It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Nature reserve threatened by waste oil

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 06:19 AM
link   
Andrei Glotov, Deputy Manager of the nature reserve "Nenetskii" says, unless urgent precautions are taken, the Kovorinski Bay in the Pechora river will be seriously polluted!
A nearby oil waste reservoir needs securing. Any spring flooding could make the walls of the reservoirs collapse, and cause a massive environmental disaster in not only the river, but also in the adjacent Barents Sea.
Glotov believes that it will cost ca. 1,8 million rubels to secure the reservoir only this spring!

The oil reservoir stems from the Kuzhma-9 gas condensate well, where an accident in 1980 caused an explosion and subsequent spill of oil and gas to the surrounding nature. To extinguish the fire and stop the gas emission, Soviet authorities in 1982 blew up an underground nuclear bomb!

The closed up polluted area is 50,000 m2 big!

Imho, we don't need to spill this spill do we? 65,000$ aren't that much, Can't any multibillionaires be so nice to do something useful with their money, instead of giving it to organizations, to have their taxes decreased? Please? You might even get friendly with the locals as a bonus!
They will surely guide you on good hunting safari's where it isn't all that polluted!




Related links:
BarentsObserver
Arnews

Click for larger picture.



Mod edit: Fixed image-tags

[edit on 2007/5/27 by Hellmutt]




posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:27 AM
link   
Wow, that can be pretty devastating. I'm not familiar with the politics in that region. Can the people show protest by contacting Elected officials?



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 10:54 AM
link   
am i to understand that this threat is the result of an accident in 1982? if it is why hasn't something been done with it in the last 23 years?

i'm not sure what the differance between oil and waste oil is in this case? i have to assume that it is contaminated with water and other chemicals. or is it in fact radio active due to the use of a nuke?

could this waste oil not be prosessed and used? even the oil that is waste oil from cars is recycled and is able to be reused. after all oil is a valuble commodity far too valuble to just leave sitting arround.

if there is anymore info on this it would be helpfull as the first soure dosn't have any info other than stateing the problem of leakge. the second article is in what i asume is russian language that i am unable to read.



posted on Apr, 4 2005 @ 04:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by drogo
am i to understand that this threat is the result of an accident in 1982? if it is why hasn't something been done with it in the last 23 years?


Why something hasn't been done, is hard to do a one-liner about!
Shortly said, they can't. Don't have the money, don't have the people. The tundra is very vulnerable to any pollution. Most military installations are abandoned, no industry, and the environment is harsh. Corruption from bottom to top. Priorities of harvesting money. Since Russia became all that glasnost and perestrojka, privatization has become a number 1 hit. Lukoil knows this... "Largest oil company in Russia with over 10 trillion barrels in proven reserves, fully integrated from exploration and drilling to distribution and retail."
The Russians are poor people, but those gits that has some money are as usual more interested in a fast increase of their income, than in environmetal issues. Putin & Co. are also sending law enforcement officers and soldiers to do "peacekeeping" down in Tjetsjenia/Chechny. This is btw another example on how big governments relocate their chesspieces from one place of the country to another, to damb up their unpopularity of their descisions. I think I am going to make another post on that issue later... ...On the other hand, to do it fast, just exchange Putins name in this case with any other government




i'm not sure what the differance between oil and waste oil is in this case? i have to assume that it is contaminated with water and other chemicals. or is it in fact radio active due to the use of a nuke? Could this waste oil not be prosessed and used? even the oil that is waste oil from cars is recycled and is able to be reused. after all oil is a valuble commodity far too valuble to just leave sitting arround.


I found this link about processing waste oil to make use of it.
freepatentsonline.com...
So, yes, it should be possible to be used. I don't know if it is contaminated. I can only think of possible radiation as the big ugly "impossible"-factor here.
Why we know so little about the nuclear explosion is most likely the fact that the information-highway of the internet wasn't quite as developed as it is to day...



if there is anymore info on this it would be helpfull as the first soure dosn't have any info other than stateing the problem of leakge. the second article is in what i asume is russian language that i am unable to read.


