Oil Drilling Contaminates Kenai Refuge

Lycos Environmental News Service ^ | 03/05/2002

[cogitator]

Ameriscan, March 5, 2002

OIL DRILLING CONTAMINATES KENAI REFUGE

WASHINGTON, DC, March 5, 2002 (ENS) - Oil drilling in the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska has resulted in more than 350 spills, explosions and fires, according to government studies released by the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) studies also found that oil drilling is linked with high numbers of deformed wood frogs.

The groups' report, "Toxic Tundra," details a contaminants study and a frog study, which was obtained through the Freedom of Information Act. The studies point to the need for further study of damage caused by oil production in Kenai and other National Wildlife Refuges, as well as the importance of keeping industrial development out of the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, the groups say.

"In spite of all the industry's promises, oil drilling in Kenai and other national wildlife refuges has left behind a disgraceful legacy of contamination, toxic chemical spills, and lasting damage to wildlife and wildlife habitat," said Robert Dewey, vice president for government relations at Defenders of Wildlife. "With such a sorry record, does anyone honestly believe the oil companies' fatuous claims that they'll do better next time, if we just throw open the doors to the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge?"

Established in 1941 by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt to protect the large population of moose on the Kenai Peninsula, the Kenai National Wildlife Refuge provides habitat for 200 species of birds and wildlife, including bald eagles, trumpeter swans, brown and black bear, caribou and wolves.

Industrial oil development within the refuge includes almost 200 wells within three oil and gas fields that total 30 square miles. The wells are supported by 46 miles of oil and gas feeder pipelines, a 3,500 foot airstrip, 44 miles of roads and more than 60 individual well pads.

"More than 270,000 gallons of oil, produced water and other contaminants have been released into the wildlife refuge," the report notes. "Groundwater in some areas of the wildlife refuge shows contamination at 10 times the legal limit established by the Environmental Protection Agency."

"Oil drilling in a national wildlife refuge is simply an awful idea," said Lois Schiffer, Audubon's senior vice president for public policy. "There can be no question, in light of these studies, that oil drilling would be a disaster for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge."

The analysis by Audubon and Defenders of Wildlife is available at:

PDF Document: http://www.defenders.org/habitat/toxictundra.pdf

[cogitator]

By this statement it could be 269,998 gallons of produced water spilled, one gallon of water and one gallon of 'other'.

Produced water is still considered a contaminant, as it contains high concentrations of hydrocarbons and heavy metals. (Heavy metals might even be more dangerous than pure crude oil, which either evaporates or turns into tar. Heavy metals are much more long-lived and persist in the food chain.)

[cogitator]

Is this the same {USFWS}that planted the cat hair in the national forrest so they could shut down travel in these parks

The lynx hair wasn't planted. It was submitted (improperly) as control samples to test laboratory identification success. The employees noted it in their field notes and also told immediate superiors, but they didn't apply for a proper protocols test, which is why they were reprimanded.

[cogitator]

I would like to note my error in stating that the largest spill noted in the report was a 200,000 gallon oil spill. This spill, and most of the spills listed (with the exception of pipeline leaks) are mixtures of oil and produced water. As I note in one reply, based on what the report says, produced water is still considered a contaminant. But I did err in calling these all "oil spills" and I regret the mistake.

[Carry_Okie]

When I lived on the water, I had a buddy who used to have a saying when he tossed some "artifact" overboard:

"Something will eat it."

[alaskanfan]

The oil spills in Alaska differ in nature substantially from an atoll in the pacific ocean. If you don't believe me, come up here in the winter when most of the new well drilling takes place. With these spills taking place in the winter, the material spilled is usually on ice or snow, which is chipped up, then the material is transfered to an ice melter where it is turned to liquid and the spilled substances are seperated off and properly disposed of. I am speaking from my experience of 16 years in the oilfield industry in Alaska. I have wittnessed something as innocuous as tobacco juice spit on the side of the road classified as a hazardous spill, no joke. I submit to you that it is only in the interest of job preservation or continued funding that these EPA and safety/spill employees mandate the documentation of these minor spills.

Do you have any idea of the training required by the oil companies for Alaska based oilfield employees? I have been through hours of training in hazmat and oilspill related classes. This training is not job specific, instead it is required for all oilfield related jobs in the state of Alaska.

