Showing posts with label dangers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dangers. Show all posts

Shell Downplays Crude Oil Spill in the Gulf of Mexico (Video)

On May the 12th Shell claims that its offshore Brutus platform spewed 88,200 gallons of crude (2,100 barrels) into the Gulf of Mexico. The spill in Shell's Glider field created a 13 mile long by 2 mile wide oil slick in an area 97 miles south of Port Fourchon, Louisiana. Shell offered the standard commentaries as dictated by their post-spill public relations protocols. The incident has been contained the said and "cleanup operations are underway." Shell spokesperson Kimberly Windon added, "no release is acceptable, and safety remains our priority as we respond to this incident."

Historically post spill press releases from the offending company tend to radically underplay the amount spilled and the dangers that these spills pose. 



BP infamously underplayed the magnitude of the Deepwater Horizon spill in the Gulf of Mexico. A total of eleven men died on that day in 2010. This oil spill went on to become the largest in history leaking a staggering 3 million barrels of oil to into the Gulf. The cost to marine life has been devastating and it is being felt to this day. In 2015 BP reached a settlement with the US government in which it agreed to pay $20 billion in fines and penalties.

The recent Shell leak appears to have originated in a subsea well-head flow line that connects four wells in the Green Canyon area to the Brutus platform. In 2011 another of Shell's flow lines sprung a leak, the time in the North Sea. Shell has also been the subject of derision for its test drilling in the Arctic. Their Arctic drilling exploits have not gone well. First one of their oil rigs ran aground and then they abandoned the Arctic as the price of oil fell below the point where this oil was financially viable. Then on Friday May 13th Shell was forced to give up all of its oil concessions in the Arctic except one.

The May 11th oil spill adds to the large and growing number of spills. This is but the latest of “thousands” of oil industry accidents in the Gulf of Mexico every year. In fact spills have become commonplace, as evidenced by this summary of fossil fuel spills in 2015.

Whether by pipe, rail or tanker, oil cannot be safely transported.  Offshore oil has its own unique set of risks that set it apart and make it an even more dangerous proposition. However, offshore oil is an avoidable tragedy.

For these and other reasons President Obama is being pressed to deny any additional offshore oil drilling leases in the Gulf.

Greenpeace Stalls Arctic Drilling by Blocking Shell's Ice Breaker (Video)

Late in July an icebreaker that is crucial to Shell's drilling operation in the Arctic sea was turned back by Greenpeace activists in Portland, Oregon. Activists spent almost 2 days suspended from St. Johns Bridge, while others took to kayaks in Willamette River below. However they managed to block Shell's icebreaker, the MSV Fennica from leaving the city on July 30th. The emergency equipment on-board the Fennica is essential for Shell's drilling activities in the Arctic.

Hundreds of people gathered on the dock in support of the Greenpeace protest. After being threatened with fines of up to $10,000 an hour, law enforcement succeed in removing the activists from the area allowing the Fennica to pass. Here is a video report from Democracy Now.


Related
Obama Administration Cuts Shell's Arctic Drilling in Half
The Unacceptable Risks of Arctic Drilling
After a Failed Cover-up Shell Sub-Contractor Pleads Guilty
Save the Arctic from a "Death Sprial"
Greenpeace forces Lego to Dump Shell
Shell Pauses its Arctic Drilling for 2013
Video of the Oil Rig Belonging to Shell that Ran aground in Alaska
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell's Game with the Future of the Arctic
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil and Gas Drilling
Another Offshore Oil Leak this Time from Shell

Top 25 Oil Spills in the Last Decade

Here is a listing of the worst oil spills in the world in the last ten years. The information is listed in the following order: The name of the spill is followed by the country, location, date and quantity of oil spilled. Quantities are measured in tonnes of crude oil with one tonne roughly equal to 308 US gallons, or 7.33 barrels, or 1165 liters. 
______________________

