Alaska is the world's anus

Maybe they can clean that up with the ginormous profit they made last quarter (yeah right!)

TigerSmoke:
Maybe they can clean that up with the ginormous profit they made last quarter (yeah right!)

They need that money to pay scientists to say global warming in a hoax.

They need to bribe the volcanoes into accepting blame for global warming. Yep.

Well of course some one from Exxon would say, "Based on our initial review of the report, there is nothing newsworthy or significant in the report that has not already been addressed,"

And then this gem in the last paragraph -

Mr Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact.

I'm sure this means they paid for the 350 studies. Why the fark didn't they just spend to clean this shiat up??? Support 350 studies to see if you should clean up your mess and then dismiss it.

/Thanks assholes!

If Alaska is the world's anus then the Guardian is the wipe.

Mr Boudreaux said Exxon has supported more than 350 independent studies whose scientists have found no evidence of significant long-term impact.

"Independent" and "support from Exxon" in the same sentence? That's unpossible!

Massive oil spill results in improved wildlife viscosity!

/onion

And from the other thread...yet another example why the United States is more about its own economic benefit than its responsibility the world around them.

You know, Exxon still hasn't paid for the Punitive damages of the oil spill. Their lawyers have the 9th circuit in their pocket.

After this fiasco, you'd think major oil transporters would keep their tankers out of especially sensitive marine ecosystems...

Nope. Somebody managed to run a tanker agground near the Galapagos Islands.

http://www.gct.org/spillhistory.html

I'm guessing that BP or somebody will try running a tanker commanded by a drunk captain right through the Great Barrier Reef pretty soon. You know, just to see what'll happen.

"Alaska is the world's anus and the Guardian is it's wipe."
I cuncur with all previously stated!

/ is a proud member of the Coast Guard.
// is stationed in Alaska.
/// secretly wishing the whole state would fall off the face of the earth while I am on leave so i don't have to come back.

Sorry for the Tolstoy...but this was written in March of 2006 for the American Litorial Society, by Ken Adams. Ken has a PhD in marine biology. He was also my captain when I worked the Cordova pink salmon fishery in 93-94. I saw first hand the effects of the oil spill...4 years after the event. I also participated in the blockading of the Valdez narrows.

Anyway...the following is the best insight you could possibly get regarding the impact of the spill:


When the pipeline and PWS marine terminal were selected as the route for transporting ANS crude oil to market in the early 70's, concerned state legislators, conservation organizations and fishermen fought vigorously in support of safeguards including double hulls for tankers that would be involved in this trade. However, the power of big oil prevailed and warning cries to adopt best practices to help insure safe operations fell upon deaf ears. Instead of double hulls, standard practices for tanker operations were adopted. The oil flowed to waiting tankers and markets began receiving Alaska's oil. Over time, legislators, regulators, and industry all seemed to lose sight of the fact that oil spills can and do happen. In fact, Dr. Riki Ott, a Cordova fisherwoman and environmental toxicologist, prophetically warned the Valdez city council on the evening of march 23, 1989 that the a future spill was not a question of if but when it would occur. After midnight the fully laden tanker Exxon Valdez, swerved from the normal outbound vessel traffic lane to avoid icebergs and ran aground upon adequately marked Bligh Reef. We know the spill report of eleven million gallons. What many don't realize is that the reported volumes of recovered oil overlooked the fact that oil mix contained up to sixty five...percent water. The actual volume of crude oil spilled was probably somewhere between twenty five and thirty million gallons. Another overlooked fact was the calm three day period immediately following the spill that would have allowed significant mechanical recovery of oil had there been adequate spill response capabilities. All this attests to the state of laxity that prevailed prior to the spill among those charged with safeguarding the PWS environment from oil industry catastrophe. To be fair to at least a segment of that industry, credit should be given to the master and crew of the tanker Baton Rouge and others that acted to remove oil cargo still aboard the Exxon Valdez under dangerous conditions. They helped prevent an even worse disaster.

We've read about the fish and wildlife victims of the spill, the impacts upon habitat and city businesses, and the residents of Cordova and other towns in the region. It is honest to acknowledge that many townspeople were engaged in the spill clean up and compensated at rather handsome rates of pay. But that was all in the distant past. What stakeholders in the region also found was that the environmental response to the spill also revealed delayed impacts. After strong returns of salmon and herring in the early '90's, pink salmon returns failed in '92 and '93 and the herring population that plummeted in '93 hasn't recovered.

If anything at all positive can be said about the oil spill, it was that EVOS was the act needed to propel the passage of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA90). Contained within that legislation were many provisions to secure the earlier sought but unattained changes that would help provide for safer oil transportation and other concerns. Also, and very noteworthy, was the provision for the establishment of citizen councils in PWS and Cook Inlet to oversee industry activities at the terminal and the tanker fleet. The councils have the same degree of access that state and federal regulators have. The involvement of stakeholders in oversight activities of industries that threaten their sustainability is an essential first step for maintaining habitat integrity, the resources upon which communities depend upon and human health.

