A container ship larger than the Titanic collided with San Francisco's Bay Bridge on Wednesday, tearing a 160-foot gash in its hull and spilling at least 58,000 gallons of oil. The leak nauseated some bystanders, closed down beaches and fishing, and could threaten the health of seals, birds, and other wildlife. The spilled substance, known as bunker oil, "tends to be rather heavy, and it doesn't float as well as other oil. It's harder to contain," says Wil Bruhns, supervising engineer of the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board. Several agencies are looking into the accident, including the Coast Guard. "By our guidelines it is a medium-sized spill," said Coast Guard Capt. William Uberti, captain of the Port of San Francisco and the investigation's chief federal officer. "But in the San Francisco Bay Area, that is a big deal." On a happier note, the bridge wasn't damaged. So nauseated commuters have got that going for them.
source: San Francisco Chronicle, MSNBC
Obama headed to Copenhagen, sets the bar for success
‘Copenhagen Diagnosis’ offers a grim update to the IPCC’s climate science
Comments
View as Threaded
viejonico Posted 9:29 pm
10 Nov 2007
This oil fuel leaks are unacceptable. This type of spill makes headlines because of where it happened. Only God knows what happens in the high seas.
Freighters are also a danger to marine mammals, particularly to whales. Far too many die as a result of collisions.
This needs to stop now!
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 12:47 am
11 Nov 2007
Why? Because they don't want to set a precedent of actually paying for damages.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 1:22 am
11 Nov 2007
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill#Litigation
Exxon spent an estimated $2 billion cleaning up the spill, along with a further $1 billion to settle civil and criminal charges related to the case.
Regarding the 1994 Baker vs. Exxon case (same link):
Exxon [...] appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which on October 29, 2007 has agreed to decide whether Exxon Mobil Corp. should pay the $2.5 billion in punitive damages. The case will likely be heard in the spring of 2008.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:15 am
11 Nov 2007
news.google.com/news?q=Russian+oil+tanker
Five-metre (16-feet) high waves smashed apart a Russian tanker on Sunday, spilling 1300 tonnes of fuel oil into the Black Sea in what a Russian official said was an "environmental disaster."
Permalink
chuck kottke Posted 2:28 am
13 Nov 2007
Bunker fuel is heavy stuff - come out near the bottom of the column in the refinery; it takes serious high-compression engines, and pre-heating just to run an engine on it.
Now, if that ship were powered by biofuel in its rawest form - lets say fuel pellets made from sawdust or switchgrass; or even just small wood chunks - what would be the worst? Lots of bits of driftwood? Hmm.. now there's fuel for thought!
Permalink
chuck kottke Posted 2:35 am
13 Nov 2007
Yes, oil is risky stuff! If we factor in these ugly externalities, it might not look so cheap.. How do you undo the damage? No real way - once it's spilled; it's there. - better to not run the risk, and change sooner!!
Permalink