Chevron verses the volcano

[Larv]

This has got to be one of the worst ideas the oil industry ever came up with. Chevron’s “inherited” crude-oil storage facility at Drift River sits smack dab in the middle of Mt. Redoubt’s eruption plume. Some say it could be Alaska’s next Exxon Valdez.

It’s not good to store your precious energy reserves downstream from an active volcano. Oil, lava and water do not mix well; they must have known that. What were they thinking anyway?

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by Larv

This has got to be one of the worst ideas the oil industry ever came up with. Chevron’s “inherited” crude-oil storage facility at Drift River sits smack dab in the middle of Mt. Redoubt’s eruption plume. Some say it could be Alaska’s next Exxon Valdez.

It’s not good to store your precious energy reserves downstream from an active volcano. Oil, lava and water do not mix well; they must have known that. What were they thinking anyway?

Well, looks like it was built in 1966, and there wasn't a lot known then about volcanos. A lot still not known today, as no one can predict an eruption such as Redoubt's yet.

I'd say that another danger is as bad there in the inlet that they would have known about and that is a tsunami, as the Alaska quake of 1964 was history then. Live and learn.

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Turtle

Well, looks like it was built in 1966, and there wasn't a lot known then about volcanos. A lot still not known today, as no one can predict an eruption such as Redoubt's yet.

You're right about that. And the AK pipeline wasn't finished until 1977. As such, crude oil storage just about anywhere in AK has to be both necessary and problematical.

I'd say that another danger is as bad there in the inlet that they would have known about and that is a tsunami, as the Alaska quake of 1964 was history then. Live and learn.

This is why the science of comprehensive risk assessment needs a lot of work.

[Buffy]

Originally Posted by Larv

This is why the science of comprehensive risk assessment needs a lot of work.

It's most often not a problem of the "science of comprehensive risk assessment" being in error, but the politicians (and the public who pressure them because they don't want to have to pay for it) who disregard perfectly good assessments...

Only two things you ignore: things that aren't important and things you wish weren't important, and wishing never works,
Buffy

[Larv]

Originally Posted by Buffy

It's most often not a problem of the "science of comprehensive risk assessment" being in error, but the politicians (and the public who pressure them because they don't want to have to pay for it) who disregard perfectly good assessments...

I have to agree with this. Once I worked on an EIS for US Borax’s Quartz Hill molybdenum mining proposal in southeast AK. The mine was to be located in the pristine Misty Fjords region of the Tongass National Forest. US Borax wanted to fill two adjacent fjords half way up with mill tailings, and the U.S. Forest Service was claiming that the project would cause “no significant impact.” I saw things quite differently: the benthos of both fjords would be severely impacted, of course, not to mention the water chemistry. But that all happened during the Reagan administration, and the EPA, along with the state of AK, gave it a pass.

However, as soon as Clinton took over the presidency his EPA director, along with AK’s equivalent administrator, reversed the EIS decision and scotched the project. The reason: soluble heavy metals in the mill tailings would violate AK’s water quality standards (which, btw, I predicted but was shouted down).

So, you’re right, politics makes al the difference. As such, shouldn’t a coefficient for politics be added to all comprehensive risk-assessment models? But how?

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Larv

This has got to be one of the worst ideas the oil industry ever came up with. Chevron’s “inherited” crude-oil storage facility at Drift River sits smack dab in the middle of Mt. Redoubt’s eruption plume.

I’m not sure I agree it’s the worst idea the oil industry ever came up with, but IMHO it’s one of the new business’s most underreported stories! Thanks, Larv, for bringing it up.

Originally Posted by Larv

It’s not good to store your precious energy reserves downstream from an active volcano.

If you look at the Drift River Terminal Facility surroundings – the northwest shore of Cook Inlet – you’ll see there isn’t a lot of it that isn’t in near a volcano, so I’m not sure any location on that shore is a good place for any permanent structure.

Originally Posted by Larv

Oil, lava and water do not mix well; they must have known that. What were they thinking anyway?

Apparently its not oil, lava and water that don’t mix well, but oil tanks, mud, and water, as the Mt. Redoubt eruptions don’t produce lava flows, but mud and water floods – “lahars”. Not quite as bad as lava, but quite able to demolish oil tanks, or almost any other building in their path.

Interestingly, according to reports linked from the preceeding wikipedia article, something like this happened 1989/1990, damaging the facility and resulting in the construction of dikes to protect the oil tanks, which so far have protected them from the lahars and flash floods caused by these most recent eruptions.

Originally Posted by Larv

Some say it could be Alaska’s next Exxon Valdez.

As of 4/10, the bay should be safe from oil spills from the Drift River terminal, because it’s been emptied via tanker ship of its 87,600 barrels of crude oil (it’s a fairly small holding, not a large storage facility). Plans to ballast its tanks with seawater to prevent them from being uprooted if their dikes are overwhelmed by lahar or water flooding were abandoned because no plan to dispose of the contaminated water afterwards was feasible, so the tanks are now full of mostly air, and very vulnerable.