Ballast and BS, Brought to You By Chevron.
22 04 2009
It’s Earth Day, and according to the latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey, only 31% of American adults believe their fellow countrymen are environmentally aware. Sounds about right.
Fifty-seven percent (57%) of Americans rate Earth Day as at least somewhat important, including 28% for whom it is Very Important. Yet while most Americans value Earth Day, just 21% plan to do something special to celebrate Earth Day. I am among the 21%. I am going to celebrate Earth Day by talking about … water ballast in oil tanks!
You just knew I couldn’t let Earth Day pass without talking about Drift River, didn’t you? Here’s a little tale that’s full of double talk, chicanery, half truths and slippery facts, brought to you courtesy of the Unified Command, Chevron, Cook Inlet Pipeline Co. and the State of Alaska.
As many regular readers know, the planners of yore thought it would be a swell idea to locate a giant tank farm at the base of Mt. Redoubt, an active volcano. It’s been active for millenia, so it’s not like it was a big surprise when it erupted. Since 1900 it’s blown its top five times – in 1902, 1922, 1966, 1989 and again last month. I suppose when they built the tank farm, they looked up and thought to themselves, “Well, it’s not erupting NOW….”
But whatever the circumstances were then, we are stuck with this situation NOW. Lahars (pyroclastic flows of water, volcanic debris, rock, and ice) have been cascading down the slopes of Redoubt since eruptions began on March 22. Right now, the tank farm is a little teeny rectangular blip, in a huge sea of mud and volcanic debris. After the 1989 event, in which flash flooding on the Drift River almost wiped out the tank farm, they decided rather than move it, they’d build a wall around it. Nice touch. Would you feel safe enough to live there in the face of a spewing volcano, behind that little manmade wall? Didn’t think so.
Well, the public, and organizations that care about the fact that this tank farm sits on the shore of a body of water that supports a giant commercial salmon fishery, and is home to an endangered whale species, started to complain. And the answer came back that they just HAD to keep oil in the tanks. You see, empty tanks are more at risk for getting wiped out by a lahar, and ending up in Cook Inlet the arguement goes. So, “no can do”, they said. It’s just physics.
While the notion that a tank with a couple million gallons in it is going to become safe from the forces behind a volcanic eruption may seem a little silly in the first place, there had to be a way to satisfy everyone, and get the oil out of those tanks.
So, those wily water huggers put their heads together and came up with a solution. They suggested that it might be a good idea to drain the oil out of the tanks and ballast the tanks with sea water. There was certainly plenty of that around. So, anyone who was really concerned about keeping Cook Inlet from becoming the next Prince William Sound, and Chevron from becoming the next Exxon would surely be in favor of this solution, they reasoned. After all, water ballast was common industry practice. Predicament solved!
But on April 1, the Unified Command issued a statement featuring a laundry list of reasons why this idea would never work. Water? Can’t be done.
My favorite reason was this one:
The water supply at the Drift River Oil Terminal does not have the capacity to fill the tanks to the levels necessary to maintain structural integrity. (Approximately four million gallons)
Nope, there’s just not enough water in Cook Inlet to fill those tanks. And besides that, a bunch of other very good reasons were given why it could never work – there’s no way to get the water in the tanks, they don’t have the right equipment, there’s no way to deal with the water after the fact, there are no takers that would take the water afterwards, and they’d have to shut down oil production. Yes, all while these eruptions were going on, oil was still running through this facility, whistling past the graveyard, as it flowed through the pipes.
So, that was that. No water. No way.
Then, on April 4th, Mt. Redoubt decided to contribute to our little problem. A major eruption on that day sent another lahar, cascading down the Drift River Valley like a big flowing wall of cement aimed right at the terminal. Additional damage was done to the facility…. and then the next day…(insert harp music here)…a miracle occured!
On April 5, Chevron and the Cook Inlet Pipeline Company announced the decision to suspend operations at the Drift River Terminal, and proceeded to use water to ballast the tanks while offloading approximately 60% of the more than 6 million gallons of oil at the facility.
But….but….we thought….
When asked what had changed to allow water to now ballast the tanks, ADEC responded: “Now that Cook Inlet Pipe Line made the decision to shut down the facility, then that opens up some other options.