1. Deepwater Horizon, United States, Gulf of Mexico, 20 April 2010 – 15 July 2010, 627,000 tonnes

2. 2010 ExxonMobil oil spill, Nigeria, Niger Delta, 1 May 2010, 95,500tonnes

3. Xingang Port oil spill, China, Yellow Sea, 16 July 2010 - 21 July 2010, 90,000tonnes

4. Montara oil spill, Australia, Timor Sea, 21 August 2009, 30,000 tonnes

5. Jiyeh power station oil spill, Lebanonk, 14 July 2006 - 15 July 2006, 30,000 tonnes

6. Tasman Spirit, Pakistan, Karachi 28 July 2003, 30,000 tonnes

7. Bass Enterprises (Hurricane Katrina), United States, Cox Bay, Louisiana 30 August 2005, 12,000 tonnes

8. 2007 Korea oil spill, South Korea, Yellow Sea, 7 December 2007, 10,800 tonnes

9. 2008 New Orleans oil spill, United States, New Orleans, Louisiana, 28 July 2008, 8,800 tonnes

10. Citgo refinery oil spill United States, Lake Charles, Louisiana, 19 June 2006, 6,500 tonnes

11. Nigeria oil spill Nigeria, Bonga Field, 21 December 2011, 5,500 tonnes

12. 2007 Statfjord oil spill Norway, Norwegian Sea, 12 December 2007, 4,000 tonnes

13. 2011 Little Buffalo oil spill Canada, Alberta, 29 April 2011, 3,800  tonnes

14. Murphy Oil USA refinery spill (Hurricane Katrina) United States, Meraux and Chalmette, Louisiana 30 August 2005, 3,410 tonnes

15. Shell (Hurricane Katrina) United States, Pilottown, Louisiana, 30 August 2005, 3,400 tonnes

16. Kalamazoo River oil spill United States, Kalamazoo River, Calhoun County, Michigan, 26 July 2010, 3,250 tonnes

17. Chevron (Hurricane Katrina) United States, Empire, Louisiana, 30 August 2005, 3,200 tonnes

18. 2MT Bunga Kelana 3 Singapore, Singapore Strait, 25 May 2010, 2,500 tonnes

19. Kab 101 Mexico, Bay of Campeche, 23 October 2007 – 17 December 2007, 1,869 tonnes

20. Guimaras oil spill Philippines, 11 August 2006, 1,540 tonnes

21. MV Selendang Ayu, United States, Unalaska Island, Alaska, 8 December 2004, 1,560 tonnes

22. 2010 Port Arthur oil spill, United States, Port Arthur, Texas, 23 January 2010, 1,500 tonnes

23. Bass Enterprises (Hurricane Katrina), 1,560, 30 August 2005, 1,500 tonnes

24. Arthur Kill storage tank spill (Hurricane Sandy), United States, New Jersey, Sewaren, 29 October 2012 1,130 tonnes

25. Trans-Alaska Pipeline spill, United States, Anchorage, Alaska, 25 May 2010, 1,200 tonnes

Source: Wikipedia

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Another Leaking Pipeline in Montana
Video - Train Carrying Oil Derails Illustrating the Dangers of Transporting Fossil Fuels
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
EPA Slams State Department on its Keystone XL Report
Oil Spills off the Coast of New Zealand
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Spills
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil Spills
Inadequate Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Pipeline
BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline
Another Offshore Oil Leak
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Another Gas Pipeline Rupture in Montana

Early in July a gasoline pipeline outside of the small town of Lodge Grass on Montana's Crow Indian Reservation spilled 25,000 gallons of gasoline. Over the last 20 years there have been at least three spills from the 8-inch underground pipeline now owned by Phillips 66.

The Lodge Grass spill comes almost two years to the day after 63,000 gallons of crude spilled into Montana's Yellowstone River from an Exxon Mobil line. The cleanup and repair costs for that spill totaled more than $135 million.

Phillips 66 is a Houston-based oil refinery and chemical company. They said the boken pipe outside of Lodge Grass will have to be excavated to be repaired and the contaminated soil likely will have to be removed.

The Seminoe pipeline carries gasoline, diesel and other refined petroleum products from Phillips 66's Billings refinery to Wyoming, Utah and Colorado. It has a maximum daily capacity of 46,000 barrels, which is equivalent to more than 1.9 million gallons.

Gasoline is highly toxic and gives off more dangerous fumes and is far more flamable than crude oil. When mixed with water gasoline can be even more damaging than oil.