Some further information that was extractable:
-Valuable breeds of fishes is living here (sig, nelma, chir, peljad). These would be so highly polluted, that is would become hazardous to eat them. Shortly after the fishes would die out, and the river would become dead of life. Which would lead to problems in the rest of the fauna.
-Swan Project I don't like to see these die...
-Destruction by fresh water supplies, located on territory of the reserve is observed.
-The amount of mineral oil in the water is exceeding maximum concentration limit by 2,632 million times!!! (131,6 thousand in mg/cube.)
-This area is very close to Naryan Mar, only 80 kilomteres!
Naryan Mar - Click picture to enlarge
-About 26,1 thousand people live and work in the city.
-There are 47 comprehensive schools, 12 preschool institutions, 5 libraries, 4 clubs, the Technical Training College, the Nenetsky Veterinary Technical School in the area, and the Pedagogical College named after I.P.Vyuchesky in Naryan-Mar.

It is without a doubt a large community, that is in dire needs of assistance to save their existence...



mod edit: fixed image-tag

[edit on 2007/5/27 by Hellmutt]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:02 PM
link   
Here is a part of their solution!

Decanter centrifuge


It is useful for different applications: Distillers’ grain, fruit juice, soy milk, proteins, pharmaceuticals, starches, chemical products, drilling mud, water and wastewater.

I would say waste oil would fall into a category herein.
With a few of these gadgets, the possibility to clean and sort out different chemicals and fluids would make it easy(/ier) to securely put some order into the chaos and even getting some money out of it. Jobs for locals would be created and lots of positives would come out of this.
50.000 square kilometers of greasy mud would contain enough money for most people.
Remember, one of the reason why big companies like Lukoil don't bother with these kinds of operations, is that 10 million dollars worth of mud, is just a dime in the bag for them.

For less greedy souls, there would be fame, a dime and good night sleep out of this. Saving people, nature and even earn some money on it sounds fairly good to me!

The whole idea is very feasible, in my opinion. The question is. Is it radioactive? Then the whole idea would more or less become hogwash.

Anyone got any information on bureaucratic red tape, level of corruption and transportation costs to start a mudcleaningcompany in northern siberia?

Btw, I could need sponsors to buy some centrifuges, airtransportation and to connect me with "Those-who-pull-strings" to get started!



mod edit: fixed image-tag

[edit on 2007/5/27 by Hellmutt]



posted on Apr, 7 2005 @ 07:24 PM
link   
i don't have much regurd for the groups such as green peace, peta ect. but would they have the resourses to start something like this up? if they did something like this aproached in a peacefull manor could do much to remove some of the tarnish from their respective organizations. they could actualy do something that would be seen as constructive unlike the normal toss paint at fur coats tactics they normaly employ.

i guess the first thing that would have to be done is to insure that there is not a problem of raidio activity. if there is the only thing that could be done is to barral it up for storage. otherwise i think it would be a worthwhile endever. the fact that there is a community needing work would only be in the faver of such a project.

it's realy too bad that corperations are so willing to let things like this contaminated oil just sit. especialy since the price of oil is so high, not to mention the "we're running out of oil" mentality that is out there. here is oil already on the surface just waiteing to be cleaned and used, no drilling nessisary. it even has a conveiniant workforce neerby, needing employment. on the other hand i don't know what bs one would have to go through to do it, otherwise known as red tape and plain old fashened payoffs.



posted on Apr, 15 2005 @ 04:17 AM
link   
Barents Observer

Well, I guess I found the formal statement that descibes the rule of thumb when it comes to parliaments all over... It's all about the money...

They WANT more, and couldn't care less the other way...
This should open up for instigating a siberian mudcleaning company, though, right? I can't see any denial of opening a company up there, actually I read this as a political openess towards aliens/foreigners to come and mop up!
-The next issue would naturally be: Corruption. How much do you have to pay the government to clean up after them... ...They [insert any government] will of course not let you clean their nature for free, would they?





-Russia is not concerned about ecology in the Arctic 2005-04-13

Boris Morgunov, adviser in the Russian Minister of Economic Development, says "economic, and not environmental, problems are of main Russian concern in the Arctic ". The official calls Russia the "hottest" of all countries with regard to investments in the North. He also notes that climate changes and the melting of ice could within 15-20 years give a boost to shipping along the Northern Sea Route.

