Slashdot Mirror
Oil From the Exxon Valdez Spill Still Lingers On Alaska Beaches
An anonymous reader writes "It's been 25 years since the Exxon Valdez dumped 11 million gallons of crude oil in Prince William Sound, and you can still find oil sticking to rocks. Worse yet, scientists say the oil could be around for decades yet to come. From the article: 'There are two main reasons why there's still oil on some of the beaches of the Kenai Fjords and Katmai National Parks and Preserves in the Gulf of Alaska, explains Gail Irvine, a marine ecologist with the U.S. Geological Survey and lead researcher on the study. When the oil first spilled from the tanker, it mixed with the seawater and formed an emulsion that turned it into a goopy compound, she says. "When oil forms into the foam, the outside is weathering, but the inside isn't," Irvine explains. It's like mayonnaise left out on the counter. The surface will crust over, but the inside of the clump still looks like mayonnaise, she explains.'"
Consequences only exist for those too poor to fight them. Exxon should have been made responsible for taking care of the entire area until all the oil was cleaned up, but that would have driven them out of business...and we can't have that!
Eventually, something will eat the oil. Oil is basically archaia bacterial poop originally made deep under ground.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
There are bacteria that eat oil, but they work very very slowly. This should not be surprising given the quantity of oil just sitting there in the ground, undigested.
Pipelines leak constantly. Not in huge spills, but they do leak constantly and often in considerable amounts before being noticed.
I used to write software to help various agencies track leaks in pipelines.
The fine was for $5 billion+, after twenty years they settled out of court for pennies on the dollar, I'd say they paid nothin!
I'm not a fan of oil tankers. They tend to spill and waste a lot of oil. Moving oil by rail is better, they don't spill as often or as much when they do. Pipelines are the best means we have to move oil. They spill much less often and are much easier to fix.
Really? Well, no and no.
One must be careful not to confuse the frequency of spills with the quantity spilled, or the size of a spill with how much press it gets.
Here you are: "It's like mayonnaise left out on the roof of your car. The surface will crust over, but the inside of the clump still looks like mayonnaise,"
The oil in the ground is undigested because there is no oxygen present, not because it takes a long time to digest it. n-alkanes, some of the most abundant compounds in oil, are the ones that are eaten first by bacteria once the oil is in the environment.
Deep Water horizon is all cleaned up. All gone.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
And that is completely irrelevant since corporations have people as owners, workers, and customers. When are you going to consider those people?
You are attacking the very stated purpose of permitting corporations to exist in the first place - to allow investors to collaborate without exposing themselves to risk beyond losing their investment. Now there's an interesting conversation to be had there, but consider - do you really want to risk everything you own because your 401k was partially invested in a company responsible for some massive catastrophe? Personally I think simply requiring the corporations to possess assets and/or malpractice insurance to cover any potential liabilities would be less damaging to the economy.
Executives and board members on the other hand - I'd be all for having them be personally liable for corporate malfeasance - the captain(s) go down with the ship, right? All that power and profit should come with some chains of responsibility to mitigate abuse.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I submit I am the highest authority on this specific subject here on slashdot. I grew up in Valdez, AK, the closest town to the spill. I was there when it happened. There is some documentary footage somewhere of myself and my siblings at one of these oil-soaked beaches. I've known friends to go out and do these beach surveys looking for oil, and I've fished and kayaked throughout Prince William Sound.
Firstly I have to say that, unless one goes specifically looking for it, this oil is invisible. The environment has entirely recovered, the salmon run is healthy, and there are as many sea birds, sea otters, and sea lions as there ever have been.
Secondly, the other posters make a very good points about the relative safety of oil tankers vs oil pipelines. I will additionally say that tankers are better protected from deliberate damage than pipelines. I don't know where you're getting your costs from, but I make the average oil tanker to be in the $100M range, and the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System cost $8B.
I don't know if you know about it, but there is also a proposed natural gas pipeline which was intended to run through Canada to the States. Extrapolating from the cost per mile of TAPS, an oil pipeline would probably be in the range of $15B. Setting aside whether it is actually better for the environment, it is a lot easier to suggest that environmental concerns trump economic ones when it's not your $15B.
Nuclear power is probably a good option for Alaska, whereas solar is pretty much off the table. Hopefully one day someone will take advantage of the tidal energy in the Cook Inlet as well, one lobe of that (Turnagain Arm) having the third-highest tides in the world. There are one or two problems though with putting nuclear reactors in geologically active places though, and the NRC isn't exactly putting applications through quickly at the moment.
Personally though, from having witnessed one of the larger oil spills in history, I don't really find them all that concerning.
Those who advocate genocide deserve every protection afforded by law, and none afforded by common human decency.