So what's to be learned from EVOS in addition to what has been mentioned above? We have learned that oil persists in the substrate of PWS even as the seventeenth anniversary of the spill arrives on March 24,2006. Granted, the estimated oiled area of 29 acres in 2004 is much diminished from the original amounts spilled . But some oil lodged under boulders and other surfaces will doubtlessly persist for years to come. It just doesn't disappear magically. Further, the toxicity of weathered crude oil is far greater than previously thought and can be harmful to fish eggs and embryos at concentrations measured in parts per billion, not parts per million as previously thought Also, some species such as pacific herring, three species of cormorants, loons , pigeon guillemots and harbor seals and others are reported as non recovered by the EVOS Trustee Council. This organization was formed by agreement between the state and federal governments to manage the civil settlement made with Exxon to aid the restoration of the injured species, habitat and human services. Related to this federal and state agreement, a reopener clause provided for claims to be made to Exxon for up to $100 million additional dollars for un anticipated damages at the time the settlement was made. We in the spill impacted region currently labor to construct restoration plans that will be responsive to the requirements of the reopener clause.

We have learned there is no rest, no cessation of the need for industry oversight. We have seen efforts to reduce services which compromise environmental quality even amidst record oil prices and profits. Not to participate as citizen stakeholders in the process of environmental defense cedes the playing field to industry. We can kiss environmental quality good bye but is that what we really want to leave behind for those who follow?

RTFA, the problem isn't that the tanker is still leaking, the problem is that all that oil that leaked 18 years ago isn't going anywhere. Predictions that it would disperse weren't accurate.

Bonkthat_Again,

+1. Interesting and disturbing at the same time. It is a damn shame that E/M can't be made to fork over more than the (comparatively small) $100M in the reopener clause.

/grump

"Suck it libs!"

Man, this shiat is depressing. I don't want my grandkids to be living in a world that resembles a bad cyberpunk novel. Would it be so bad to still have otters and stuff in 100 years?

Itsfullofstars
Your point is?

We must do everything to save the precious, precious oil.

We need to have a corporate death penalty for crap like this. Chop off a couple of fat heads and things might get better.

/write to your representative today

Now that the Dems are in charge, maybe we can get them to send Exxon-Mobile a '10% fine on gross corporate profit per year' until the mess is cleaned-up, or until the company goes fully bankrupt (and cannot be bailed-out by Congress).

Who cares? It's Alaska

The Battleship Arizona leaked oil in Pearl Harbor for years after being bombed by the Japanese. Where was your worry then?

StrikitRich:
The Battleship Arizona leaked oil in Pearl Harbor for years after being bombed by the Japanese. Where was your worry then?

Well, most of us weren't really, you know, alive then so I think we can be forgiven for not worrying about a leaking battleship..

Misleading headline, which subby et al bought hook, line and sinker.

StrikitRich
Your point is??? By and by, they are doing something about Battleship Arizona and have been...

USS Arizona preservation/management project

2007-02-04 08:28:03 AM StrikitRich


The Battleship Arizona leaked oil in Pearl Harbor for years after being bombed by the Japanese. Where was your worry then?

Those farkers!
I say we nuke 'em!

StrikitRich: The Battleship Arizona leaked oil in Pearl Harbor for years after being bombed by the Japanese. Where was your worry then?

uh... as of September, the Arizona still leaks oil into Pearl Harbor - about a quart or so a day.

it's not killing wildlife, mucking up shoreline, etc.

If there were any justice, the supreme court would confiscate the assets of Exxon. Pay the fines out of that wad of dough, and tell Bush, "no, not yours, either"

StrikitRich: The Battleship Arizona leaked oil in Pearl Harbor for years after being bombed by the Japanese. Where was your worry then?

There's a difference if I spit in your jacuzzi rather than taking a dump in it.

arazona doesn't leak enough to mess with anything. Bonkthat is right, Arazona is losing so little over a vasy ammount of time that it's able to disapate safely. Now if it were losing gallons per hour, then they're might be a slight problem.

"I'M IN YUR OCEANZ, POLLUTINZ YUR WATERZ."

still leaking? wow, nice trick since the ship isn't even there anymore.

After the spill, the Exxon Valdez was towed to San Diego, arriving on July 10 and repairs began in July 30, 1989. Approximately 1,600 tons of steel were removed and replaced. In June 1990 the tanker left harbor after $30 million of repairs.

the real issue is that there is still oil left polluting the PWS:

Crude oil is still polluting Alaskan waters almost 18 years after the tanker Exxon Valdez ran aground, according to a study by US government scientists to be published in two weeks.

The study, an advance of which was released on Wednesday, found more than 26,600 gallons of oil remaining at Prince William Sound. Researchers say it is declining at a rate of only 4% a year and even slower in the Gulf of Alaska.

and that exxon/mobile hasn't done/paid enough to resolve this

No Such Agency: Would it be so bad to still have otters and stuff in 100 years?




Let's ask Cartman.

