Skip to main content

ready to have a government takeover of all oil companies; revamp safety standards and existing rigs, until they can all be pulled out slowly, over a ten-year "moonshot" energy plan. (a worldwide energy plan is truly the one thing "too big to fail.")

BP-owned Alaska oil pipeline shut after spill

(Reuters) - The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, partly owned by BP, shut down on Tuesday after spilling several thousand barrels of crude oil, drastically cutting supply out of Alaska's oilfields.

BP-owned Alaska oil pipeline shut after spill

The volume of spilled oil is unknown. "We've estimated the spill is several thousand barrels," she said. All has been held within the secondary containment, which has capacity to hold 104,500 barrels, she said. The amount spilled is "nowhere near" the containment area's capacity, she added.

Alyeska is a consortium owned by five oil companies. Major owners are BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil. Unocal and Koch hold minor shares.

The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, which runs from Prudhoe Bay to the tanker port of Valdez, normally ships about 667,000 barrels of oil daily.

UPDATE: thanks, not much else to say for this one, other than to report it. i really want to know what we bother doing with the nuclear waste other than "bury it" (whether three inches or three miles underground) that does not eventually, inevitably/accidentally endangers any region's groundwater supply.

otherwise, i truly am asking for "the moon"... solar, wind, tidal, geothermal, NO NUKES, NO COAL, NO OIL. all green, all clean. it's stupid of us if we cannot make that. and if not, we need to dial down our needs to match.

UPDATE: check out how wall st journal lays it down: "Alaska Oil Pipeline Shut After Power Outage"! (caused an oil spill). to whit, first fuckin' paragraph:

"DOW JONES NEWSWIRES-The Trans-Alaska Pipeline, owned by BP Plc (BP) and other oil majors, was shut down Tuesday, cutting most supply out of Alaska oilfields, after a power outage caused an oil spill. "

Originally posted to theChild on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:17 PM PDT.

Poll

when the hole is plugged, i want...

34%28 votes
41%34 votes
24%20 votes

| 82 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Tip Jar (22+ / 0-)

    many americans cannot tell the difference between the court jesters and common village idiots.

    by theChild on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:17:32 PM PDT

  •  Not really an oil spill,. since it didn't make it (6+ / 0-)

    ...out the the containment area.

    So, not really like the Gulf disaster.

    But, a reminder that even the best of technology--which the TAP is--can still have problems.

    At least this problem isn't a mile underwater.

    "Certainly the game is rigged. Don't let that stop you; if you don't bet, you can't win." Lazarus Long

    by rfall on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:26:31 PM PDT

  •  Have to have nuclear. Need base load. Also, oil (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    brillo

    means transportation. That means hybrids and electric cars. The only thing that can do electric cars is nuclear. If we go electric powered by coal, we kill ourselves quickly.

    •  and nuclear hasn't been oversold and hyped like (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      boji, radmul, sturunner

      the safety of oil has?

      Until we do a lot more conservation and better planning . . . . . Ooops ...gotta go shut off the kitchen lights.

      Media Reform Action Link http://stopbigmedia.com/

      by LNK on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:45:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Nuclear is dangerous, but goal kills thousands of (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        cosette, sturunner

        people a year through air pollution. It threatens billions in global warming, and it threatens the enviornment in mtr and the health of miners.

        Nuclear is not a risk free. It has its own health hazards for miners and those near the mining sites.

        It also has problems with thermal pollution in a warming world. The only reason to go nuclear is because we are addicted to power and our little play things.

        My kitchen light is out. We also made it through four days of 90 degrees without turning on the AC. Unfortunately, we are among the few.  :)

  •  1/2 tern Gov loses her chance to show what she (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    wyvern

    would do to solve this problem.  She's out of the loop on this one, big time.

  •  I think it's... (0+ / 0-)
    ..now safe to conclude that BP is a wildly incompetent, irresponsible & overall shitty corporation.

