Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Montrose1100

Small Oil Spill in the Ship Channel.

Recommended Posts

I didn't want to post about this but then I saw KHOU & KPRC had already picked up on it.

So, about 924,000g of Oil spilled into the ship channel.

Small spills happen every once in a while and most are so small they never get reported.

I think it will be a quick pick up and should take about 24-48 hours.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't want to post about this but then I saw KHOU & KPRC had already picked up on it.

So, about 924,000g of Oil spilled into the ship channel.

Small spills happen every once in a while and most are so small they never get reported.

I think it will be a quick pick up and should take about 24-48 hours.

 

the fact that i hate to consider, is that it could be worse, much worse.  it is a little sad that we are relieved that it's only 924,000 gallons.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

whoops, i just started a thread about this in the General Houston subforum. 

very true bachanon.. though i heard it may only of pierced one compartment, with like 160,000 gallons. so it could be even more of a "relief". still a very unfortunate situation for Houston, and it sounds like wildlife could be effected..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

in my post in the General Houston subforum that has since been deleted, i mentioned the possibility of having pipelines running offshore for ships to link up to to load and unload oil/LNG/ect. i believe the port of Freeport considered this idea when they were building the LNG facility, but im not sure if it ever happened or not. it could prevent accidents like this happening (at least in such fragile ecosystems like Galveston bay) as it would keep the ships carrying oil, gas, and other substances that could have adverse side effects on the environment if they were spilled, out offshore where if a spill were to happen it would be less damaging to the local ecosystem. they also wouldnt have to traverse the tricky/busy ship channel where they are more at risk of collisions like the one that occurred yesterday.
not to mention, i believe these ships idle while they are in port loading/unloading their reservoirs.. this dumps a lot of pollution into the air that is likely to get blown onshore (depending on the winds/temperature difference between land and sea), over Houston. if these ships were loading/unloading offshore their exhaust would fall into the gulf. the oceans are the largest carbon sink in the world, perfect for absorbing the pollution before it drifts towards land/Houston.
that second part is one reason i always wondered why Houston never built a deep water super port like Shanghai did on an island offshore. it would be easier for ships to navigate when they dont have to worry about traversing a narrow ship channel and all the obstacles in Galveston Bay, and less of the ship channel pollution would reach the city. i realize many industries would have to be relocated for that, and the Houston Ship Channel is a perfect location (and capable of handling most [if not all?] of those large ships the Shanghai super port can handle) for a port since its protected by Galveston. but they could move some of the heavier polluting industries to Pelican Island or the back side of Bolivar Peninsula, if they want the protection of a barrier island. or at the very least move some industries onto the islands that stretch across Trinity Bay/through the Houston Ship Channel just west/southwest of La Porte. at least with that there would still be a few miles of water surrounding you to absorb some of the pollution, instead of bringing ships all the way up the ship channel inside the beltway, dumping their pollution across the east side of the city.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry cloud but that will never happen. The ship channel is the largest petro-chemical complex in the world and the billions it would cost to build new facilities in Freeport are a reason alone that will never happen. Oil isn't the only product moved here, don't forget about our states greatest export, chemicals.

The real issue is why was this vessel moving in the first place when the channel was closed by the pilots? It had not officially opened due to the fog.

I'm just really glad it wasn't a chemical tanker carrying cyanide...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry cloud but that will never happen. The ship channel is the largest petro-chemical complex in the world and the billions it would cost to build new facilities in Freeport are a reason alone that will never happen. Oil isn't the only product moved here, don't forget about our states greatest export, chemicals.

The real issue is why was this vessel moving in the first place when the channel was closed by the pilots? It had not officially opened due to the fog.

I'm just really glad it wasn't a chemical tanker carrying cyanide...

I wasn't suggesting they move it to Freeport. I was suggesting they possibly follow the same idea Freeport had and run pipelines from the current facilities offshore to a floating dock platform type thing for a loading/unloading facility.

I did however suggest they move some facilities to one/some of the Islands in Galveston or Trinity bay's, which would cost billions like you said. It wouldn't be reasonable to up and move everyone, but maybe we could make it to where any new refineries and heavy polluters have to be built further away from the city, possibly on those islands. That wouldn't prevent spills in Galveston bay (though if they implemented that along with the under sea pipelines it would make spills in the bay much less likely), but at least they would be surrounded by a carbon sink the size of Houston. That would surely absorb a chunk of the pollution coming from any new refineries/industries, (including the possible new refineries to process the extra dirty tar sands when they build the new pipeline.. I think the islands would be a great place for them. They are probably running out of room along the ship channel for new refineries anyways) and mean less pollution for Houston.

Another way of reducing pollution without spending billions relocating, or imposing development location restrictions is only burning off pollutants when the wind is blowing off shore (the sea breeze reverses when the land is cooler than the water, which happens at night and in the winter time). Burn all the nasty **** at night or ramp up production in the winter to counter lower production in the summer months. I don't know about you guys but I'd like to change Houston from having the largest carbon footprint in the US..

Is the port of Houston really the largest petro-chemical complex in the world?

And yeah.. True about the chemicals. I know all about that, growing up in Lake Jackson (probably part of why I have Asthma).

Good point, I didn't realize the channel was closed due to fog..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plants have flares burning as an emergency measure, not to burn off waste products on a regular basis. I think the permits do not allow regular burning of waste products, and the plants prefer to use anything left as a feed to another process. If it's a flammable gas, there's a use for it.

 

There aren't any islands in the Trinity/Galveston Bay complex large enough for a refinery, and none of those islands has enough elevation to be safe during a storm. Much of what passes for islands is spoil dumps from dredging the ship channels.