Morgunov says however that the melting in the North also could lead to new problems. One of them is the destabilisation of oil and gas pipelines and constructions as a result of the disappearence of permafrost.

Source:
Biznez-Klass, russian language



posted on Sep, 25 2005 @ 04:50 AM
link   
There are accidents and spills of oil almost every two weeks in Russia. The official data on spills is significantly deflated compared to actual figures. Some 3-7 percent of all extracted oil is "lost". Even the most modest calculations by environmentalists indicate that some 10 to 20 million tonnes of oil is spilled every year.


Photo: Bellona (An oil-spill in the Usinsk Region of Russia in 1995)


Bellona: Official says number of oil accidents growing in Russia

Oleg Mitvol, deputy director of the Russian federal service managing the oversight of natural resources (Rosprirodnadzdor) said in a recent interview that “spills of oil and other oil products take place almost every two weeks [in Russia],” RBC Daily Russian news agency reported.

“The Russian Ministry of Emergency services has established this. And in the opinion of the majority of ecologists, official data [on spills] is significantly deflated” compared to actual figures. The statement was remarkable in that a government authority had called into question official figures regarding the amount of oil that is spilled each year in Russia.

The economic benefits of oil extraction and transport in the Russian regions are well known. As soon as authorities consider building a new pipeline in a given area, for example, or discuss an increase in the volume of oil transport, conversation among local residents turns toward the profits their region will reap.

According to RBC, experts estimate that during oil extraction and transportation some 3-7 percent of all extracted oil is lost. Environmentalists insist that the real volume of oil pollution is kept secret. But even their most modest calculations indicate some 10 to 20 million tonnes of oil is spilled annually.

Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Dec, 16 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   
It seems as if China and North Korea, along with Russia and Japan
Has agreed to cooperate regarding oilspill accidents and cleanup services!


I congratulate, and applaude this act. Referring to Hellmutts previous post, there is indeed a need for a cooperation regarding oil spill emergency response, training, research and information sharing.




China, Russia, Japan and the ROK (Republic of Korea, ed.) signed a memo on oil spill response cooperation this May on the basis of the Northwest Pacific Action Plan (NOWPAP) among the four partners.

The new memo is considered a further move made by China and the ROK in technology and information sharing and communication in oil spill response. Established in 2003, the COES (China Offshore Environmental Services Ltd. Ed) is the first company in China of its kind with the capability to deal with Tier 2 oil spill in accordance with international standards.




The memo, signed with Korea Marine Pollution Response Corporation (KMPRC), a major company dealing with oil spill accidents and cleanup services of the ROK, is the first of the kind China has signed.



Now, if only these countries had the same initiative to expand this cooperation with more countries, not only asian, or communistic countries, but other organizations and countries with (more/different?) experience and technology to mop up waste.
I guess one reason for NOT doing this, would be oldskool political bureaucracy, where the fear for sharing of technology stops the society from communicating and develop. -And of course certain ideologies not quite compatible to western 'standards'.
I guess the US are careful with their exporting of 'tractor-parts' to China, or other countries these days.
-And is Great Britain still selling high quality high-pressure valves to Iran, too?
(All pun and sarcasm intended. Any black irony read? Then you propably read it right).


Related Link
AngolaPress



posted on Dec, 17 2005 @ 05:13 PM
link   
We are already seen as the world police. Now we should go and clean up after nations that have made the messes in their own greed and backward technology? If we clean one up, we'll be nagged to clean up the world and no one will take the steps to prevent these "accidents".
During the tsunami, the US was compared based on population concerning our $$ giving when those parts of the world are not even in our interest or control. That is an example, we are being expected to do all and be all and we can't do it.
We're backing out of Kyoto because our nation is being penalized as we are seen as able to afford it, yet nations like Russia are skating already because they are "broke". We can't carry the burden and I don't think we should have to.
If the people live with the mess, in time they will rise up and force their own to do something that should be done.

