Another Alaskan Oil Spill

Bunker fuel is nasty stuff. Not too much different from crude.

 

i cant help but wonder how many risks are taken, how many shortcuts used, and how much damage we are willing to do to our environment just to get what is becoming increasingly more expensive and profitable to those who retreive it.

 

Hundreds of ships each month follow the great circle route, according to the article, and this takes them through these sensitive areas. No matter what precautions you take, there will be accidents. But it is just plain stupid to allow that kind of traffic through such areas.

Obviously, the owners want to take the shortest route. But why do we, as a nation, permit it?

Either outlaw shipping traffic through that area, or require that every ship passing through carry sufficient insurance to pay for the entire cleanup (which would probably make a longer route more cost-effective).

 

hmmm... i dont know if i can solely fault the ship owners...

they had a double hull ship.

the fault i believe lies either with the ship not maintaining the ship causing engine failure, its not notifying authorities sooner, or the Coast Guard's being unprepared for what i believe is a scenario that was bound to happen and that is a large ship in bad weather (do they have any other kind in that area at that time of year???) losing control.

the fault most likely is shared among several failings besides the ones i've mentioned.

unfortunately, this smacks of the Exxon Valdez where they say they have safeguards in place, but the cost of maintaining a ready force is not done because of the size and remoteness of Alaska, its much higher cost of living, and the fact that the oil companies feel that they have spent enough money by paying Alaska for the oil in the first place and shouldnt have to do anything else (heaven forbid that they should give up a piece of their 165 BILLION in profits last year... an estimated 45 Billion from Alaska alone. that is more than Toyota, Microsoft, and Intel combined.)

 

Dave: This was not an oil tanker. It was a cargo ship carrying soybeans. What spilled was its fuel.

The owners are responsible for choosing to cut costs by taking the shortest route, through sensitive regions, rather than a longer route through open ocean, where there are fewer things for an out-of-control ship to bump into.

And our government is at fault for permitting hundreds of ships to take this route every month, thus guaranteeing some statistical number of disasters.

 

Daniel,

that's what I thought as well at first, but the original story stated that:

"The ship was carrying 440,000 gallons of heavy bunker oil and about 30,000 gallons of fuel. "

 

ya so far... however it was a tanker and it does have nearly half a million gallons of fuel on board and it is still out there.