Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 11, 2006, 09:43 PM

Maybe this is common news, but this is the first report of it I've seen. Apparently they had a pretty massive pipeline leak in Alaska. I wonder how much of a "catastrophe" (as the environmentalists are quoted as saying) it really is, since according to this it only covers a couple acres.

BBC Linky

greg

greenamp · 10:03 PM

2 acres of spill ain't really massive.

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 11, 2006, 10:22 PM

I don't know; I'd personally rate 1 million litres as quite a bit of oil.

greg

olePigeon · Mar 11, 2006, 10:37 PM

What is it with people not seeing Alaska? It's not exactly small.

Doofy · Mar 11, 2006, 11:02 PM

It's on land and it's only two acres, thus not a threat to wildlife. It's no big deal - bit of an oil puddle for a while until they get around to pumping it out, that's about it. Some will obviously be soaked into the ground but hey, it's not like there's not oil under there in the first place.

goMac · Mar 11, 2006, 11:48 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

It's on land and it's only two acres, thus not a threat to wildlife. It's no big deal - bit of an oil puddle for a while until they get around to pumping it out, that's about it. Some will obviously be soaked into the ground but hey, it's not like there's not oil under there in the first place.

This is completely ignoring in most places there is running water under the ground...

baw · Mar 12, 2006, 12:41 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

This is completely ignoring in most places there is running water under the ground...

Just ice there.

goMac · Mar 12, 2006, 12:48 AM

Originally Posted by baw

Just ice there.

It's a smart thought, but the Earth is warmer underground. Depends on how deep there could be water.

greenamp · Mar 12, 2006, 01:16 AM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

I don't know; I'd personally rate 1 million litres as quite a bit of oil.

greg

267,000 gallons on 2 acres of snow and frozen tundra is not a "massive pipeline leak."

JoshuaZ · Mar 12, 2006, 01:38 AM

if you lit a match, it would be quite the BBQ

Jawbone54 · Mar 12, 2006, 01:49 AM

Radical environmentalists are always searching for a castastrophic environmental disaster so they can impose new regulations. This is nothing.

baw · Mar 12, 2006, 01:51 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

It's a smart thought, but the Earth is warmer underground. Depends on how deep there could be water.

Permafrost.

davesimondotcom · Mar 12, 2006, 10:10 AM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

What is it with people not seeing Alaska? It's not exactly small.

My father-in-law (an Alaskan) once said this to me:

If you cut Alaska in two, Texas becomes the third largest state.

Doofy · Mar 12, 2006, 10:34 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

It's a smart thought, but the Earth is warmer underground. Depends on how deep there could be water.

...and how well the oil would mix with the water.

ambush · Mar 12, 2006, 10:36 AM

Political..... Wrong Forum

goMac · Mar 12, 2006, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Doofy

...and how well the oil would mix with the water.

Am I the only one that gets that oil in the water table would be a bad thing(TM)?

Doofy · Mar 12, 2006, 10:43 AM

Originally Posted by goMac

Am I the only one that gets that oil in the water table would be a bad thing(TM)?

Yes.

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 12, 2006, 12:11 PM

Yeah, it would definitely be a bad thing. However, we don't seem to know what the conditions up there are. Is there year-round permafrost? Is the climate in that area warming, which might result in more runoff? Is the area significant to any wildlife in the region? If so, can it merely be fenced off?

I think 1 million litres is a pretty massive oil spill from a pipeline, but if it's only covering a couple acres then I hardly see any significant permanent environmental effects, or at least nothing that can't be avoided or minimized.

greg

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 12, 2006, 12:14 PM

Originally Posted by ambush

Political..... Wrong Forum

You got a rational argument for how this is political? It's a news headline about an oil spill in Alaska. I fail to see how that's tightly linked to politics or war to me.

greg

Kevin · Mar 12, 2006, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Jawbone54

Radical environmentalists are always searching for a castastrophic environmental disaster so they can impose new regulations. This is nothing.

Yeah, oil spills are bad. But no need to over-exaggerate the instance.

Unless of course you have an agenda, or already stated it was and are now just trying to save face.

wdlove · Mar 12, 2006, 04:16 PM

Sadly we probably wont get the full and true story. We are only told what they want us to hear.

ambush · Mar 12, 2006, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton

You got a rational argument for how this is political? It's a news headline about an oil spill in Alaska. I fail to see how that's tightly linked to politics or war to me.

greg

Trying to be sarcastic.

Right wingers will always dismiss a cause with an easy "wrong forum".

Kevin · Mar 12, 2006, 09:42 PM

No, that isn't why people tell you that Ambush.

People tell you that because you post things in the wrong forum. A lot.

tie · Mar 13, 2006, 01:29 AM

Well, this shows exactly what we can expect if we open the ANWR to drilling. Supporters claim there will be no effect on the environment there. Bush bolsters his case that the footprint will be minimal by counting exactly and no more than the land touched by the supports -- not counting the land under the raised pipes, for example, and not counting the roads! The reality is that the footprint, and the overall impact, will be a lot larger, and yes there will be oil spills.

Kevin · Mar 13, 2006, 06:26 AM

Originally Posted by tie

Well, this shows exactly what we can expect if we open the ANWR to drilling.

Huuh whaa?

Supporters claim there will be no effect on the environment there. Bush bolsters his case that the footprint will be minimal by counting exactly and no more than the land touched by the supports -- not counting the land under the raised pipes, for example, and not counting the roads! The reality is that the footprint, and the overall impact, will be a lot larger, and yes there will be oil spills.

Gimme dat crystal ball.

baw · Mar 13, 2006, 08:40 AM

How many spills have occurred on the North Slope?

tie · Mar 15, 2006, 04:08 PM

One now. How many is your limit? Maybe ten would be too many?

Kevin, if you seriously believe the world is going to end in the next ten years, then why would you post here? Even if ANWR drilling is approved, it is unlikely to get up to speed until after the end of the world anyway.

goMac · Mar 15, 2006, 05:04 PM

Originally Posted by tie

Kevin, if you seriously believe the world is going to end in the next ten years, then why would you post here? Even if ANWR drilling is approved, it is unlikely to get up to speed until after the end of the world anyway.

Isn't it like 7 years until we get a single drop of oil from ANWR?

FeLiZeCaT · Mar 15, 2006, 05:43 PM

Originally Posted by goMac

Am I the only one that gets that oil in the water table would be a bad thing(TM)?

Except that in that area, it is still winter and the land also has permafrost from 3 feet down permanently, so it is likely to be frozen up to the surface.

Since it is likely that vegetation is arctic type, the vegetation is likely to be mosses, which will absorb like a sponge the oil. Removal will be easy with the right equipment.

Underneath, there may be sand and yes, in the South, and probably as summer comes close, there could be a risk of further contamination. But if they do things right (which may be an expensive project, and that will depend of the environmental legislation) they should be able to remove most of it before it becomes dramatic.