Showing posts with label environmental impact. Show all posts
Showing posts with label environmental impact. Show all posts

Monday, December 14, 2015

Company plans gravel island to extract Arctic offshore oil

Northstar Island, an artificial island in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, is a site of oil and gas drilling. (U.S. Department of the Interior)
Northstar Island, an artificial island in the Beaufort Sea north of Alaska, is a site of oil and gas drilling. (U.S. Department of the Interior)
ANCHORAGE, Alaska (AP) — Arctic offshore drilling by Royal Dutch Shell PLC drew protests on two continents this year, but a more modest proposal for extracting petroleum where polar bears roam has moved forward with much less attention.

While Shell proposed exploratory wells in the Chukchi Sea about 80 miles off Alaska's northwest coast, a Texas oil company wants to build a gravel island as a platform for five or more extraction wells that could tap oil 6 miles from shore in the Beaufort Sea.

The U.S. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is deciding how to assess the environmental effect of a production plan for the Liberty Project by Hilcorp Alaska LLC, a subsidiary of Houston-based Hilcorp Energy Co.

A successful well would mean the first petroleum production in federal Arctic waters.

Hilcorp's plan for a 23-acre gravel island, about the size of 17.4 football fields, has drawn mixed reviews from conservationists and outright condemnation from environmentalists who believe the oil should stay in the ground.

Global warming is melting sea ice habitat beneath polar bears, walrus and ice seals, said Kristen Monsell, an attorney for the Center for Biological Diversity.

"The impacts of an oil spill on top of that could be devastating and would be nearly impossible to clean up," she said.....

....Hilcorp would create the island in Foggy Island Bay, 15 miles east of Prudhoe Bay, the largest oil field in North America. Last year, Hilcorp purchased 50 percent of Liberty assets from BP Exploration Alaska, which drilled at the site in 1997 and discovered an estimated 120 million barrels of recoverable oil.

BP considered building a gravel island and also "ultra-extended reach drilling" from shore. The drilling type was deemed technically unfeasible, Hilcorp spokeswoman Lori Nelson said.

Hilcorp would place conventional wells on the island, positioning them over the oil bearing rock sitting under the ocean floor.

"It's proven to be a safe and effective means for oil and gas development in the Arctic," Nelson said by email. "Alaska has a 30-year record of safely operating offshore in the Arctic."....

....For the Liberty project, trucks carrying gravel would travel by ice road to a hole cut in sea ice. The trucks would deposit 83,000 cubic yards of gravel into 19 feet of water. The work surface would be 9.3 acres surrounded by a wall, providing a barrier to ice, waves and wildlife.....

....Residents, Epstein said, worry that islands will affect the migration patterns of bowhead whales harvested by subsistence hunters. Because the oil would come from federal waters, residents would not see revenues, but would be the ones most harmed by any spill.

The project is near the Beaufort Boulder Patch, an area of undersea boulders where kelp and algae grow in contrast to the otherwise soft ocean bottom.

The environmental review won't be completed until at least 2017, and production could be several more years off.

At the end of production, Hilcorp says it would plug the wells and remove slope protection, allowing ice and waves to erode the island.    entire article here

 

Friday, December 11, 2015

U.S. Not Prepared for Tar Sands Oil Spills, National Study Finds

U.S. Not Prepared for Tar Sands Oil Spills, National Study Finds

By Codi Kozacek, Circle of Blue, 10 December, 2015 
 
Report urges new regulations, research, and technology to respond to spills of diluted bitumen.

Oil gathers in a sheen near the banks of the Kalamazoo River more than a week after a spill 
of crude oil, including tar sands oil, from Enbridge Inc.’s Line 6B pipeline in 2010. It was the 
largest inland oil spill in U.S. history. Photo courtesy Sam LaSusa

Spills of heavy crude oil from western Canada’s tar sands are more difficult to clean up than other types of conventional oil, particularly if the spill occurs in water, a new study by a high-level committee of experts found. Moreover, current regulations governing emergency response plans for oil spills in the United States are inadequate to address spills of tar sands oil.

The study by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine confirmed what scientists, emergency responders, and conservationists knew anecdotally from a major oil spill that contaminated Michigan’s Kalamazoo River in 2010 and another spill in Mayflower, Arkansas in 2013. Tar sands crude, called diluted bitumen, becomes denser and stickier than other types of oil after it spills from a pipeline, sinking to the bottom of rivers, lakes, and estuaries and coating vegetation instead of floating on top of the water.