In the same general area, the same pipeline spilled 2,300 barrels of gasoline in two seperate spills in one week in 1997.

The two spills and another 2001 pipeline leak near Conrad, Mont., resulted in a half million dollar settlement ($465,000) for violating the Clean Water Act. The line's former owner, Conoco Pipe Line Co.,

The environmentally destructive impacts of leaking pipelines are hardly the only concern associated with transporting fossil fuels. In Nigeria 120 people were burned alive in a pipeline rupture and fire in 2011 and more recently the small town of Megantic Quebec was decimated by the derailment of a train carrying oil.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Video - Train Carrying Oil Derails Destroying Town in Canada
Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada
Managing the Massive Gulf Oil Spill
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
EPA Slams State Department on its Keystone XL Report
Oil Spills off the Coast of New Zealand
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Spills
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil Spills
Inadequate Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Pipeline
BP Accused of Corporate Recklessness Including Willful Misconduct
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
The Cost of Oil: BP Barred from Doing Business with the US
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline
Another Offshore Oil Leak
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels
The Costs of Offshore Drilling

Pipelines and Oil Spills in Alberta Canada

The province of Alberta and the oil industry are fighting to expand the tarsands and build the controversial Keystone XL pipeline and the Northern Gateway pipeline.

The Canadian and Alberta government's are working hard to defend the controversial Keystone XL Pipeline which would ferry tar sands oil from Alberta to the Gulf of Mexico.

Another controversial project, the Northern Gateway pipeline, would ferry oil from Alberta to the West Coast of British Columbia.

Government largely ignores the problem of pipeline ruptures which is endemic to the oil industry. Without the Keystone XL and the Northern Gateway there are already over 399,000 kilometres of pipelines under the authority of the Alberta’s Energy Resources Conservation Board.

Despite the Alberta government's repeated assurances that oil spills are rare, they are in fact an unavoidable corollary of oil pipelines.

The entire oil pipeline network in Alberta has spilled approximately 28,000 barrels (~4,452 cubic metres) equivalent volumes of liquid hydrocarbons every year since 2005.

Flooding has caused pipes to shift spilling 750 barrels of synthetic oil from a pipeline in northern Alberta.

There have been many other oil spill in Alberta in recent years. As reviewed by Sean Kheraj's review of pipeline spills in Alberta from 1970 to 2005 and Kheraj's extensive summary of more recent oil spills from Alberta's pipelines between 2006 and 2012.

On June 7, 2012, the Sundre Petroleum Operators Group, a not-for-profit society, notified Plains Midstream Canada of a major oil pipeline failure near Sundre, Alberta that spilled an early estimate of between 1,000 and 3,000 barrels of light sour crude oil (~159-477 cubic metres) into Jackson Creek, a tributary of the Red Deer River. The river is one of the province’s most important waterways, providing drinking water for thousands of Albertans.

In late May 2012 an estimated 22,000 barrels of oil and water (~3,497 cubic metres) spilled across 4.3 hectares of muskeg in the northwest part of the province near Rainbow Lake. According to the Globe and Mail, this rupture, which occurred along a pipeline operated by Pace Oil & Gas, Ltd., “ranks among the largest in North America in recent years,” and certainly in the province of Alberta. A couple of weeks after the accident, the company downgraded the estimate to 5,000 barrels of sweet crude oil with no water (~795 cubic metres).

In 2011, 28,000 barrels (~4,452 cubic metres) of oil spilled on the Rainbow pipeline operated by Plains Midstream Canada near Little Buffalo, Alberta. The 2011 Plains Midstream oil pipeline rupture was one of the largest single spill events in recent memory,

On October 10, 2006, the Rainbow Pipe Line Company became aware of a crude oil spill on its pipeline 20 kilometres southeast of Slave Lake. Roughly 7,924 barrels of oil (~1,260 cubic metres) poured into a series of ponds near the northern Alberta town, despoiling wildlife habitat on what one local news outlet ironically referred to as “Black Tuesday.”

In mid-June 2008, Pembina Pipeline Corporation accidentally leaked 177 barrels of oil (28.1 cubic metres) into the Red Deer River, eventually resulting in a large oil slick on the surface of Glennifer Lake. Resorts on the Lake had to turn off their drinking water intakes to avoid human consumption of the contaminated water.