The oilfields in Alaska are the most enviromentally sound on the face of the earth, and for them to be characterized in any other manner only serves a political or financial agenda of the articles originator and his/her sympathizers.

[RightWhale]

I for one appreciate that you bring numbers to the discussion. To get an idea of 200,000 gallons of water, oil, or milk, think of a railroad tank car, the older kind. It might hold 20,000 gallons. The newer tank cars used to transport bulk fuel are larger. Ten of the old style cars would hold 200,000 gallons. Just for scale.

[NilesJo]

I would like to note my error in stating that the largest spill noted in the report was a 200,000 gallon oil spill. This spill, and most of the spills listed (with the exception of pipeline leaks) are mixtures of oil and produced water. As I note in one reply, based on what the report says, produced water is still considered a contaminant. But I did err in calling these all "oil spills" and I regret the mistake.

Thanks for the correction.

[antaresequity]

according to government studies released by the National Audubon Society and Defenders of Wildlife.

Why are these eco whacks charged with releasing taxpayer studies?

[cogitator]

The oilfields in Alaska are the most enviromentally sound on the face of the earth, and for them to be characterized in any other manner only serves a political or financial agenda of the articles originator and his/her sympathizers.

I will first readily admit that I don't have your experience in Alaska. I posted the article because it is clearly something to consider when considering drilling somewhere else in a wildlife refuge; no matter how hard everyone tries, in a complex technological system, accidents happen. Most accidents tend to be minor and are rarely a problem. Major accidents kinda by definition tend to be a problem. Efforts should be expended to avoid major accidents.

The report, which is the only source I've seen, has a timeline of major events and a brief description of what was affected. Spills on ice are noted. The proximity of some spills to a nearby river is also noted.

Actually, I consider it more environmentally dangerous that an oil storage facility could be threatened by a lahar (meltwater/mud torrent) generated by a volcano. Who approved the site study for THAT one?

1989-90 Eruption of Redoubt Volcano, Alaska, and the First Test Case of a USGS Lahar-Detection System (take a look at it for the pictures, if nothing else)

[cogitator]

Why are these eco whacks charged with releasing taxpayer studies?

I guess because the studies apparently have some data they think the public should know about.

[cogitator]

Ten of the old style cars would hold 200,000 gallons.

Which is a reasonably large amount, but of course the severity of a spill would be more accurately assessed on the basis of what was released, rather than a bulk amount of liquid.

[john in orinda]

270,000 gallons of oil sounds like a lot, but on the scale of oil spills, it's "a drop in the bucket", especially when it's over an unspecified period of time. Since 42 gallons of oil equal one barrel, this amount is only about 6400 barrels. In contrast the Exxon Valdez (which was 20th in volume released), was 11,000,000 barrels.

For the life of me, I don't understand why you are posting these articles here. Get back to us after you read "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which I recommend highly to anyone who wants to be called an environmentalist. In it, the case is made that to reduce pollution, it is necessary for economic growth to occur. When environmental quality is graphed by per capita GNP, the cleanest environments occur in very poor and very rich countries, with the worst occurring in the "developing" countries. Since you're not going to convince the people living in the US to regress to the stone age, the answer is to promote economic growth in developing countries, so that they can afford to clean up their environments.

Until you read this book, no one should listen to your posts.
Regards,

[RightWhale]

There were 2 recent large spills in this region. One was the famous assassination of the pipeline by a resident of the remote bush with a rifle. The other was a tank car derailment when the tracks gave way. Both spills are being or were cleaned up with most of the spillage being recovered. No more than a handful of acres of vole birthing grounds was temporarily lost in either case.

[Metal4Ever]

Oil also seeps to the surface for the last 30 years due to a wreck off the coast. Just because it happens in nature does not make it a good thing, nor does it legitimize it. It still kills wildlife, wildlife which has already been decimated by decades of overfishing.

That said, I would be open to ANWR drilling *if* it can be proven before hand that we will get a long lasting supply of oil out of there and it will actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil. So far many pundits and talking heads say it will but I've yet to see any facts and figures to back up the rhetoric. I would also like to see ANWR tied to increasing fuel economy. If we're going to increase supply, let's go further and make that supply more efficiently used.

