Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by mrpg on Saturday November 25 2017, @12:23PM   Printer-friendly
from the what-could-go-wrong? dept.

A major oil-by-rail terminal proposed on the Columbia River in Washington state poses a potential risk of oil spills, train accidents and longer emergency response times due to road traffic, an environmental study has found.

Many of the risks could be decreased with certain mitigation measures, but the study released Tuesday outlined four areas where it said the impacts are significant and cannot be avoided.

The study said that while "the likelihood of occurrence of the potential for oil spills may be low, the consequences of the events could be severe."

[...] The study identified the four risks that could not be avoided as train accidents, the emergency response delays, negative impacts of the project on low-income communities and the possibility that an earthquake would damage the facility's dock and cause an oil spill.

Washington state panel outlines risk of oil-by-rail terminal


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:42PM (1 child)

    by frojack (1554) on Saturday November 25 2017, @08:42PM (#601492) Journal

    Even the hugest oil spills, the ones with loud predictions of "planet-ending impact any minute now",

    Who predicted that? I'm thinking nobody did, at least not seriously.

    You remember when Iraq lit all the oil wells on fire? [wikipedia.org]

    There was a lot of such predictions at that time by deadly serious people that it was the end of life in the entire middle east region, if not everywhere on earth. From learned people [cwsl.edu] and government leaders and environmental groups.

    They somehow overlooked the fact that ALL of that oil was destined to be burned anyway, and became indignant and accusatory when you pointed this out to them.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @01:46PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 27 2017, @01:46PM (#602051)

    > You remember when Iraq lit all the oil wells on fire?

    I hadn't; hank you for reminding me.

    > predictions at that time by deadly serious people that it was the end of life in the entire middle east region, if not everywhere on earth.

    Some of the predictions were about as dire as that; others less so. In the document you linked:

    The United Nations Environment Program (UNEP) issued the following caution: "What is being destroyed today-and the damage which has been and could be caused could stay with us-all of us-for a very long time. It will affect generations to come [...]

    There wouldn't be any generations to come, if it were the end of life.

    If [300 to 500 wells--in actuality there were more fires than that] were ignited and burned out of control for several months, I believe you would begin to see environmental consequences in . . . Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and India

    said one of the authors [baltimoresun.com] of the nuclear winter hypothesis.

    > They somehow overlooked the fact that ALL of that oil was destined to be burned anyway

    If it were burned in a controlled manner, much of the sulfur would be removed instead of going into the air, and there would be much less soot.

    The other commenter asserted

    Even the hugest oil spills, the ones with loud predictions of "planet-ending impact any minute now", have not left any lasting damage to the environment.

    Wikipedia's "Gulf War oil spill" article says the accompanying oil spill was the largest ever, with little attempt at clean-up. It quotes a geographer's report from 2001:

    The salt marshes which occur at almost 50% of the coastline show the heaviest impact compared to the other ecosystem types after 10 years. Completely recovered are the rocky shores and mangroves. [...] Full recovery of the salt marshes will certainly need some centuries.

    There was damage after 10 years, which was predicted to last much longer.