Putin Declares State of Emergency After Massive Fuel Leak Pollutes River in the Arctic Circle (cbsnews.com) 116
Russian President Vladimir Putin declared a state of emergency in the city of Norilsk after a massive oil spill in the Arctic region. An estimated 20,000 tons of fuel from a power plant spilled onto a road, and a large part made its way into an river on May 29. From a report: A "considerable amount" of the oil seeped into the Ambarnaya River in Siberia, Putin said Wednesday during an official meeting about response to the fuel leak. The President appeared shocked to learn that local authorities were first flagged to the incident by social media -- two days after it happened and criticized the region's governor Alexander Uss during the televised meeting, Reuters reported. "What -- are we to learn about emergency situations from social networks? Are you alright healthwise over there?" Putin said. The leak was caused by "accidental damage to a diesel fuel storage tank" at a plant operated by a subsidiary of Norilsk Nickel and a cleanup effort is underway. The company, which is a major producer of palladium, high-grade metal nickel, platinum and copper, said it would "do its maximum" to resolve the issue Tuesday on Twitter.
Solar (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Solar power in the Arctic Circle? Are you high?
Re: (Score:2)
At least the sun isn't high in Norilsk.
(Norilsk is actually much more northern than the Arctic Circle.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
whoosh... you missed the point.
Then explain the point. Do you think that if this was a spill of some kind of biomass fuel that it would be any less of a toxic mess? I'm pretty sure that if this fuel spill was instead soybean oil, corn ethanol, or whatever, that a spill of this size would still be a considerable environmental hazard.
The Siberian winters are cold, dark, and calm, so not much use for windmills, solar panels, or hydroelectric dams.
What renewable energy solution would have prevented this?
Re: (Score:2)
Cold - yes. The wife's outside thermometer went to -60, and she saw it below -55, in agreement with the radio station's reports.
Dark, yes, as well.
Calm - well, only on calm days. On not-so-calm days the 60-, 70-, 80- km/hr winds blow the calm away. Those days are not so calm.
Oddly, people (including professional camera-people) tend not to go out on those days unless that can possibly avoid it. And they are pretty strenuous about avoiding it.
Re: (Score:2)
Do the maximum (Score:2)
I have days where my maximum is to stay in bed as long as possible. Haven't had any oil spoils though.
I wish we could work together globally (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, enlightened and rational national self-interest would represent progress over the status quo.
As bad as the pursuit naked national self-interests can sometimes be, at least those interests can be satisfied. When a man reaches a certain age, if he hasn't resolved his daddy issues they'll never stop riding him. When men like that gain power, nations conflate their interests with trying to fill a bottomless pit of insecurity.
Re: (Score:2)
The greatest leaders match their ambitions to the needs of their nation. They may be selfish and self-aggrandizing, but at the very least they view the national success as their success. Successful tyrants impose their ambitions on their nation, but again, those ambitions have at least some sort of positive quality. The problem with tyrants is they rarely see when they've overplayed their hand. But the very worst kinds of leaders have ambition in spades, but lack coherency. Trump has no philosophical underp
But we are working together (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
It will never happen until we get rid of Capitalism. Step 1) Get rid of Boomers. Step 2) Elect Bernie. It is only logical.
Like in Logan's Run [wikipedia.org]?
Re: (Score:2)
You do realize that Senator Sanders is actually older than the Baby Boomers, don't you?
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, that worked out [wikipedia.org] so well for the environment [wikipedia.org] last time, right [wikipedia.org], comrade [wikipedia.org]?
NIMBY (Score:3)
Re:NIMBY (Score:5, Informative)
First, I believe this was a leaking tank, not a pipeline... In the USA we require tanks be surrounded by berms capable of holding the total volume of the tank, so if the tank leaks, the contents are not leaving the site. Apparently in Russia, they don't require this...
Second, pipelines have SCADA systems which measure the flow at multiple points along the line and if it detects a leak (differences in the measured flows) it will quickly shutdown the pipeline, turn off the pumps and isolate the leaking section, reducing the loss and reducing the environmental damage.
Further, pipeline operators are required to maintain an environmental control team, equipment and supplies to quickly respond to incidents, and they are liable for any financial losses and for cleaning up any mess their operations create.
So, at least in the USA, tanks and pipelines are not going to dump 20,000 tones of product into a river. Nor will a fuel tank rupture end up running into a local river. If it does, there will literally be hell to pay in fines and somebody is going to jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Hanford leaks radioactive waste into the Colombia river all of the time. It's discovered, fixed, and a few years later, discovered leaking again. You might want to get your own backyard in order before lecturing others about their standards.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm.. Yea...
You do understand that Hanford was built in the 1940's, was used though the 70's by the government as a nuclear weapons production facility. It contains a HUGE volume of high level radioactive waste in various forms and was *supposed* to be dismantled and sent to safe long term storage (Yucca Mountain) long ago. So yes, this is a mess, a mess made from politics and government largess that won't soon be fixed. There are plenty of messes from the past all over the planet that need to be cleane
Re: (Score:2)
The power station in question was built 40 years ago, so it is not exactly new either.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You might want to get your own backyard in order before lecturing others about their standards.