And herein lies the truth. The entire story from the Unified Command about the supposed impossibility of using water as ballast for the tanks had nothing to do with safety, nothing to do with the laws of physics, nothing to do with concern for the salmon fishery or the people that depend on it, and certainly didn’t have anything to do with the endangered beluga whales. All these decisions were not being made in the best interest of Alaskans. Our “options” existed only at the whim of Cook Inlet Pipe Line Co. That’s who is setting the environmental policy in Cook Inlet. And if you think that they care about fish, more than they care about keeping the oil flowing, I’ve got a bridge to nowhere I’d like to sell you.
Why did they take these inordinate risks? Because they would rather jeapordize our fishery, our whales and our water than to turn off the spigot.
The updated release from the Unified Command is an exercise in the art of backpedaling. It may as well say, ”It’s Impossible! – Update: No it’s Not!”
And as it stands right now, there are still more than 2 million gallons of crude oil at the facility. Why hasn’t it been drained? Wait, don’t tell me. “It’s impossible!”
Update: No, it’s Not!
And what if the worst happens. What if there is another major eruption like the one on April 4th? What if we have a spill? What’s the plan? What would happen in a worst case scenario?
We don’t know. That information hasn’t been made available to the public. We’re on a need to know basis, and Chevron, Cook Inlet Pipe Line, the Unified Command and the State of Alaska don’t think we need to know. If there was a plan that adequately addressed a worst-case scenario and would allay our fears, I bet we’d know.
[Statement and questions from Cook Inletkeeper HERE >>> inletkeeper-statement
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 AM
@ crystalwolf
“That is truly scary, it was erupting as they built!!!! Quite stupid???”
I don’t think stupid is the right word – they knew what they were doing, and I’m guessing that they weighed the risks of abandoning an expensive and time sensitive project well underway against whether insurance would cover the damage if the mountain did take down the terminal. My belief is that a resulting spill into Cook Inlet was not their major concern by a long shot. And I’ll betcha that the 22 person crew that were rescued after the eruption, all of them, went right back to work as soon as they could.
Over the months, several of us here have tried to explain what Alaska was like before everyone knew we existed. I don’t know that I could do it justice unless I wrote a short book! Some highlights:
The 60s were all about oil and major money – great wages and all kinds of work going on. There were NOT the environmental safeguards and agencies in place when this terminal was built, so that question of “why they were allowed” is a moot point. Laws were not skirted and broken – they didn’t exist as they do today.
Alaska did not become a state until 1959- so this project was taking place within SIX years of statehood. Territory days were pretty wild. You aren’t going to see a lot of change within six years in a remote location with a small population. In historical context, building the terminal made perfect sense for what was going on at the time.
No one living elsewhere knew much about Alaska, and that went on for years. When my hubby’s family moved here 25 plus years ago, their utility companies refused to forward their bills to Alaska because their policy was to mail only in the US. When I moved here my mail came care of the Attorney General’s address, Pouch K (we had pouches in many places other than po boxes). My credit union wouldn’t forward my mail to that address because it wasn’t a real USPS address. Just a couple of months ago, a rural Alaskan could not get Microsoft to send them something because they only had a box number and not a street address (Alaska Dispatch). The tourists from the cruise ships often ask two things when arriving in Juneau: 1) What elevation are we at? (you just stepped off an ocean ship), and 2) Do you take American money? (even if we were like Canada and not part of the US, we are still “American” and so that doesn’t apply either. It should be “US money?”).
These are minor – the stories go on forever and ever! No one knew we existed in the 60s, and projects like this were status quo for major resource extraction.
So WHY and WHEN the terminal was built is all past and we can’t change that. I know the state is currently doing a risk assessment of the statewide oil and gas resource extraction, and Drift River Terminal is mentioned MULTIPLE times in phase 1 of the project, but how fast can these questions / dangers be acted upon by this assessment? I believe the report just completed its second phase in March this year. What is the FUTURE of this terminal? Who decides the future? Those are my questions.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Kudos to AKM and Bob Shavelson, Cook Inlet Keeper, on this topic.
Where’s APRN???
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Martha UYS–thank you for pointing out that there were barely laws/safeguards, let along environmental ones, back when the terminal was built. The Department of Environmental Conservation wasn’t even established until about 1970 or 1971. And the EPA wasn’t established till Dec. 1970, so it’s not like there were many/any federal rules to speak of in place then either.
April 23rd, 2009 at 11:35 AM
Martha Unalaska Yard Sign Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:48 AM
@ crystalwolf
“That is truly scary, it was erupting as they built!!!! Quite stupid???”