[edit on 17-12-2005 by Alikospah]



posted on Dec, 18 2005 @ 08:46 AM
link   
Interesting.
I don't know if I read your reply as I should, but what my feelings register here, i.e. what I believe You write, is:

That I mean the US, and only the US is able to assist in developing knowledge of how to clean up oilspills? That I mean the US should do the cleaning? Have the US to police the environmental issues all over the globe? By all means no! I have by for never intended to state that the US should be involved. I said countries outside of Asia, and the communistic ones. Have You ever heard of Europe? Do You know where Europe is? No, it's not in Canada. It's not south of Mexico either! I am not expecting You (The US!) to do do anything regarding environmental issues, but I sure would like You to, too!
Of course, an accident of any kind, belongs to those who got it, but it would surely help, if they could get support of others, no?



During the tsunami, the US was compared based on population concerning our $$ giving when those parts of the world are not even in our interest or control.

I read that You say; 'Not even in our interest or control.'
What do You mean, that the US really have no intentions of respect of human lives any longer? You say, that the US should never have supported Iran, after the earthquake hit Bam? That the US should be released of its human duties to help people after the Tsunami? Remember the dualism in what You are stating now! You are actually saying that the rest of the world should sit and watch as Katarinas swoop over the southern states and what if a Chernobyl-like accident occurs, what then? Are the US citizens becoming so decadent, ignorant and arrogant, that they don't realize the need of global cooperation? What are You? A republican?



We're backing out of Kyoto because our nation is being penalized as we are seen as able to afford it(...)

Penalized? In what ways, please fill me in.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 03:08 PM
link   
Until the US came along with its great wealth and resources, few if any nations were willing or able to step into the breach and do what needed to be done. The US has made it a policy to step in and do what needs to be done because we want to come to the aid of those in need. But we do it because we are willing to do it.
When others come along and demand or expect, it burns a bit. That Russia caused a chemical spill is something they should fix. Recently China caused a leak of a poisonous chemical that overflowed a dam and floated down the river into the drinking water of a city. China, and Russia, "handled" it. We didn't hear cries from them, "Where is the US?" Nations that get involved in such spills are going to have to fix it themselves or nothing will force them to take steps on their own. That is why the US is not moving now and shouldn't have to. To suggest others come clean up the mess left from greedy and careless nations is asking us to be the world's janitors and we can't carry the burden and shouldn't have to.
When people are truly in need, of course we're there and always will be as long as we can support it. But it is a fact that when the time comes we can't support it, there are those who are willing to come and take it from us by force. Knowing that doesn't make it easier to take when UN officials judge what we do based on our population. That rankled and always will.



posted on Dec, 24 2005 @ 08:07 PM
link   
I really disagree on a lot of your statements. Not to provoke, but I feel that much of what you are saying, is just wrong!?
I'll try to clarify what I disagree with.



Originally posted by Alikospah
Until the US came along with its great wealth and resources, few if any nations were willing or able to step into the breach and do what needed to be done.

I feel the 'great wealth and resources' are highly disputable, but this is not what I, in this thread, disagree to. I disagree to the degree of 'willingness' that you state. I am in the belief, that the willingness indeed is out there. The problem, I think, is if those 'unwilling' have the means of tools and knowledge, to be able to help. Eventhough I believe that the US don't have the great wealth, they do have the resources and capability.



The US has made it a policy to step in and do what needs to be done because we want to come to the aid of those in need. But we do it because we are willing to do it.

Great! This is what I would like to happen on a global basis. A policy of helping each other out, whenever needed. My suggestion is that this should be controlled by UNEP they would be the controllers, delegating any available, needed, resources. -Not by the whim of any national 'desire' to help, or not to help. It should continue to be a human duty, not a 'selectable right', to help someone in need. In my mind, the 'will' can only make things go faster.



When others come along and demand or expect, it burns a bit.

I hope I am misinterpreting your word 'demand'. I think, what happens, if someone asks the US for help, is actually an inquiry in seeking needed assistance to resolve a problem. -And of course, I would expect to get the needed assistance, if it would be so serious, that I would have to ask somone for help! Wouldn't You, if Your house were on fire?
I agree to, that it 'burns' to assist someone. That's why a healthy national budget always leaves room for a 'bad day', where things like a natural disaster could appear! To believe that these 'rainy day'-money should/could be used on a war, is imho, gullibly and very short-sighted.



That Russia caused a chemical spill is something they should fix.

