SANDY: 300,000+ Gallon Oil Spill Staten Island

Hey OP.. I hope you don't mind me adding some info to the thread here. The last post there got me to thinking about how and why this happened. Why weren't these better protected, indeed?


then...I found what ruined my day. First, keep in mind everything your 2nd link says about their response...how they haven't even been in to see damage yet..and have no actual idea HOW much leaked. 300,000 gallons.. Yeah... I discovered where THAT number originated. I think I'm going to be sick. The articles you found...the more RECENT articles? Well.. they were a bit selective of facts compared to the one I just discovered from Nov. 1......at a time they wrote it to give the distinct "It's all over...you can go home now" feel, like all these facts were just trivia. Well...if they'd been in your OP articles? I mean, if the more recent ones carried a couple little details? Oh...this could be small, or they could be a full on nightmare.

With regards to the Sewaren tank facility:

Four diesel oil storage tanks were damaged, two of which are believed to have released some of their contents. Before the storm each tank held 336,000 gallons of oil.

4 tanks.... not 2. 2 are deemed to have leaked but 4 are damaged. Now that didn't mean much to me at first. I had to go back to your articles again to see...they never mentioned either fact. Not the fact there were 4....and NOT the fact that *EACH* holds over 300,000 Gallons of Diesel Oil. (Diesel Oil?? Is this Diesel Fuel or Bunker Oil for the ships coming through? Suddenly, that detail matters I think)

Here is the kicker we should never forget. Read your OP articles, then read this again.

Initial response actions were successful to stop the flow of diesel from the secondary containment area into Woodbridge Creek, N.J. The diesel fuel is contained in the area around the storage tanks in Woodbridge Creek, Smith’s Creek and the Motiva Terminals dock on the Arthur Kill Channel. Approximately 130 responders are taking part in the cleanup effort.

Assessments of the surrounding waterways, creeks and community have been conducted. Contractors are working to remove contained pockets of oil in Smith’s Creek utilizing skimmers, vacuum trucks, absorbent pads, and absorbent boom. Additional cleanup actions are ongoing around the docks.

Source

The bottom half below the picture in the link shows the recent Coast Guard update. It's in line with your OP..though still not as clear and detailed as your stories are now.


I take 2 very important things from this.

#1. Information changes flowing forward in time.......4 tanks become 2. 336,000 gallons per tank, with 2 full tanks leaking from day 1....becomes only 2 mentioned at all and no one knows how much now..BUT..they kinda think 300,000 with the reader left to kinda wonder.....if they don't know how much, how can they know how much? Yeah... now we know. I wish I didn't now.

#2. Happy stories about a bad event are probably B.S. to read what I've linked from early on, you'd really think it was about over and ..whew....missed a bullet huh? I mean really... It's written that way. If you were a Resident close enough for the difference in facts to matter....it'd matter A LOT, I'm betting.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


No actually, it's reported in bbl not barrels, if you want to get nit-picky about this issue. And bbls are not the same as barrels. 300,000 gallons is 7142.86 bbl. So you're technically wrong on a couple of issues.

And a spill can be reported in whatever volume you want to report it as long as you don't make conversion mistakes like you did.

One gallon of diesel can contaminate up to a 1 million gallons of water. That makes 300,000 gallons of diesel leaked into a waterway not so trivial a situation. The OP is not trying to do anything but keep people informed about a situation.

Originally posted by Valhall
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

No actually, it's reported in bbl not barrels, if you want to get nit-picky about this issue. And bbls are not the same as barrels. 300,000 gallons is 7142.86 bbl. So you're technically wrong on a couple of issues.

And a spill can be reported in whatever volume you want to report it as long as you don't make conversion mistakes like you did.

One gallon of diesel can contaminate up to a 1 million gallons of water. That makes 300,000 gallons of diesel leaked into a waterway not so trivial a situation. The OP is not trying to do anything but keep people informed about a situation.

LIsten, I am not calling the OP out for anything here. I was only pointing out that the headline that they were reporting was meant to be a shock headline. They noted this as well, and that the situation was no where near as dire as the headline tried to make it seem.

So my math is off a little. I didn't look up the conversion, and just used the 55gal drum as my conversion factor. Thanks for looking up the actual conversions. It is still not very much spillage, especially considering how many millions of gallons of water it is leaking into. Yeah, there will be some shortlived issues. But after living in a state that has been hit by more than 1 category 5 hurricane in my lifetime, I kind of find the dramatizations of the cat 1 storm "Sandy" as being a "superstorm" humorous.

I mean, in our gulf we have tens of thousands of leakage throughout the entire gulf daily. When put in context, it isn't much of a story. And even if it is, I rendered my opinion on the story. Just like you.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

My prediction is the wealth gap will grow. Those poor and middle class neighborhoods wont be rebuilt for them.

So yes, there will be a boost....but some opportunities come with a price.

In this climate, such things make me nervous.

I think you and Wrabbit both are kind of making the same point here. And I wholly agree with it.

In NO, after Katrina, money flowed in. But as it always does, that money flowed towards the top, leaving those on bottom with scraps.

The same willl happen with Sandy. The thing is, many of those affected are people and corporations who generally tend to sit on a wad of cash. If this gets them to spend some of that wad, it may benefit the country by putting more money back into circulation.

That is why they are using QE: to offset a loss of circulated cash.