“[Diluted bitumen] weathers to a denser material, and it’s stickier, and that’s a problem. It’s a distinct problem that makes it different from other crude.”
–Diane McKnight, Chair 
Committee on the Effects of Diluted Bitumen on the Environment

“The long-term risk associated with the weathered bitumen is the potential for that [oil] becoming submerged and sinking into water bodies where it gets into the sediments,” Diane McKnight, chair of the committee that produced the study and a professor of engineering at the University of Colorado Boulder, told Circle of Blue. “And then those sediments can become resuspended and move further downstream and have consequences not only at the ecosystem level but also in terms of water supply.”

“It weathers to a denser material, and it’s stickier, and that’s a problem. It’s a distinct problem that makes it different from other crude.” McKnight added. Weathering is what happens after oil is spilled and exposed to sunlight, water, and other elements. In order to flow through pipelines, tar sands crude oil is mixed with lighter oils, which evaporate during the weathering process. In a matter of days, what is left of the diluted bitumen can sink.

The study’s findings come amid an expansion in unconventional fuels development and transport in North America. Over the past decade, Canada became the world’s fifth largest crude oil producer by developing the Alberta tar sands. U.S. imports of Canadian crude, much of it from tar sands, increased 58 percent over the past decade, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.

Though oil prices are at a seven-year low, and market turbulence is expected to persist for several more years, tar sands developers are working to double the current tar sands oil production — around 2.2 million barrels per day — by 2030. Pipelines to transport all of the new oil are expanding too, producing a greater risk of spills.

Whether tar sands producers achieve that level of oil supply is not assured. Public pressure is mounting in Canada and the United States to rein in tar sands development due to considerable environmental damage and heavy carbon emissions. U.S. President Barack Obama last month scrapped the Keystone XL pipeline, an 800,000-barrel-per-day project to move crude oil from Canada’s tar sands to Gulf of Mexico refineries. An international movement to divest from fossil fuels and a legally binding global deal to cut carbon emissions –if it is signed in Paris– could curb demand for tar sands oil.                                    continued below


Sunday, November 8, 2015

2nd train derails in Wisconsin in 2 days, spills crude oil

2nd train derails in Wisconsin in 2 days, spills crude oil

 November 08, 2015 Associated Press

A Canadian Pacific Railway train carrying crude oil derailed Sunday and prompted some evacuations in Wisconsin, the second day in a row a freight train derailed in the state.
The eastbound CP train derailed about 2 p.m. in Watertown, in the southeastern part of the state. The railroad said at least 10 cars derailed, and some were leaking.....

.... "CP takes this incident extremely seriously," the railroad said in a news release. The company did not say how much oil spilled.

Federal investigators and hazardous material specialists are on their way to the scene, the Federal Railroad Administration said in a tweet.

Residents of about 35 homes were asked to evacuate around 4 p.m., said Donna Haugom, director of the Jefferson County Office of Emergency Management.....  more here

Kalamazoo oil spill clean-up

Risky Shale Oil-by-Rail Expands Despite Lack of Spill Response Preparedness

By Justin Mikulka • Sunday, November 1, 2015    DeSmogBlog

The worst onshore oil spill in United States history was the Kalamazoo River tar sands pipeline spill in 2010 with estimates of one million gallons of oil spilled. In comparison, the oil-by-rail accident in Lac-Megantic, Quebec was 50% bigger.

With the oil-by-rail industry proposing large expansions to West Coast destinations, it is understandable that some local communities are worried about the risks of a spill causing major environmental damage and threatening human health.

While the fiery explosions get the most attention when it comes to oil train accidents, the trains also have resulted in some of the largest oil spills in North America. And that oil is usually ending up in waterways.

In Lac-Megantic, 1.5 million gallons of oil spilled with some of it ending up in the nearby lake and river. In Aliceville, Alabama it was 750,000 gallons that ended up in wetlands. In Mount Carbon, W.Va. it was approximately 400,000 gallons on the banks of the Kanawha River. In Gogama, Ontario ruptured rail tank cars ended up in the water. Just like in Lynchburg, Virginia. And the spill in Galenas, Illinois was noted to pose “imminent and substantial danger” to the Mississippi River.

