Posted on 03/06/2002 2:14:05 PM PST by cogitator
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
First of all, is the U.S.F&WS telling the truth THIS time? If so, I may have to rethink my position...OK, I've thought about it, and my position hasn't changed.
Good point, but it only takes one accident (i.e., Exxon Valdez) or one nut firing a couple of bullets into a pipeline, to make a really big mess.
No one ever comments about the pollution caused by WWII. Dozens if not hundreds of oil tankers were sunk from New Guinea to the English channel. Carriers went down. Planes went down. Every nasty chemical you can name was strewn across the planet. Two A-bombs were dropped. Yet things looked pretty good not that long after. Who cleaned it all up?
Sometimes I think a cold stare will deform a frog. Remember all of the deformed frogs in Wisconsin and Minnesota a few years ago?
I remember that the explanations covered the entire spectrum from global warming to dumped PCBs, from increased UV to artificial hormones and contaminated groundwater. When the smoke finally cleared it was learned to be caused by a minute parasite.
Didn't hear much about the true explanation did you?
Obsolete oil could occur without the following...
From another article...
Are green organizations or regulatory agencies up to the leap? Given the past history, doubtful. Alliances need to be forged with futures-oriented organizations and technology development agencies, with constituent parts breaking the politically correct mold. Scary words such as 'military' pop up....
History will look back on 2001 as the practical start of big nanotechnology initiatives worldwide. In a few years Nanoecology is going to become the biggest green issue of our time. The pressing need for a conceptual framework is indicated by the 8-15 years estimated for developing the first replicator compared to the decades it took to develop current environmental assessment methods.
These sites returned Zeromentions of 'nanotechnology' and 'nanoecology':
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.
Most of these reported incidents are minor in nature, for example a loose hose clamp causes a "spill" of one gallon of antifreeze. The oil companies and their support industries are still obligated to report these under current EPA regulations. I remember one incident that took place on the north slope. A seawater treatment plant spilled 250 gallons of seawater on the ocean ice. It was still reported as a spill, and characterized as a contaminant. I have a hard time understanding the reasoning in that but I'm certain it helped someone in the EPA justify their job/funding.
They don't have the reading level to comprehend same.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.