http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Oil companies outline possible techniques for Arctic spill cleanup
Oil acts differently in Arctic waters than elsewhere, so oil companies studied best practices to clean it up. (Courtesy photo)
One tactic found to be effective was to burn oil off. (Courtesy photo)by Ted Land
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
ANCHORAGE, Alaska -- Oil companies hope they never have to use the results of a recent study, but they say they're prepared for a spill in Arctic waters.
Tuesday morning they presented a study which outlines the most effective ways to clean up in the event of a disaster.
Oil behaves differently in Arctic waters, and there had not been much research done on the topic until seven of the world's largest oil companies got together to find out how to respond.
“It's imperative to have a tool kit and what this research presents is that there are a range of tools and techniques that can all be employed in this area,” said Susan Moore, of Shell Alaska.
The joint study was funded by major oil companies including Shell, BP, ConocoPhillips and Chevron.
They presented results to Alaska stakeholders Tuesday.
Researchers actually simulated an oil spill in icy waters off the coast of Norway, as well as in a lab, and then tried to find the best way to clean it up.
They explored a variety of methods, but say two stood out.
The first is to ignite a spill and burn off the oil. (What are the effects of massive hydrocarbons being released into the atmosphere?)
They say this is best done in areas with a high concentration of ice and snow.
Another effective technique is to use dispersants, which are chemicals that mix in with the oil and help dissolve it into the ocean. (Dispersants DO NOT DISSOLVE OIL but rather 'wet' oil so it SINKS OUT OF SIGHT - into the environment. What are the effects on the environment where oil is sunk to the sea bed?)
In some cases oil is actually easier to clean up in Arctic waters. The presence of ice can trap oil and prevent it from dispersing.
“With Shell's optimistic plans to be able to drill in the Beaufort and Chukchi seas in 2010 we're absolutely excited about the results of this test which show there truly are tools and techniques that are effective to deal with spill response in the Arctic,” Moore said.
Shell oil says it is using the information to better train its response team in time for the company to drill test wells in the Beaufort Sea some time next summer.
Environmental and Native groups say the best response is to prevent a spill in the first place.
“The oil companies and research will come and go, but our people will be there for generations to come,” said Siikauraq Whiting, Mayor of the Northwest Arctic Borough.
Contact Ted Land at tland@ktuu.com
(In 1989 during the EXXON VALDEZ oil spill, BURNING and DISPERSANTS WERE NOT ALLOWED because of the toxic nature and unknown long term effects upon mankind, nature and the environment. IT APPEARS FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE THAT SHOULD BURNING AND DISPERSANTS BE USED THERE IS LITTLE SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE EFFECTS... EVEN AFTER 20 YEARS SINCE THE EXXON VALDEZ OIL SPILL.)
Does this sound like what you would want to hear from your news reporter on this subject?
He knows that burning and dispersants are toxic and NOT ALLOWED. Why did he not ask the oil companies for an explanation - you would think that 20 years is enough time to come up with new technology - which should of been mandated after the EXXON VALDEZ spill - but you also know who has a BIG lobby in Washington DC - OIL! Can you spell B-U-S-H?
- - - snip - - -
Hi Douglas
You are right, burning oil is toxic...so is dispersing it into the ocean. That's not the point of the story. It is understood that oil and the environment don't mix. The story was focused on the study and how the oil industry plans to respond to a spill. We have done many stories in the past about the detrimental effects of not cleaning up a spill. And I mentioned in the article the best response is to prevent a spill in the first place.
Does this sound like what you would want to hear from your news reporter on this subject?
He knows that burning and dispersants are toxic and NOT ALLOWED. Why did he not ask the oil companies for an explanation - you would think that 20 years is enough time to come up with new technology - which should of been mandated after the EXXON VALDEZ spill - but you also know who has a BIG lobby in Washington DC - OIL! Can you spell B-U-S-H?
- - - snip - - -
Hi Douglas
You are right, burning oil is toxic...so is dispersing it into the ocean. That's not the point of the story. It is understood that oil and the environment don't mix. The story was focused on the study and how the oil industry plans to respond to a spill. We have done many stories in the past about the detrimental effects of not cleaning up a spill. And I mentioned in the article the best response is to prevent a spill in the first place.
Thanks for logging onto ktuu.com.
Ted Land
Reporter
KTUU Channel 2 News
phone (907) 762-9269
cell (907) 748-1330
No comments:
Post a Comment