 

New refineries are rare. Most growth in capacity comes from improving or expanding existing facilities, which have room for a fair amount of expansion.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The plants have flares burning as an emergency measure, not to burn off waste products on a regular basis. I think the permits do not allow regular burning of waste products, and the plants prefer to use anything left as a feed to another process. If it's a flammable gas, there's a use for it.

There aren't any islands in the Trinity/Galveston Bay complex large enough for a refinery, and none of those islands has enough elevation to be safe during a storm. Much of what passes for islands is spoil dumps from dredging the ship channels.

New refineries are rare. Most growth in capacity comes from improving or expanding existing facilities, which have room for a fair amount of expansion.

Thanks for the informative response.

I get the point of the flares, that's not what I meant when I was talking about burning off stuff.

How large are refineries? I knew they were big but I figured one could fit on one of those islands. The smallest in the chain of dredge piles is over a mile long by half a mile wide. And surely if they've managed to create those islands by dredging, they could dredge more to build up the islands taller and make them wider to accommodate for a refinery?

Interesting.. I just assumed we would be building new refineries for the new pipeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then you're talking g about putting massive amounts of equipment on unstable, low ground level islands that could be taken out in a fairly minor storm.

These refineries are huge, just on what little I know, they are on several square miles of land.

putting a remote loading dock is a good idea, but wouldn't work well in this area due to the massive amount of traffic. leading to the port.

even putting it further away from the region is iffy because the underwater pipes would be vulnerable to the various fishing industries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But then you're talking g about putting massive amounts of equipment on unstable, low ground level islands that could be taken out in a fairly minor storm.

These refineries are huge, just on what little I know, they are on several square miles of land.

putting a remote loading dock is a good idea, but wouldn't work well in this area due to the massive amount of traffic. leading to the port.

even putting it further away from the region is iffy because the underwater pipes would be vulnerable to the various fishing industries.

China built an airport on a man made island in the last decade or so and it has to withstand major tsunamis (I heard some of the ones in Dubai aren't doing as well though).

As for size, like I said, they could dredge more of the bay and connect that string of islands across the upper part of Trinity/Galveston bay to fit a refinery.

You don't think they could run the pipeline a few miles offshore to an area where there isn't as much traffic?

True about fishing I guess, but there are underwater pipelines all over the world and they seem to do ok.

I think an underwater pipeline like 5 or 10 miles offshore would be the best bet, but I like the idea of expanding port operations to the bay islands too. It may put a dent in air pollution being surrounded by water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

production at the local refineries is being hampered by the closing of the ship channel.. this article goes more in depth about the severity and consequences of the situation.

"A warning to mariners issued by the Coast Guard on Sunday said portions of the Houston channel and its offshoots to Texas City and Galveston, Texas, along with a portion of the Gulf Intracoastal Waterway, could be closed through March 29 or longer, depending on the requirements of a cleanup."

http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/sns-rt-us-usa-oil-spill-20140322,0,4926772.story

this is why we need those underwater pipelines going to a remote docking station offshore. if there is another spill in the bay or a collision or something blocking the channel it wont effect refinery production/the economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They opened it up for traffic today, but restricted to daylight movement only. It will open up again at 0500.

Collisions like this are rare. Fog is more of a seasonal issue. Trust me if the companies running the terminals/plants/refineries were worried about these small disruptions they would have built along the coast along time ago.

Vessels are held up due to congestion more than anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They opened it up for traffic today, but restricted to daylight movement only. It will open up again at 0500.

Collisions like this are rare. Fog is more of a seasonal issue. Trust me if the companies running the terminals/plants/refineries were worried about these small disruptions they would have built along the coast along time ago.

Vessels are held up due to congestion more than anything.

thats good to hear.

true.. but they like the protection provided by the barrier islands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you were to move terminals off-shore you would be talking literally Hundreds of Pipe Lines and dozens of berthing "Stations" spread out over a very large area, unprotected from the Weather/Seas as well as vulnerable to traffic and terrorism.  Another issue is that the Gulf is very Shallow.  There are literally some ships that when loaded cannot get within a Hundred Mile of our Coastline. Many of the Tankers you see, are just shuttling Crude from those vessels' which we cannot see.  My point is that if we were to "Terminals" offshore, unless you go way out to do it...then the amount of Dredging would be astronomical and forever ongoing.   The idea of offshore terminal in the US, however, is not new or off the wall.  There actually is one south of Louisiana. LOOP - Louisiana Offshore Oil Port ( www.loopllc.com ).  It's been around for quite a while, but not without its own issues and accidents.

 

The idea of Placing Refineries on Galveston/Pelican Island was debated a long time ago, as well.  The City of Galveston decided that they did not want the industry due to the hazards, pollution as well as the unsightliness of the facilities.  Good Call for little Galveston.  Can you imagine if TX City were there now? 

 

There are many improvements that can be made to the Ship Channel to make it safer for ship traffic and Pollution certainly is a problem...both from Ships and from Refineries. But, the ecological damage by pushing the industries into the fragile (and already damaged) bay, or offshore, would be physically, politically and logistically impossible.  China and Dubai can do things that we cannot, by the nature of their governments and money on-hand.  While as impressive as that Terminal in China is, and I have marveled at it myself, the Price is astronomical. Both In Costs and to the environment. 

 

This accident was tragic...and there will be others, I'm afraid.  A disaster as a result of Careless humans. What we have to do, is just work to make things safer and cleaner.  Both of these things will take a lot of money and political will.  But, this is Texas.  Where Politician's are distracted by really important issues...like saving Afton Oaks from Rail.  ;-)

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...