: Throckmorton
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Robor
If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?

When ANWR is available? Not really.

Maybe Cheney and Palin can go up there, shoot all the caribou, so we don't have to worry about them anymore.

There's not much oil in ANWR. It's a political smoke screen.


Sarcasm..?
 
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: SP33Demon
First, you forgot to mention land reclamation costs. Second, that investment in ANWR offshore drilling could be better invested in the Gulf where there will be no conceivable reclamation because more oil exists there. Third, you forgot to call both presidential candidates stupid because they oppose your idiocy. If it was such a wise investment, then why are both cand's against it?

You act as though investment in ANWR somehow excludes investment in the Gulf. Exxon has enough money to do both.

Both candidates oppose it because they're imbeciles, and unlike the current President, they don't have the guts to tell the Sierra Club to go fvck themselves.


Exactly we need to drill where ever there is oil. Off the coast in ANWR and if it becomes cost effective go after the oil shale. With all these states asking for bailouts I think some oil royalty revinue would be very helpfull.
 
The Minerals Management Service, which oversees oil production in federal waters offshore, said the storm destroyed at least 52 oil platforms of roughly 3,800 in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-two more were severely damaged. But there was only one confirmed report of an oil spill ? a leak of 8,400 gallons that officials said left no trace because it dissipated with the winds and currents.

Most important part if the discussion is about off-shore drilling.
 
Originally posted by: brandonbull
Originally posted by: Deudalus
QUESTION:

How many gallons of water are in the Gulf of Mexico?

ANSWER:

The concise Brittanica Encyclopedia estimates the surface of the Gulf of Mexico to be

1,550,000 km2 that is 1,550,000,000,000 m2

e maximum depth of the Gulf is 5203 m.

The average depth is somwhere between 0 and that value. I guess 1/4 the maximum depth (because it gave me an almost round number) of 1300 m.

Multiplying 1,550,000,000,000 m2 x 1300m = 2.015 x 10 E 15 m3 or

5.3 X 10 E 17 USGallons


So basically, this is a non-issue.

Good thing oil mixes with water or we might have it washing ashore and causing all kinds of that there pooluting thing.

It dissipates just like the natural oil seepage does. Small spills like that, at least in that area, rarely have significant environmental impact. Hell, some of the best fishing in the country is right off those big bad oil rigs in the Gulf.
 
Originally posted by: Robor
Drilling in the Gulf of Mexico is a hot topic lately. I'm on the fence because it would be a while before we'd see any relief and I have questions about the environmental impact. Seems every time the possibility of an accidental spill is mentioned we're told how safe modern drilling is and there's nothing to worry about. Based on this story it appears as though hurricane Ike did quite a bit of damage to existing infrastructure and it would have been a lot worse if they weren't 'lucky'. If this is what we can expect when the all too frequent hurricanes pass through the gulf does it make sense to put more equipment there?
-snip-

the storm destroyed at least 52 oil platforms of roughly 3,800 in the Gulf of Mexico. Thirty-two more were severely damaged. But there was only one confirmed report of an oil spill ? a leak of 8,400 gallons that officials said left no trace because it dissipated with the winds and currents.

I think the article you quote demonstrates (so far) a surprising lack of problems with drilling in the Gulf.

Thousands of rigs and (so far as we now know) only 8,400 gallons spilt? To put that in perspective there's about 600,000 gallons of water in an Olympic size pool.

Underwater oil (naturally) seeps out and into the ocean at rates far greater than that.

Edit: Strikes me as the storied about "safer" modern druilling have been proven true.

Fern
 
Back
Top