No USA site has ever had a 20000 tonne release of waste from tank storage into an environment unmitigated. Comparing a small leak in bunds to a disaster where no bunds were present at all is quite disingenuous.
Re: (Score:2)
You're right, instead you have abandoned mining facilities dumping a combined 189270.59 metric tonnes of waste into different water sources *per day*, with no cleanup strategy on the horizon: https://www.chicagotribune.com... [chicagotribune.com]
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Um.. Keep Reading your source article please. The spill took place in 1998 and the courts have ruled to hold the company responsible for the cleanup because the EPA kept after the issue with Koch in the courts...
So this is evidence that the EPA is actually doing it's job, albeit slowly in this case. The spill has already been cleaned up, years ago in fact.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Check your info before shitposting. Russia also requires a berm. This company did not build one so they are going to be hit with a massive fine. The local inspectors who were supposed to enforce it gave exceptions and extensions. Putin is criticizing the local govt for not enforcing the law on the books. Apparently Siberia is the area of Russia where the good old boys look out for each other. Reminds me of some other state - starts with T ends with S.
Re: (Score:2)
Or it was grandfathered by being 40 years old.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin was displeased that the government learned about the problem via socail media. I suspect the punishment will be somewhat worse than a fine.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude this is Mosow not Minnesota where apparently passing a fake 20 is a death penalty offense.
Re: (Score:2)
So, at least in the USA, tanks and pipelines are not going to dump 20,000 tones of product into a river. Nor will a fuel tank rupture end up running into a local river. If it does, there will literally be hell to pay in fines and somebody is going to jail.
Your posts sounds all nice and fluffy, until reality sets in, here's an example of a pipeline built to American standards that recently leaked an estimated 9,120 barrels of oil: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2019/11/01/keystone-pipeline-leak-oil-spilled-north-dakota/4121954002/ [usatoday.com]
Re: (Score:2)
I think I heard him say that the rivers ARE the new pipeline. "We're going to save billions, and it's going to be organic and beautiful." I think it's his way of appealing to the hippies.
Disclaimer: No, President Trump never said this.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Yet.
It's the sort of thing that would tickle his base, so I wouldn't put it past his speech-writing teams. I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear it if there is an election campaign.
Re: (Score:2)
That might have been true before, but Trump dismantled the EPA so those rules are no longer in place. Oil is now allowed to flow freely into rivers.
Hmmm.. So do you have evidence that cutting EPA regulations has had a detrimental affect on the environment? Can you cite an instance where this is true?
It's pretty clear that cutting regulations has had a unprecedented positive effect on the economy, but if you can cite situations where the regulations that have been removed has caused serious problems for the environment, please, let's discuss them so we can get the situation changed for the better. You cannot just assume that cutting regulations means
Re: (Score:2)
I haven't heard about changes to requirements for a berm, and I follow such things; I think it would have been a big deal.
That said, let's imagine that that requirement had been eliminated. It would be years before you saw any impact because it would only affect tank facilities built after the change. It's also likely that most companies would choose to continue building berms, for liability reasons. As for the minority that don't, new tanks are not likely to leak or fail, so you're looking ten or twenty
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can use other containment measures according to the law (40 CFR 112.7 - General requirements for Spill Prevention, Control, and Countermeasure Plans), such as drip pans, culverts, sumps, and retention ponds. You can also get an exemption if you have a clean operation record and, submit a response plan and show you have the resources to implement that plan.
So I'm sure it's not simple case of the Trump Administration saying "you don't need berms anymore". They can't do that. They *can* be a lot more
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying that specific regulations about storage tanks and berms has been withdrawn? Can you provide a citation for that please?
Re: (Score:2)
I'm saying I've heard no such thing; the requirements are statutory. *If* you wanted to undo the regulations, the way to do it would be by the statutory provisions for exceptions that require judgment. If that happened, probably nobody would realize it except the people getting the exceptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The EPA actually caused one of the worst natural disasters in recent history in the USA.... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
During the last administration... How's this relevant to Trump's cutting regulations? It happened BEFORE he took office in 2017 and has nothing to do with some mining company ignoring EPA regulations.
Also, the Gold King Mine wasn't built or regulated by the EPA, it ceased operation decades before the EPA even existed. It was last active in 1923. The EPA is tasked with tying to keep a lid on this hugely expensive problem they didn't create. The problem isn't the EPA regulations, but the lack the funding
Re: (Score:2)
We need laws to prevent environmental abuses... but the EPA is a joke. And in light of the disaster in Russia... some of our environmental laws are doing their job since
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A standard practice I will add that was instituted because of a death involving a burst mine just like this...
Re: (Score:2)
Still my point stands.. None of this was the fault of removing regulations.. Couldn't be, it happened BEFORE the current administration started revoking regulations at the EPA.