From 2006-2010, Alberta's pipeline network leaked roughly 174,213 barrels of oil (~27,700 cubic metres). In 2010 alone, more than 21,000 barrels (~3,400 cubic metres) were spilled across the network. 

Click here to see Kheraj's map of pipeline spills in Alberta from 2006 to 2012.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Articles
Oil Spills Add to Concerns about the Keystone XL Pipeline
BC Opposes the Northern Gateway Pipeline Due in Part to Fears about Spills
The Fate of the Keystone XL in the Wake of President Obama's Climate Action Plan
Video - Will the Keystone XL Pipeline Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?
EPA Slams State Department on its Keystone XL Report
Inadequate Safety Measures for the Keystone XL Pipeline
South Dakota Wants Additional Protections Against Oil Spills
Offshore Oil is an Avoidable Tragedy
Shell Oil Rig Runs Aground in Alaska Raising Safety Concerns
Shell Temporarily Pauses its Arctic Drilling
Lawsuit Protecting the Arctic from Oil Spills
Responsibility for the Costs of the Gulf Oil Spill
BP Accused of Corporate Recklessness Including Willful Misconduct
The Costs of Offshore Drilling
The Cost of Oil: BP Barred from Doing Business with the US
The Costs of Oil: BP Liable for up to 90 Billion
Transocean to Pay $1.4 billion for its Role in the Gulf Oil Spill
Two More Reasons to Move Beyond Fossil Fuels

Video - Will the Keystone XL Pipeline Increase Greenhouse Gas Emissions?


This video addresses both sides of the debate on whether the Keystone XL pipeline will increase GHG production. The proposed pipeline would ferry tarsands from Alberta to refineries on Texas's Gulf Coast. On June 25th, 2013, President Obama made it clear that he will not authorize the building of the Keystone XL pipeline if it results in an increase in greenhouse gases (GHGs). While it is widely understood that the tarsands are much more GHG intensive than traditional fossil fuels, the question is whether this would result in a net increase in GHG emissions. Those that support the building of the Keystone XL say that in the absence of the pipeline there would be increased transportation traffic (tankers and trucks) which would result in even greater levels of GHGs.

What this video does not address is the fact that more fossil fuel infrastructure and easier access to dirty sources of energy will detract from market based forces that would decrease our reliance on climate change causing sources of energy.

Related ArticlesThe Fate of the Keystone XL Pipeline in the Wake of President Obama's Georgetown University Speech
Unions Oppose the Keystone XL in the Jobs vs. Environment Debate
EPA Slams State Department on the Keystone XL
Cornell University Questions the Economic Benefits of the Keystone XL Pipeline
American Employment: Keystone XL vs Green Jobs
A New State Department Environmental Impact Assessment Clears the Keystone XL Pipeline
The DoD's Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap (CCAR) Excludes Keystone XL
Obama to Expedite the Keystone XL Pipeline
The Center for Biological Diversity CREDO and Friends of the Earth Slam Keystone Reversal
Bill McKibben on Obama's Keystone XL Reversal
Republicans Vow to Continue Push for KeystoneCanada's Leader of the Official Opposition on the Keystone XL Pipeline

Is Apple's Adoption of Sustainability Too Little Too Late?

Apple is trying to offset its long history of  unsustainable practices through a number of initiatives that include hiring former EPA head Lisa Jackson. Even if the company manages to clean up its act, they may be haunted by their past for years to come. As Apple strives to improve its sustainable performance, the company is being battered by allegations of tax avoidance. Over the last few years Apple has been plagued with a number of problems including criticisms of their labor force in China, concerns about their supply chain and a forced reversal on EPEAT.

These factors seem to have eroded the firm's bottom line. Apple's profits and stock valuations have all suffered in recent months. From the beginning of 2009 until the end of 2012 Apple's (AAPL) meteoric rise seemed unstoppable. Then the stock plummeted losing almost half its value in the first quarter of 2013 (Going from a high of more than $700 per share in September 2012 to $390 per share in April, 2013).