Originally posted by Valhall
One gallon of diesel can contaminate up to a 1 million gallons of water.

Intended to look this up. Thanks.

Also was looking for previous spills in Arthur Kill for scale comparison. So far this looks like the second largest, but I'm not completely sure yet...

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
LIsten, I am not calling the OP out for anything here.

No worries. I didn't take it that way.

But I do have to question this:

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
But after living in a state that has been hit by more than 1 category 5 hurricane in my lifetime, I kind of find the dramatizations of the cat 1 storm "Sandy" as being a "superstorm" humorous.

The impact of this storm is HUGE, category notwithstanding.

I'm not sure I understand why you would use the categorization as an appropriate proxy for what's clearly happened up there.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


I think what you're not taking into account is that this spill is not directly into a massive body of water. It's into a waterway, that then dumps to a fairly small harbor and then on out to the Atlantic.

And by the way, the EPA themselves has regulations that state to ALL industries that "dilution is not the solution". Any company caught claiming that diluting a diesel spill by adding monsterous gallons of water to dilute would be fined and possibly criminally charged. However, we now see that the EPA, when faced with monumental spills such as the BP Mocando, don't mind using dilution as the solution if it means they don't have to get off their dead asses and make the hard decisions and actually do something.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
The same willl happen with Sandy. The thing is, many of those affected are people and corporations who generally tend to sit on a wad of cash. If this gets them to spend some of that wad, it may benefit the country by putting more money back into circulation.

That is why they are using QE: to offset a loss of circulated cash.

I think that is an overly positive view.

In NYC alone 30K people will need housing-- nearly all of whom fall in the lower economic category we're discussing. THEY are not sitting on wads of cash.

In Long Island, over 100k homes were destroyed.

I think it's safe to assume the purchasers of the realty will benefit far more than these sellers. So any short term boost in the starts will hardly offset the impact suffered by the losers in my opinion.

reply to post by loam


It is more that I am confused how people live on the coast where hurricanes may be somewhat rare, but not totally unheard of, and they are shocked by a hurricane.

What happened there happens multiple times a year on our lower east coast and gulf coast. But Sandy was big enough to bury every single other news story out there?

Not that the damage from Sandy isn't devastating to those involved. But we had a national conversation going on about tomorrows election, and that conversation was completely killed by a Category 1 hurricane. In 2 years the effects of the hurricane will barely be a memory. But the POTUS we elect tomorrow will still be in office (assuming they aren't impeached after the election).

Just looking through ATS, the two big stories happening before Sandy seem to have lost all steam as everyong looks at Sandy: the BBC child molesting and Benghazigate.

It isn't that Sandy wasn't devastating. Only that I feel that it was used by our politicians as a diversion and conversation changer. The 300,000 gallons of oil headline kind of makes me feel like this viewpoint is supported.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan


Well, yes, the timing was certainly used to bury important issues...like what happened in Bengazi. I'm not happy about that either, but this storm has national significance too.

It just proves that when you think things are bad...they can always get worse.

Originally posted by loam
reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

 

Well, yes, the timing was certainly used to bury important issues...like what happened in Bengazi. I'm not happy about that either, but this storm has national significance too.

It just proves that when you think things are bad...they can always get worse.

That, my friend, is very true.

reply to post by showintail


Hello,
It does matter that you're in Texas actually. The reason for a drop in the cost of gas everywhere except there is that the demand there is drastically smaller. Not the feeling just the actual usage. That area only created about 6% of the gas in the overall scheme of things but used a lot more. Also the Department of Homeland Security issued a blank waiver until the 13th of November for the Jones Act which limited the non-US tankers in the gulf. So more foreign oil, lower East Coast demand coupled with a decreased national demand equals a surplus in the rest of the country. Even if all of their gas using things worked the infrastructure to deliver the oil has been damaged. Gas prices will continue to fall through the end of the year from what I have seen.

Zen

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

You make a good point about how this would be a small storm in almost any other location.

I'd note two things.... First, this is the worst storm surge they've seen in some areas there since the 1930's. Storm surge was recorded UP river on the Hudson 25 miles from New York City. Over 11 feet was recorded at Battery Park and up to 13 in other areas impacted by Sandy.

I think it's like an Earthquake. 5's or even a 6 is really not THAT unusual for Los Angeles....and in the South Pacific, I don't think they even write in the paper about it unless it break 6.5 or so. lol... It's amazing what Island folk get used to. Anyway...... Take that same Earthquake and put it in Memphis, and the event that doesn't even make news will probably kill 10's of thousands of people when all the un-reinforced brick the city is made from comes tumbling down. How about a 6.5 under Manhattan island? Same thing with much much higher human toll.

Same event....It's a joke in one place and a full calamity in another. I think that's what we're seeing here. They weren't prepared (even physical infrastructure to handle massive storms) and this was a real terrible storm by their standards.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


Yeah. It would seem to me that any ocean front property on the East Coast should be prepared for a surge of up to 15'. Not frequently mind you....but like I said: this was not unprecedented.

I guess "lucky" for me i have the opposite problem: not enough rain falls here. But I don't have to worry about a hurricane!

Well, today's official report to the public on the situation on this spill has now dropped ANY estimate of the volume released and instead says they will try to determine that after their inspection of the tanks is complete.

www-static.shell.com...

So we really don't know how much at this point.