People trained as first responders to marine oil spills are very clear that the speed of the response is critical for minimizing damage. On the website for the Marine Spill Response Corporation it clearly states, “During an oil spill, time is of the essence!”

Of course, the volatile nature of the Bakken crude oil means that the current recommended approach to dealing with a Bakken oil train that has derailed and is leaking and on fire is to evacuate everyone within a half-mile radius and then let the train burn — sometimes for days.

Meanwhile in January of 2014 the National Transportation Safety Board put out a safety recommendation about the current state of oil response planning for the rail industry that stated:
oil spill response planning requirements for rail transportation of oil/petroleum products are practically nonexistent compared with other modes of transportation.”
Large oil spills resulting in dangerous fires and explosions that make quick response impossible — and yet response plans are still practically non-existent. It would seem like a recipe for disaster.

But there is a bit of hope on the horizon. The current Transportation bill approved by the House of Representatives includes requirements for actual spill response planning for oil-by-rail transportation.

Of course, since this involves the rail industry, the bill will allow the rail companies to keep the plans secret, so really there isn’t much hope at all.

This secrecy might not be as much of an issue if recent industry oil spill response plans hadn’t proven such a joke.

BP’s response plan for the Gulf of Mexico prior to the Deepwater Horizon disaster included advice on how to deal with walruses. And a link the company provided for “primary equipment providers for BP in the Gulf of Mexico Region [for] rapid deployment of spill response resources on a 24 hour, 7 days a week basis” was actually a link to a Japanese home shopping website.

It is no wonder the oil industry wants to keep its spill response plans secret, as they don’t hold up well to scrutiny. And apparently the government agencies responsible for reviewing them aren’t spending much time on the details.

 

Who Would Pay For a Worst-Case Oil-by-Rail Disaster? Not the Rail Industry


In another recent win for the rail companies, a court in Washington ruled that companies planning to build and expand oil-by-rail facilities “do not need to prove they have the financial resources to cover a worst-case scenario accident before receiving state permits.”

With this industry-friendly regulatory environment, it isn’t surprising that there is strong opposition to several new oil-by-rail facilities planned for the West Coast.

The Port of Grays Harbor in Washington is one planned location for facilities that could bring in up to fourteen unit trains of crude oil a week. The public comment period for that project is currently open and many community members are calling for a full environmental impact assessment for the projects. That’s something that wasn’t required for many existing oil-by-rail facilities on both the East and West coasts as they were approved without the public’s knowledge and regulators approved the projects without thoroughly reviewing potential environmental impacts.

The potential environmental damage of a catastrophic oil train accident exceeds the worst pipeline spill ever, and yet the oil-by-rail industry continues to expand without any response plans in place. In other words, business as usual.

In April, DeSmog reported on the testimony of Rep. Jackie Speier (D-CA) during a hearing on regulation of the pipeline and rail industries. She has fought for improved pipeline safety since 2010 when a pipeline explosion in her district killed eight people and burned down a neighborhood. In her testimony, she stated that “the system is fundamentally broken.”

And so the oil-by-rail industry will continue to expand with a broken regulatory system and non-existent spill response preparation. And the regulators have predicted that they expect an average of ten derailments per year for the next twenty years.

Odds are the Kalamazoo River oil spill won’t hold the record for largest spill for much longer.





BNSF Train Derails in Alma, WI, Voluntary Evacuation Lifted, Ethanol Spills in River

UPDATE: Train Derails in Alma, WI, Voluntary Evacuation Lifted, BNSF Working to Clean Up Leaks 

Updated: 11/07/2015 11:22 PM    KAALtv.com     video at site

(KSTP) -- UPDATE: Emergency crews were on the scene of a train derailment in western Wisconsin that closed highways and prompted a voluntary evacuation of nearby residents.

"Truthfully, I've always been concerned something like this might happen," said Patti Stinson of Buffalo City who was taking pictures of the train on Saturday.

A statement from BNSF Railway said 25 cars derailed roughly two miles north of Alma, Wisconsin, at approximately 8:45 a.m. Saturday.

"You assume the worst. You never know when it involves the water either," said Chief Deputy Colin Severson from the Buffalo County Sheriff's Office.

The cars included empty auto racks and tanker cars of denatured alcohol, more commonly known as ethanol, according to the statement.

"They're working on stabilizing the cars and cleaning them up," Severson said.

BNSF said there are no reports of fire, smoke or injuries. Parts of two state highways were closed due to the incident, but were then re-opened in the afternoon.