[cogitator]

For the life of me, I don't understand why you are posting these articles here. Get back to us after you read "The Skeptical Environmentalist", which I recommend highly to anyone who wants to be called an environmentalist. In it, the case is made that to reduce pollution, it is necessary for economic growth to occur. When environmental quality is graphed by per capita GNP, the cleanest environments occur in very poor and very rich countries, with the worst occurring in the "developing" countries. Since you're not going to convince the people living in the US to regress to the stone age, the answer is to promote economic growth in developing countries, so that they can afford to clean up their environments.

Interesting. What I've read about "The Skeptical Environmentalist" convinced me that in terms of scientific understanding of major environmental issues, the author was hopelessly wrong. So I didn't endeavour to read it.

HOWEVER, it is clear (and has been clear to me for quite awhile) that what you say above is absolutely correct: the most severe environmental problems will be in developing nations rushing to industrialize without regard for the environment. The United States was in much, much worse shape when "dirty" technology was driving economic expansion, and some regulations (such as the Clean Water and Clean Air Acts) did force industry to adopt cleaner technologies. I've only been to China once, but it was very clear to me that in order for China to avoid the ecological devastation of their industrialization, they are going to need assistance -- which I think is a great market for the U.S., incidentally.

This is a good read:

The Bottleneck by E.O. Wilson.

A quote: "China relies heavily on irrigation, with water drawn from its aquifers and great rivers. The greatest impediment is again geographic: two thirds of China's agriculture is in the north, but four fifths of the water supply is in the south--that is, principally in the Yangtze River Basin. Irrigation and withdrawals for domestic and industrial use have depleted the northern basins, from which flow the waters of the Yellow, Hai, Huai, and Liao rivers. Starting in 1972, the Yellow River Channel has gone bone dry almost yearly through part of its course in Shandong Province, as far inland as the capital, Jinan, thence down all the way to the sea. In 1997 the river stopped flowing for 130 days, then restarted and stopped again through the year for a record total of 226 dry days. Because Shandong Province normally produces a fifth of China's wheat and a seventh of its corn, the failure of the Yellow River is of no little consequence. The crop losses in 1997 alone reached $1.7 billion."

and a bit later:

"Meanwhile the surtax levied on the environment to support China's growth, though rarely entered on the national balance sheets, is escalating to a ruinous level. Among the most telling indicators is the pollution of water. Here is a measure worth pondering. China has in all 50,000 kilometers of major rivers. Of these, according to the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, 80 percent no longer support fish. The Yellow River is dead along much of its course, so fouled with chromium, cadmium, and other toxins from oil refineries, paper mills, and chemical plants as to be unfit for either human consumption or irrigation. Diseases from bacterial and toxic-waste pollution are epidemic."

As for why I post these articles: perhaps it will cause some other like-minded conservatives to join me in advocating such measures as the export of clean technologies. One that I think is a particularly pressing need is modern sewage treatment technology. A large area of endangered coral reefs would be aided considerably if the amount of raw sewage dumping into the coastal ocean in the Indo-Pacific region was significantly reduced.

[in_troth]

The so-called war on terroism has already accomplished its objective, which was to negotiate the oil pipeline through Afghanistan. This being accomplished, and all those trillions of gallons of oil free for the taking (which is what we're doing) leaves no real need to screw up Alaska.

I'm afraid you might be right! (but as you said, it's good news for pristine Alaska)

[Dog Gone]

Any oil we get out of ANWR will reduce our foreign imports. I don't know why you need any proof of that. It's inherently obvious.

Nobody can prove that we'll get a drop of oil out of ANWR. In order to find that out, it's necessary to drill wills to see what is there. It took seven dry holes in a row before an eighth well finally discovered oil in Prudhoe Bay in 1968.

You want to tie exploration there with increased fuel mileage requirements. Those can be tied politically, but not logically. Either proposal should stand or fall on its own merits.

[cogitator]

That said, I would be open to ANWR drilling *if* it can be proven before hand that we will get a long lasting supply of oil out of there and it will actually reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Even the most generous estimates of ANWR oil reserves don't cause a significant decreased reduction on our dependence on foreign oil imports, due to declining oil production in the "Lower 48".

Facing the United States' oil supply problems: Would opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) Coastal Plain really make a difference?

[smithson]

"This so-called war on terroism has already accomplished it's objective, which was to negotiate the pipeline through Afghanistan"

Are you on drugs or just a typical liberal, short on facts and long on stories.

[smithson]

Stop. You have too many facts for the liberals here. It could kill them. Then your going to fell real bad.