Re: $3.249 Gal. For #2 Home Heating Oil

On Dec 2, 1:35 am, fl...@xxxxxxxxxx (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
trad...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" <dishborea...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
You make it sound like drilling for oil is a major source of
environmental damage. In fact, the record of drilling without
signifiicant harm to the environment over the last several decades is
pretty damn good.

You've been drinking again?

Just take a look at the Gulf of Mexico, which
presents a far greater challenge than drilling in a tiny footprint on
land in ANWR.

Hilarious concept. But false.

See any oil spills in the Gulf?? What happened during
Katrina? Many of the oil platforms were completely destroyed,
toppled over, sunk to the ocean floor. Did you see or hear any
reports of oil spills or leakage? No, because with current technology
it can be done with minimal risk.

Where has there been significant oil spills? From tankers
transporting oil, which is only more likely the more we import.

There are more than 400 toxic spills on the North Slope
*every* year. There have been several large oil spills,
some of which have been caused by willful negligence on
the part of operating companies.

And here we have it folks. A classic case of the alarmist
extremist. Note there is no definition of what constitutes a "toxic
spill". Today, when there is a vehicle accident on the highway and
gas or diesel fuel is released, it's considered a toxic spill. But
is it a big deal and environmental disaster? Of course not.



The Prudhoe Bay Industrial Complex is a superfund site!
The whole complex! (Actually, Kuparuk is listed as one
and Prudhoe Bay is listed as one, so the whole complex
is listed as two superfund sites.)

Now let's look at the facts behind this alarmist report intended to
scare. Sure sounds bad. But let's see what it takes to get on the
list of Superfund sites today. From the EPA description of Superfund
sites here are the two sites referenced above:

Prudhoe Bay-

On April 12th, 2005 BP discovered and reported a release of natural
gas and an undetermined amount of condensate from a damaged flowline
at drill site 14 in their Greater Prudhoe Bay crude oil production
field on the North Slope of Alaska. An updated volume of 1.4 million
standard cubic feet of gas and a range of 10-20 barrels of liquids
was provided by BP. The source of the release is a gas line that
transports pressurized natural gas to the drill site for injection
into the reservoir to aid in crude oil recovery. Initial reports
indicate a weld failure caused the release. The release resulted in
gas condensate / crude oil being misted onto the well pad, the
manifold building, various piping associated with the production pad
and onto the surrounding frozen, snow covered tundra. The material
lightly misted the surface of a large area around the pad; the impact
area size is estimated to be app 4,600 feet long by 500 feet wide, app
50 acres. Winter conditions currently exist on the North Slope with
frozen tundra covered by snow. Daytime temperatures are -2F with 9 mph
winds from the east. The light mist appears to be on the surface of
the snow only. Clean-up activates will involve removal of contaminated
snow surface that is misted with condensate droplets and cleaning of
well pad surfaces and structures. BP is mobilizing additional spill
responders through Alaska Clean Seas, (ACS) the North Slope clean-up
co-operative , app. 40 personnel are involved in the site clean-up.
ADEC has a responder on site for state oversight of response
operations. EPA will coordinate oversight through ADEC and RP and keep
stakeholder informed of response progress.

Kuparuk-

On March 9th at 16:15 local time Conoc Philips operator of the Kuparuk
Crude Oil Production Field on the North Slope of Alaska reported a
produce water spill from a 24 inch flowline running from thiere Drill
Site 2M to the Central Crude Oil Processing Center # 2. A fast tank
was place under the line within 30 minutes of discharge discovery
however intial reports from responders indicate that approximated 375
square feet of snow covered tundra was impacted. The pipeline has been
shutdown and is being depressurized to allow workers to strip off
insulation and locate the source of the discharge. Efforts are ongoing
to fully delineate the spill size including the impact area. EPA
acessed the OSLTF and tasked our START contractor to utilize a BOA
with a Historic Properties Specialist to perform a cultural resources
check.