"In this case everybody responded very quickly," Severson said.

The Buffalo County Sheriff's office said the Alma American Legion was set up for those who left their homes.

Many locals say they had no idea there was potential for a serious threat, therefore staying put, disregarding the voluntary evacuation......   more here

 

Witness describes Alma train derailment

Five tankers leaked unknown amount of ethanol into Mississippi River

Updated On: Nov 08 2015   News8000.com      video at site


ALMA, Wis. (WKBT) -  No one is injured after a train derailed in Buffalo County Saturday morning.

Just before 9 a.m, the Buffalo County Sheriff's Department said 32 cars fell off the tracks near Highway 35 and County Road I, about 2 miles north of Alma.

The Sheriff's Department said five of the cars were carrying ethanol that leaked into the Mississippi River. The leaks have been contained, but officials are not sure how much ethanol entered the water........   more here

  

 

Sunday, October 18, 2015

Did the DEIS's properly address your scoping comment??

by Arnie Martin,   Citizens for a Clean Harbor

The draft Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the Westway Expansion Project and the Imperium Terminal Services Expansion Project [crude oil terminals] in Grays Harbor, were published Aug 31, 2015,  starting  the  60-day public comment period. The comment period starts August 31, 2015 and ends October 29, 2015.


The scoping comments made 2 years ago were to be a guide for the Department of Ecology in writing the Environmental Impact Study (EIS).

Now is the time to go back and look at the scoping comment(s) you submitted back in 2013/2014.

1. Review your scoping comments (comments are in Volume 2, Appendix A). 
    a.       Search for your comments by expanding the “Appendix A” list by clicking on the “+” to its left, then clicking on “Index of Comment Submissions Sorted by Commenter Name”, then scroll down to your name.
    b.      Carefully review your comment(s).

2. Were your concerns addressed in the draft EIS?
    a.       Search (using your exact words in the scoping comment – or a subset of those words) to find what the DEIS says in response to your comment.
    b.      Using “Ctrl” – “Shift” – “F” is the best way to find something buried in the text of the Volume 1.

3. Were your concerns adequately resolved?
    a.      Has the DEIS put in requirements that would have the project proponents change their plans to reduce the effects of the problem addressed in your comment?           
    b.      Does the DEIS just add some words that say that occurrence is “very unlikely” or “highly unlikely”. 
    c.      Does the DEIS simply have a sentence that states: “Compliance with the applicable regulations and permits described above is expected to reduce impacts on land and shoreline use. There would be no unavoidable and significant adverse impacts.” ?
    d.      Does the DEIS fail totally to mention your concerns?
    e.      Be aware that the studies used to prepare the DEIS are included in volumes 2 and 3.

4. Responding to the DEIS
    a.       If you don’t believe that such comments adequately address the concerns you raised in the scoping comment, call their attention to the comment, using the comment submission number assigned to your comment. 
    b.      Point out the inadequacy of their DEIS, relative to your scoping comment. They will have to respond to your comment, and modify the DEIS text for incorporation into the Final EIS.
  
Both Draft EISs are available on the Ecology website, www.ecy.wa.gov/GraysHarbor. In addition to the draft documents, the website also has links to fact sheets in English and Spanish. These fact sheets summarize key issue areas, the environmental review process, and the Westway and the Imperium [ now REG] expansion projects. The website has information on submitting comments and a link to the online comment form.

Comments that do not identify a specific project will be considered for both projects. All comments are valued equally.  Comments can be submitted:

By mail at:
Westway and Imperium Terminal Services Expansion Projects EISs
c/o ICF International
710 Second Street, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98104

Online at: https://public.commentworks.com/cwx/westwayimperiumcommentform/


Monday, October 5, 2015

Earthjustice DEIS Comment Letter- sign on opportunity


https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOxPybTtpYcIwMK2FsMnAhyphenhyphenWdY7FjtEitAX2afzwGrR5Aju2DQHdulmV_s4iMGcSYVqzLEQ1VQ4o3XkwweArdlfm5ApcCgk6RFSe5IJtzc5QLx_DU872iKvv40mfkhVwLCkbFqH_5pYkCW/s1600/Elma+DEIS+012.JPG
 Elma DEIS hearing, Oct 1, 2015

The letter below addresses the threat to our region posed by the proposed oil terminals in Grays Harbor, and has links that connect to an EJ comment letter to Ecology and the city of Hoquiam asking that the permits be rejected. Your comments at the petition site will be added to a general letter and forwarded on as official comment. 