True, but if they can't, they should get help, not be secretive about it.



Recently China caused a leak of a poisonous chemical that overflowed a dam and floated down the river into the drinking water of a city. China, and Russia, "handled" it. We didn't hear cries from them, "Where is the US?"

So they didn't need the help. Good, then the US resources could have been diverted somewhere else. IF needed! If they needed help, they should have had somewhere to go, to ask for help. Not being secretive as the only option.



Nations that get involved in such spills are going to have to fix it themselves or nothing will force them to take steps on their own. That is why the US is not moving now and shouldn't have to. To suggest others come clean up the mess left from greedy and careless nations is asking us to be the world's janitors and we can't carry the burden and shouldn't have to.

Why do you consider the US, as the world's only possible janitor? I am still wanting everyone to 'janitoring' each other, if capable of doing it. I would like you to regard a oilspill possible to happen, natural disaster or not. Of course, the greedy company should be held responsible for their actions/lack of actions, but the issue, is actually, CLEAN IT UP, ASAP. The nature aren't waiting for a court to have its deem. And imo, the fastest way to clean up after a catastrophy, is to collectively do something. Disregarding the language, religion, politics or history. An organization as UNEP hitting the panicbutton, would have several countries interact, and the bill would be delivered to the greedy company as deserved.



When people are truly in need, of course we're there and always will be as long as we can support it. But it is a fact that when the time comes we can't support it, (...)

That's why I say cooperation is a good thing. -As in supporting each other.
The US is not alone, and neither is any other country!



there are those who are willing to come and take it from us by force.

Take what from the US? The goodwill? By force? I don't consider goodwill a resource that can be lost by force.



Knowing that doesn't make it easier to take when UN officials judge what we do based on our population. That rankled and always will.


I don't think the UN official judges what you do. He/she only states what the result was. This is being done with every country, and if the people of the US, or Moldova, for that matter, aren't following through, well, that's not UN's fault. -If you consider that resentful, then I will be tempted to believe that you have a bad conscience on behalf of, if not yourself, others.



posted on Dec, 29 2005 @ 03:01 PM
link   
Perhaps I am being defensive but I and most Americans are more than a little fed up with being expected to be the ones rushing to the rescue. Where was the rest of the world during Katrina? Where are they now when Katrina's victims are still living in tents and hundreds of miles along the Gulf and inland are nothing but piles of rubbish? Nowhere to be seen, no not one.

I don't know what UNEP is and I don't believe I want to know if it has anything to do with the UN.

"I hope I am misinterpreting your word 'demand'. I think, what happens, if someone asks the US for help, is actually an inquiry in seeking needed assistance to resolve a problem. -And of course, I would expect to get the needed assistance, if it would be so serious, that I would have to ask somone for help! Wouldn't You, if Your house were on fire?
I agree to, that it 'burns' to assist someone. That's why a healthy national budget always leaves room for a 'bad day', where things like a natural disaster could appear! To believe that these 'rainy day'-money should/could be used on a war, is imho, gullibly and very short-sighted."

It doesn't burn to assist anyone when we are willing and able. When some northwestern Europeans believe it is their business to tell other nations to tax their citizens to have a ready fund on hand that is "generous" according to Egeland, you bet we burn. His comments about being "stingy" and telling us that we "wanted to be taxed more" is nothing more than a busy body talking thru' his hat. When he says "our nations' should give more, he has forgotten he had nothing to do with the building of this nation, from scratch.

Yes, we will always be first with the most, in disasters. But spills and industrial accidents involving greed and poor technology is not exactly an emergency. People right now are drinking water that may be poisonous. Is China or Russia lifting one finger to get clean water to them? No, they are not! They know better than to wait on the US because this is a thing that happened because of their own corrupt practises and were we to help, nothing at all would change except more demands would be made of us.

As for a "rainy day fund", we are now a debtor nation, we can barely pay the interest on what we owe and now with our war and our own disaster, we are going so deep in debt our great great grandchildren will still be paying it. The days of the US being "Uncle Sam" to the world are past and gone for good. And I expect to see even more Egelands complaining and criticising for all the good it will do them.

[edit on 29-12-2005 by Alikospah]



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join