I don’t think stupid is the right word – they knew what they were doing,
Over the months, several of us here have tried to explain what Alaska was like before everyone knew we existed. I don’t know that I could do it justice unless I wrote a short book! Some highlights:
~~~~~~~~~~
Martha, you wrote a book? If you did I would like to order a copy? Do you have a link or something? Thanks.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Here we go, fresh from the Gov’s web page. Enjoy !
Latest Complaint Deemed Outrageous
Alarming New Development in Alaska Politics Printer Friendly
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE No. 09-95
Latest Ethics Complaint Deemed Outrageous
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1787
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:21 PM
Legal opinion over the Dept of Law’s Acting AG’s signature (not particularly reasoned or in depth) regarding why Tim Grussendorf is still GINO’s nominee for Juneau Senate. It is dated April 20. A bit late for that, isn’t it?
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/pdf/SenateSeatB_April21-2009.pdf
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:22 PM
Those press releases are getting more and more flamboyant, aren’t they? They’re really pulling out all the thesaurus stops.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:23 PM
Ah, if only Pompeii had had such geniuses…It wouldn’t have made any difference, not then, not now. The Earth always has the last word.
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:31 PM
And :
ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL ISSUES OPINION ON REQUIREMENT FOR A PUBLIC VOTE FOR LEGISLATIVE VACANCIES
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: April 22, 2009
http://www.gov.state.ak.us/news.php?id=1788
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:52 PM
Just trying to stuff that horse back in the barn. LOL
April 23rd, 2009 at 12:53 PM
New open thread, btw.
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:00 PM
@martha- I agree with your post but there are a couple of time lines that need further looking into. Last eruption – 1989 – 20 years ago. EPA started in 1970 – 19 years before the ‘89 eruption. Timeline of Mt. Redoubt of this eruption – end of last year and continuing. Back then I wouldn’t expect that the EPA would have a policy about building tank farms near volcanos but they must now. So why the delays in stopping oil flow and emptying the tanks? Money, money, money. The decision makers don’t care about the safety of the people or the environment. And it certainly should not be able to resume if or when Mt Redoubt settles down so again I ask why keep the oil there any longer? It is not safe today and it will not be a safe place in the future. The oil company should be already planning to shut down the tanks and relocate the terminal. But why aren’t they? Money, money, money. The company certainly has the money to shut down and remove the tanks – they cleared a billion dollars in profits but they have now decided not to talk to anybody, no more updates or pictures or anything – why? I mean seriously why? What is there is hide …
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:37 PM
There are ALWAYS going to be unintended consequences. When was the last time there was a spill at Drift River? I bet there is more oil spilled at your local Fred Meyers parking lot every year than at this facility. Want to move the terminal? Fine. You have to recognize that anywhere you put it in south central it will still be smack in the middle of a earthquake zone. If there are any trees around there could be a forest fire like the one out at Millers reach. What then?
Until people recognize that industry and oil companies are not the real problem here, nothing is going to get truely fixed. The fact that the USA consumes 25% of the worlds natural resources while only making up 5% of the population is the real problem.
I just think a better use of earth day, rather than pounding on evil, nasty, wicked ‘big oil’ (again) would be to promote conservation.
April 23rd, 2009 at 2:43 PM
@ 24owls
I agree! I was living in Seward in 1989 -90 when it erupted. I had no idea at the time about the terminal at Drift River though. Talk about clueless – I wonder how many Alaskans actually did know about the terminal at that time (except maybe the Kenai Peninsula)? Go bloggers – Alaska is so big that we really need to be more connected to each other, esp. for major events which also affect other parts of the country and world.
The only close substitute to our blogger’s coverage from the traditional media would be a statewide newspaper. When I lived up north, the Iditarod news was literally plastered everywhere and a HUGE deal with the ADN and even the Anchorage Times. I got very involved in mushing for awhile, and when I moved back to southeast, you could barely get an article or update on the Iditarod in the local papers. I was SO bummed!
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:49 PM
.
‘ Aussie Blue Sky Says:
April 23rd, 2009 at 1:58 AM
A young (Alaskan) man’s fancy definitely does turn to light, sweet and crude in springtime. But instead of sand and camels he might want to dispense with polar bears and ‘pebbles’. What say you then? ‘
“Pebbles”?
.
April 23rd, 2009 at 3:57 PM
Pebble Mine, I would guess…
April 23rd, 2009 at 4:56 PM
.