Natural biological activity (microbes mostly) are out there slowly eating up the remaining oil in place where it lies. (The activity is slow due to the low temperatures -- not much anyone can do to speed it up.) That is the least environmentally damaging way to deal with it. If ExxonMobil were to go out there and stir things up to remove the remaining oil, they would cause more damage to the environment than leaving the oil in place is doing. The oil is spread over a large area. It is down in the rock and gravel, down in the sand, where the microbes live. Active mechanical remediation of a large area to get such a small amount of oil out would result in a real negative environment impact. If that were not the case, the state and the Feds would have Exxon out there continuing to clean it up.

Dear Guardian Eco-Writers-

The oil originally came from the earth in the first place. I don't hear you biatching about the oil that forms tar balls on the North Sea floor when it naturally leaches out of the sea bed.
FU.

Sincerely,
Me

Below is a rare photo of the CEO of ExxonMobile on vacation:

Looks like they need to build a Big Shell cleanup facility in that location. Except Big Shell was in New York, not Alaska. Shadow Moses was Alaska.

I'm getting my MGS games mixed up.

Hug-a-Beans - StrikitRich - Your point is??? By and by, they are doing something about Battleship Arizona and have been...

My point is the inaccuracy of the headline. The Exxon Valdez IS NOT still leaking oil 18 years later. There is still oil in the Sound, but it has been there since the spill. The Valdez was towed to San Diego after the spill, repaired and has been back in service since 1990 under a new name.

The Exxon Valdez was not the first ship to leak oil, and it will not be the last. The article itself states that Exxon has spent close to $40 Billion in clean-up, so it's not like they haven't done anything, either. Lots and lots more oil was spilled during WWII when ships from all sides were sunk, including oilers, and I don't think that much was spent on clean up.

Yeah, so what?

George_P_Burdell, quit it with your incessant logic!

Obviously they are evil because they're a big corporation, and they do things all corporation-y. As such, they should stop filling their toilets with champagne, take their billions in assets out of their money-filled swimming pools, and invent a way to remove the oil from the ground without having to disrupt the environment. After all, it only takes money, not time or talent or research or physical possibility.

I recognize that this technology would be otherwise completely useless to a company specializing in extracting oil from the ground, but WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE OTTERS???

Maybe they could invent some sort of nanotechnological device that "consumes" the oil and uses the energy to make more devices. Something about the size of a microbe would do the trick...

The methods of clean up at the time of the spill have a great deal to do with this.
If someone tried to do a cleanup today the way it was done then the EPA would come down so hard on the responders it would make FARK.

moveon.org

... and Exxon still hasn't paid a CENT.

That picture of the fatass Exxon guy makes me mad. I stare at it and ooze hate. That's all.

so, the valdez tanker is still there or not?

If they don't wanna pay, make them and their families swim in those waters every day until they pay. I think they would pay then.

I love the comment that Exxon has paid for studies that show no long term impact. Does this remind anyone of the cigarette industry paying for studies that show smoking does not make you sick? Or how about companies paying for studies that global warming is a farce?

2007-02-04 07:25:05 AM rackrent

And from the other thread...yet another example why the United States everyone is more about its own economic benefit than its responsibility the world around them.

Fixed it you narcissistic idiot.

Let me correct myself by saying that Exxon did not spend $39 billion on clean up, got the $30 million figure to repair the ship confused with their gross earnings (not net) for 2006.

Exxon has set aside $5.4 billion, which has been collecting interest since 1994, but has not paid out as Rav Tokomi stated.

kqc7011:

The methods of clean up at the time of the spill have a great deal to do with this.
If someone tried to do a cleanup today the way it was done then the EPA would come down so hard on the responders it would make FARK.

Exxon is that you?? EXXOOOOONNNN, oh man, it's been a long time since the last reunion, you know with those laughs you did in 89' with the drunken Captain and the ship and all. Oh man you were a savage what you did to Alaska. But now look at you, richest company in the world and still denying you have not even a remote connection to the upcoming apocalypse!

Oh don't worry, i'm sure you'll create some sort of way to get out of this one without having to pay your proper dues. Like now, you're blaming the good natured people who actually took the time to fix the enviroment you nearly destroyed, man if your dad could see you now he would be so happy! But enough about Standard Oil, what the hell are you doing in the Middle East man? Getting a entire country to support a war on an ideal so you can go behind their backs and increase your control over the life blood that runs your company, man you're a savage!

I mean, I am sure you'll find that only a small fraction of the money you got in profits could be used to clean up the spill and reimburse those whose lives were ruined by the spill, but you need more drinking money man! Hell, you don't want to ADMIT to what you did, that would set a precedent that says that even corporations, as a cooperative body of humans, are liable for crimes they commit, not just individual humans. Well, don't worry Exxon, if the human race doesn't kill ourselves over these wars of OIL and "war on terror," then we'll see you again in 20 years. You'll probably be trying to tell us that you knew all along oil was running out and that it's a good thing you oil companies have bought the corn genes so you can be the exclusive grower of our future fuel supply.

Take care Exxon, see you in 20 years... I think.