Thursday Oct 8th will be the Aberdeen DEIS hearing where you can give comments in person. The hearing will be held at the D&R Theatre, 205 South I Street, Aberdeen, WA 98520
Rally at 5:00 pm in front of the D&R Theater! wear red
 
The hearing will have two sessions, from 1:30 – 4:30 pm and then again at 6:00 – 9:00pm.  Please attend one or both. The future of the Washington Coast is at risk.

See info herehere and here for fact sheets and info on submitting written comments.

Please share this important link with your friends and neighbors!

Home

Dear Friends:
We have a chance to stand up to the oil industry now and slow the dangerous expansion of oil transport in Washington.

Oil companies want to expand their Northwest operations by building oil shipping terminals on Washington’s coast and turning our region into a thoroughfare for crude oil transportation by rail and oil tanker.

Take action now to stop two terminals proposed for Grays Harbor, Washington, and protect your community from increased crude oil rail traffic, oil spills and carbon pollution. 

The proposed oil shipping terminals; the explosive, dangerous oil trains needed to feed them; and the continual parade of oil tankers and barges taking the crude over thriving marine waters would put the health and safety of communities, the local economy, tribal culture, and our ocean and coastlines at risk.

This is not the future we want.

A public comment period is underway right now on draft environmental reviews of the risks and harms from the proposed Westway and Imperium terminals in Grays Harbor. Let the Washington Department of Ecology and the City of Hoquiam know that we understand the risks we face with these oil industry proposals, and we don’t think they’re worth it.

The draft environmental reviews found that the risks of oil spills during rail transport, at the terminal site, and during marine vessel transport through Grays Harbor cannot be fully mitigated, and that if a spill occurred, the environmental damage would be significant.

Whether you live five or five hundred miles from Grays Harbor, the oil industry plans to bring more dangerous types of oil through the region, including volatile Bakken crude and toxic tar sands from Canada, increasing the risk of a derailment, collision, spill, fire, or explosion…putting people in Washington at risk.

There’s still time to stop these projects, but to win, we need to your help!

Take action now, then share this alert with five of your friends. Together we can protect our Northwest communities! 
 
Sincerely,
Kristen Boyles 
Attorney
Earthjustice, Northwest Office 
 

 

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Grays Harbor DEIS comment resources and hearing info




Check out these talking points and lists of adverse impacts to help us with DEIS comments- both at the hearings, and in written form. There's plenty to comment about!!

Oil terminals proposed for Grays Harbor would have significant adverse impacts

Dirty and Dangerous Crude Oil Terminals Proposed in Grays Harbor
 
The draft Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for the Westway Expansion Project and the Imperium Terminal Services Expansion Project [oil terminals] have been released and the  comment period starts August 31, 2015 and ends October 29, 2015.

Both Draft EISs are available on the Ecology website, www.ecy.wa.gov/GraysHarbor. In addition to the draft documents, the website also has links to fact sheets in English and Spanish. These fact sheets summarize key issue areas, the environmental review process, and the Westway and the Imperium expansion projects. The website has information on submitting comments and a link to the online comment form.


Public comments will be accepted-

By mail at:
Westway and Imperium Terminal Services Expansion Projects EISs
c/o ICF International
710 Second Street, Suite 550
Seattle, WA 98104

Online at: https://public.commentworks.com/cwx/westwayimperiumcommentform
 IMPORTANT NOTE email Subject Line to Ecology and City of Hoquiam needs to be: “Westway and Imperium crude oil-by-rail terminal EISs”

In person at a public hearing orally or in writing.


Public Hearings October 1 & 8

Each hearing has two comment sessions


October 1, Satsop Business Park, Elma

                                      Flextech Bldg. (Bldg. 100) 150 Technology Way                                               
                                                 First comment session:        1:30-4:30 PM 
                                                 Second comment session:    6:00-9:00 PM

October 8, D&R Theater, Aberdeen

205 I Street, between Heron and Wishkah

                                                 First comment session:        1:30-4:30 PM 
                                                 Second comment session:    6:00-9:00 PM

                         JOIN THE RALLY@ 5 PM, Aberdeen  wear red

More info:  Contact CCH at cleangraysharbor@gmail.com  
http://cleanharbor.org