     

    If a million people watch Olbermann, "nobody watches him." If 2 million watch Beck, he's "a national sensation spearheading a political movement."

    by wyvern on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:32:33 PM PDT

  •  Collection of Media Snippets (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    miriam, cosette, ItsSimpleSimon

    This came to me from a wonderful group called Fairness and Accuracy in Media:

    Media Advisory

    Drilling Disasters Can't Happen Here
    In run-up to BP spill, media touted offshore safety

    5/25/10

    As the United States examines the origins of the environmental catastrophe in the Gulf of Mexico, one factor that should not be overlooked is media coverage that served to cover up dangers rather than expose them. When President Barack Obama declared a new push for offshore drilling (3/31/10), asserting that "oil rigs today generally don't cause spills" (4/2/10), corporate news outlets echoed such pollyanna sentiments:

    You know, there are a lot of serious people looking at, "Are there ways that we can do drilling and we can do nuclear that are--that are nowhere near as risky as what they were 10 or 15 or 20 years ago?" Offshore drilling today is a lot more safer, in many ways, environmentally, today than it was 20 years ago.
    --David Gergen, CNN's Situation Room (3/31/10)

    Some Americans have an opinion of offshore drilling that was first formed decades ago with those pictures of oil on the beaches in Santa Barbara, California. Others see it differently. They say time and technology have changed things. They say in order to lessen our dependence on foreign oil and keep gas prices low, we've got to bring more of it out of the ground and from under the sea.
    --Brian Williams, NBC Nightly News (3/31/10)

    The technology of oil drilling has made huge advances.... The time has come for my fellow environmentalists to reassess their stand on offshore oil. It is not clear that the risks of offshore oil drilling still outweigh the benefits. The risk of oil spills in the United States is quite low.
    --Eric Smith, Washington Post op-ed (4/2/10)

    Some of the most ironic objections come from those who say offshore exploration will destroy beaches and coastlines, citing the devastating 1989 Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska as an example. The last serious spill from a drilling accident in U.S. waters was in 1969, off Santa Barbara, California.
    --USA Today editorial (4/2/10)

    Since the big spill off the coast of California about three decades ago, the big oil companies have really put a lot of time, money and resources into making sure that their drilling is a lot more safe and environmentally sound.
    --Monica Crowley, Fox Business Happy Hour (3/31/10)

    Drilling could be conducted in an environmentally sensitive manner. We already drill in an environmentally sensitive manner.
    --Sean Hannity, Fox News' Hannity (4/1/10)

    And even in terms of the environment, we're going to consume oil one way or the other. It's safer for the planet if it's done under our strict controls and high technology in America as opposed to Nigeria.... We've got a ton of drilling happening every day today in the Gulf of Mexico in a hurricane area and it's successful.
    --Charles Krauthammer, WJLA's Inside Washington (4/4/10)

    We had a hurricane on the Gulf Coast and there was no oil spill. If Katrina didn't cause an oil spill with all those oil wells in the Gulf....
    --Dick Morris, Fox News' O'Reilly Factor (3/31/10)

    The two main reasons oil and other fossil fuels became environmentally incorrect in the 1970s--air pollution and risk of oil spills--are largely obsolete. Improvements in drilling technology have greatly reduced the risk of the kind of offshore spill that occurred off Santa Barbara in 1969.... To fear oil spills from offshore rigs today is analogous to fearing air travel now because of prop plane crashes.
    --Steven F. Hayward, Weekly Standard (4/26/10)

    And these messages didn't entirely disappear after the Gulf of Mexico disaster unfolded. In its May 10 issue, Time magazine had a small box headlined, "Offshore-Drilling Disasters: Rare But Deadly," which listed a mere four incidents--the most recent in 1988. But it doesn't take too much research to turn up a slew of other incidents that raise concerns: the Unocal-owned Seacrest drillship that capsized in 1989, killing 91 people; Phillips Petroleum's Alexander Kielland rig that collapsed in 1980, killing 123, and more. The list managed to overlook at least three well disasters in the Gulf of Mexico that resulted in oil spills--two incidents off the Louisiana coast in 1999, and the Usumacinta spill in Mexican waters in 2007.

    A previous Time.com story (4/24/10) had noted that the Minerals Management Service, which oversees offshore drilling, reported 39 fires or explosions in the first five months of 2009 alone; though the magazine said the "good news" is that "most of these" did not result in death. The website Oil Rig Disasters tallies 184 incidents, dozens of which involved fatalities--and 73 of which occurred after 1988.

    Clearly there are different ways to measure such things, but it's hard not to feel that Time's point was to suggest that drilling disasters are really too rare to worry about.

    Since the BP/Deepwater disaster, many news outlets have run investigative pieces detailing the long history of negligent oversight of the offshore drilling industry. But when the New York Times tells readers (5/25/10) about the "enduring laxity of federal regulation of offshore operations," one can't help but wonder why this apparently well-known problem got so little attention before the environmental catastrophe.

    I hugely admire their weekly radio show.
    Here's a sample from the archives:
    http://www.fair.org/...

    Media Reform Action Link http://stopbigmedia.com/

    by LNK on Tue May 25, 2010 at 07:49:33 PM PDT

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site