In 2011, Apple was accused of treating its Chinese workforce "inhumanely." Apple's supply chain has also been accused of being unsustainable, and according to a report issued by anti-pollution activists in China, Apple's secretive supply chain is both "dirty" and "poisonous."

Apple has done a 180 with its suppliers in China. In terms of progressive environmental policies, the company has gone from being one of the most uncooperative electronics companies to one of China's most proactive IT suppliers. Although Apple has significantly increased its sustainability efforts in a bid to try to catch up with other tech companies. One of the most significant efforts is Apple's new 500,000-square-foot data center in Maiden, N.C., which will be entirely powered by renewable energy.

In July, 2012, Apple reversed its position on EPEAT. This reversal demonstrates the company's recognition of the value of sustainability to its customer base. Apple was forced to capitulate on EPEAT due to the burgeoning demand for more responsible corporate conduct from customers, institutional buyers and activists. It also reflects the purchasing and procurement policies of institutional buyers like Kaiser Permanente, McKesson and HDR which demand EPEAT certification.

If nothing else, Apple is a marketing Svengali. Like the villainous hypnotist in George du Maurier's novel Trilby, the firm has managed to control the public's perception. But the company's unsustainable history cannot be concealed forever.

As explained in a Fortune article, despite being anything but green, Apple has excelled at promoting itself as a responsible corporate global citizen in terms of environmental, social and governance issues. According to Brandlogic's 2012 Sustainability Leadership Report, Apple is a company "whose perceived performance far exceeds its actual achievement."

In 2012, Brandlogic's Denis Riney offered this assessment:

"On the reality side," he writes, "Apple made significant gains from 2012 to 2011, improving their SRS [sustainability reality score] from 29.3 to 45.8, a 16.5 point increase vs. a 9.3-point increase for the 100 companies overall. Its perceived ESG [environmental, social, governance] scores increased as well, from 53.5 to 55.6, in year when the average perception score dropped 2.7 points."

According to the 2012 Brandindex Sustainability Leadership Report Apple's ability to fool the public is especially pronounced in the developing world. Apple's reputation is falling among investment professionals but rising among recent university graduates and supply chain professionals:

However, Apple's unsustainable design which on the one hand are part of a marketing strategy that has led to astronomical profits on the other makes the company a sustainability laggard. A business model that encourages people to regularly upgrade technological devices is doomed to fail in an increasingly resource constrained world.

It looks as though Apple's CEO Tim Cook is getting the message. At the end of May 2013 he announced that the company has hired former US Environmental Protection Agency Chief Lisa Jackson to oversee environmental activities including greentech and efficiency.


“Apple has shown how innovation can drive real progress by removing toxics from its products, incorporating renewable energy in its data center plans, and continually raising the bar for energy efficiency in the electronics industry,” Jackson said. “I look forward to helping support and promote these efforts, as well as leading new ones in the future aimed at protecting the environment.”

Only time will tell if hiring Jackson and other sustainability initiatives can bridge the gap between the public's perception of the brand and its actual performance.

"While there is no doubt that the positive halo around the Apple brand has some influence on the perceptions of these audiences," Riney concludes, "it is hard to imagine that Apple's extreme Promoter position will last long term."

Apple is trying to catch-up on sustainability, however, the chickens may have come home to roost. The company, once the darling of the tech industry, has a hard road to hoe. Despite the positive perception of the brand in 2012, a March report which showed a 114 percent increase in the use of renewable energy and hiring Jackson in May.

Although Apple should be lauded for its efforts, the fact that it is a late-comer to the sustainability table constitutes a serious problem for the brand. This is particularly true of a corporate behemoth like Apple, where their efforts may be seen as too little too late.

© 2013, Richard Matthews. All rights reserved.

Related Posts
Apple's Reversal on EPEAT 
Steve Jobs: Apple's Product Recycling Efforts
Under Steve Jobs Leadership Apple Removed Toxic Chemicals from its Products
Video: Steve Jobs 2005 Stanford Commencement Speech
Video: Steve Jobs on Computer Efficiency
Apple's iPhone Green Applications
10 Energy Efficient Electronics for College
Greenpeace Green Electronics Guide
Greenpeace's Ranking of Electronic Companies
Cleantech the Next Great Investment Opportunity
Top 10 Global Sustainability Leaders (Report)