So, in the case of Prudhoe Bay, this big superfund site consists of a
discharge of natural gas and some light condensate mist on the surface
which was quickly caught by Arco and self-reporte to the EPA and
cleanup begun. It covered 53 acres, but considering it was light
airborne mist and easily cleaned up, it sure doesn't sound like a mega
disaster or what most people would think it would take to even be on a
superfund site list.

In the case of Kaparuk, a pipeline leak was discovered within 30 mins
of occurence and a whopping 375 sq ft of surface area was
contaminated. Again, the incident was promptly reported to the EPA.

Any reasonable assessment of this would conclude that:

1 - These 2 incidents are very small and had very minimal impact on
the Alaska environment.

2 - They were quickly detected and further damage avoided. The
spills were promptly self-reported to the EPA and cleanup begun, which
show responsible and competent action by ARCO.

3 - Today, it doesn't take very much at all to qualify to be on the
Superfund list, but it is easy to then try to spin it into something
it isn't.

So, far from being some big negative, these incidents are in fact a
demonstration of how responsibly ARCO has acted and how oil can be
extracted with minimal impact. If you compare these incidents to
the benefits of recovering oil from these areas, most reasonable
people would conclude the benefits far outweigh the risks.

But, not the extremist environmentalists. Just imagine the same
scare tactics applied to other modern technology. Suppose the
airplane had just been invented. Can you imagine the scare
tactics? Why, they could fall from the sky and kill everyone on
board. On the ground too. What about the impact to birds? They
will pollute and destroy the ozone layer. Yet, they fly every day.
Everyone including the kook environmentalists rides on them. Why?
Because the benefits far outweigh the risks.

Bottom line, get ANWR open!







Let me try this on you: A relatively tiny number of people commit murder.
Should that statistic be used to determine the penalties for murder?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Since you can't refute the claim that drilling for oil has been done
repsonsibly for decades here without damage to the environment, you

The idea that we can drill "responsibly" just anywhere
on the North Slope is patently ridiculous. That has
gone to court, and the courts have ruled that it has not
been shown to be true either for onshore or offshore
locations. ANWR is hardly the only sensitive area of
the North Slope.

Courts don't make policy. At least they are not supposed to, but
more and more today some try to. Opening up ANWR is not up to a
court, it's up to Congress.





now want to talk about comparing it to murder? The specific comment
was the ban on drilling in ANWR, Alaska which is based on the false
premise that it can't be done without destroying the environment.

That is a fact. It is not based on false premises, and
has been rather well demonstrated. The exact same
premises have been tried in court, in regard to the area
around Teshekpuk Lake, and proposed drilling was
stopped.

Everyone can take a good look at your alarmist reaction to the 2
superfund sites that you brought up and draw their own conclusions
about false premises.





Your argument is baseless. So far you have not cited
any specifics, and I challenge you to do so! I would be
happy to go into extreme details, and to provide
credible cites and references, to demonstrate what
actually is true!

I just did and smashed your whole house of cards. We're supposed to
take you seriously after claiming an oil spill covering 375 sq ft of
ground is a prime reason NOT to drill in ANWR? LOL



You're proposing draconian penalties for a problem that doesn't
exist. And those draconian penalties would just be another roadblock
to energy development and economic progress.

Poppy***. That's a bunch of political jive meant to
hype voters.

You should know about hype.


ANWR presents *no* significant
opportunities for significant "energy development" or
"economic progress" on a national basis.

Yeah, environmental extremists like you have been saying that for
years. The truth is, we don't even know how much oil is in ANWR?
Why? Because the EE's won't allow even limited test drilling to find
out. Based on what we do know, there's enough there that we should
be drilling right now. And the ultimate amounts could be huge.

Another argument every time there is an energy shortage and price
spike from the EE's has been "If we start today, we won't have oil for
6 years" Well, if people stopped listening to extremists and started
6 years ago, we'd have it now. Is it an answer to all our energy
problems? No. Is it part of the solution? And is it enough supply
to bring the price down from $95/brl? Yes.


Try to cite
figures that demonstrate it! I'll be happy to provide
the context that shows why your figures are
insignificant.


It's your argument that is insignificant.





--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) fl...@xxxxxxxxxx

.