OOOOOH!!! You mean the advanced mineral exploration project investigating large copper, gold, and molybdenum deposits in the Bristol Bay region of Southwest Alaska, near Lake Iliamna and Lake Clark?
I thought he meant the little girl on the Flintstones! ; )
Yeah. Hear tell that the proposal to build a large mine exploiting these deposits is controversial. Only a huge mine, benefiting from economies of scale, is economically possible at Pebble due to the low-grade character of the ore. Feasibility studies (detailed mine construction and operation plans) and applications for permits by Pebble Mines Corp. are being deferred until the Pebble East deposit is fully delineated. Pebble West would probably be mined from an open pit. The geology and mining characteristics of Pebble West are well understood. The pit would be up to two miles (3 km) wide and several thousand feet deep and may generate up to 2.5 billion tons of waste material. Two artificial lakes would be created in order to store the discharge chemicals and waste. The largest of the dams enclosing these lakes would be 740 feet (230 m) tall and 4.3 miles (6.9 km) long. Or so I’m told.
(On Wikipedia.)
April 23rd, 2009 at 5:20 PM
@Ryan – unintended consequences – you make me laugh. When have we heard that excuse before … inconvenent truths … collateral damage … unintended consequences is another excuse for for not giving a damn who gets in the way, just slam ahead and forget the rest. There shouldn’t be a last time or a first time the Drift River or Cooks Inlet should ever experience a spill of any kind. The oil companies are not to fault, it is the decision makers of those companies that could care less about the consequences as long as there is money to be made. Not even an erupting volcano.
April 23rd, 2009 at 6:42 PM
Oh AKM-
You are right.
Tis the money…
And an inflated view of human ability to prevail over natural phenomena.
Kinda like the levees in New Orleans.
April 23rd, 2009 at 8:06 PM
to cosanostradamus @ 67
I would be interested in seeing your cites for these figures. I am not saying
that they are not accurate, I just have not found them myself after an admittedly superficial effort.
Full confession, I am an exploration geologist whose job it is to find potential mines. We do not have much influence over the ultimate outcome of any given project, yet we try to be responsible and identify prospects according to how they can be responsibly developed. I have already posted complaints about how the pebble mine had been planned. No one listens to us per se.
I am opposed to the pebble mine proposal because it entails impoundment of an existing watershed and thus is fraught with danger for any failure of the containment. If it were up to me, the containment scheme would have to be isolated from current watersheds and that is expensive. Such is life.
I’ll look to see if you respond.
April 23rd, 2009 at 9:57 PM
People dealing with the problem of possible volcanic eruption just don’t take seriously the fact that it could erupt enough to cause damage – just like those dealing with earthquakes did not take seriously the fact that large earthquakes could happen – until 1964. (I’ve been here well over 70 years). I am so glad that someone is giving a warning.
April 23rd, 2009 at 10:29 PM
AKM, your presentation is better than the highest paid litigator! Kudos!
This earth day thing, corporations seem to be exempt with full support and backing of the military, Unified Command…
Courtesy of Amadou et Mariam, Je Pense a Toi. peace.
10 cosanostradamus
LOL. The desert is encroaching in AZ, the fundamentalists are already here, camels to follow. yip yipee yayo. Viva pemex petroleos mexicanos! [I jest]
38 Canadian Neighbour
Oh you’ve got that right. Toronto’s hurf durf Mayor Miller levied 5¢ [tax I call it] for each bag at grocery stores. Instead of demanding bag manufacturers produce one that decays quickly. I’ve been letting him know how uncreative he is.
51 Martha Unalaska Yard Sign
That short history of pouch K Alaska was great. When’s that book coming out???
An oil tankers front falls off and spills 20,000 litres of crude oil into the the sea near Australia in the 90’s. An actor plays a member of the senate [John Clarke] and actor interviewer [Brian Dawe]… LOL.
April 24th, 2009 at 7:18 AM
I cut up my Chevron card when they used military force to kill Nigerians that were protesting Chevron’s facilities in 2003. I’d run out of gas before I’d put another cent in their pockets.
They sure showed a lot of foresight putting the tanks below an active volcano!
Wish I could cut up the company itself. Hit the delete button or something!
Love the column… M from Texas (see we’re not all bad) :~)
April 24th, 2009 at 9:14 AM
Corruption wide and deep…
Anyone else see this little bit about Chevron? http://act.credoaction.com/campaign/haynes_chevron/?r=3417&id=3666-1970155-iEoZQnx