The EPA is like any government organization.. They are full of incompetent people making decisions about stuff they have no idea about. (And some folks what the government to run their healthcare system [shrugging]. Go Figure...)
Re: NIMBY (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Other than the fact that that wasn't a natural disaster at all, the EPA was only part of the cause. From the link:
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you're under 50, so you don't remember when the regulations were implemented and why. Lake Erie was declared dead and the Cuyahoga River was burning when Republican President Nixon created the EPA. Lead and mercury were in our food chain, PCBs were making Lake Michigan fish dangerous to eat, DDT was rapidly on its way to exterminating raptors worldwide. The Love Canal toxic waste dump was made into a housing project, Asarco had contaminated the entire Tacoma area to the point where people could
Re: (Score:2)
That's not clear at all. Please provide some evidence. (And, no, the fact that the economy kept improving since 2009 thru the Trump years (aside from CoViD) is not evidence that EPA de-regulation had an impact.)
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty clear that cutting regulations has had a unprecedented positive effect on the economy,
Weird... The economy grew faster during Obama's last three years than it did during Trump's first three years. So, I think you just proved that cutting regulations hurt the economy? (My last statement is partly in jest, though it has the benefit, unlike yours, of fitting the facts).
To be fair, Obama did his economy-growing while shrinking the deficit most years, while Trump needed to explode the deficit every single year to get his growth. What a weak president.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Overly literal translation. (Score:3)
The "are you alright healthwise over there? " is actually more along the lines of "are you people completely nuts?"
climate change angle.. (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't even read the summary, did you?
It is not a pipeline that is leaking, it's a fuel tank of the local oil fired combined heat and power station that has burst.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Is a pipelines mentioned there? Nope. Which is precisely my point.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, it works for Reddit.
Re: (Score:2)
The law says a storage tank has to be surrounded by a berm to avoid such accidents changing into environmental disasters. The company must have bribed the local city council with some donations to get an exception.
Re: (Score:2)
Strategic needs get filled. Environmental considerations didn't make it into the same building as the planning committee, let alone the meeting room.
How is the clear up of the Hanford nuclea
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait till Trump cranks up the domination of the battlespace (USA) with his brownshirt goons and SS thugs, you may be sent to the gulag.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Social media to the rescue (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Any leader would be upset - they want the chance to put their own spin on major news events like this, they would also like the chance to do something about them.
Re: (Score:2)
Putin cares about the Russian people. Americans hate him because he doesnt go along with the American globalist agenda but he regularly polls over 70% approval ratings. You dont get that popular without caring about the people. If he screws over a few globalist businessmen like Khodorkovsky the public does not care.
Re: (Score:3)
It is bullshit news. 20000 gallons! OMG!!
That's 20,000 *tons* of diesel fuel. That's around 6 million gallons. And keep in mind this is Russia; it's 6 million gallons *reported*.
But I can see why the local officials didn't see it was a big deal. Norilsk, a small city of 175,000, is arguably already the most polluted place on Earth. It is so polluted that has become commercially viable to mine the local soil for the heavy metals that contaminate them.
Re: (Score:2)
If a gallon of fuel weighs a ton, they have more to worry about. It's 20,000 tons.
DONT WORRY. Russia is in the Paris Accord (Score:2)
We've got to get off oil (Score:2)
... For multiple reasons now. Environmental damage from spills and climate change.
Use what instead? (Re:We've got to get off oil) (Score:2)
What should communities this far north use for energy? In winter the sun will not show for days to months at a time so solar power is out. Winter also brings calm winds, and when it does blow in the summer it can be powerful enough to strip the props off a windmill so wind power is out. Hydro power is often out because of a lack of flowing water.
Tell me, what do you expect them to use for energy?
If it's not burning oil, coal, or natural gas then it will have to be nuclear power. That's what they will ha
bbls (Score:3)
For those of us who don't normally think about "tons" of oil, this is 140,000 bbls.
Re: (Score:2)
It feels better going with the crowd (Score:2)
What's shocking (Score:2)
What's shocking is this doesn't happen more often. Russia's corrupt system promotes cover-ups and shifting responsibility. Failure is occasionally met with prison or murder. And success is obtained with cronyism without oversight.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's s shame; most Russians are great people. Take the Moscow metro some time; it's clean, the people are polite, reading books...in business, people are generally knowledgeable and fair.
But Putin and his kleptocratic cronies have ruined the place.
Steal all the money needed for investment, de-fund regulatory and legal institutions, attack & undermine people's constitutional rights, finally pack the executive ranks with corrupt incompetents.
Then blame others when things inevitably fall apart.
Sound famil
Re: (Score:2)
It's s shame; most Russians are great people. Take the Moscow metro some time; it's clean, the people are polite, reading books...in business, people are generally knowledgeable and fair.
I always thought the Moscow metro was full of mutants, Communists, and NeoNazis sheltering from a harsh, endless winter.
And that was before I played the Metro games!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Can't wait until November.
Re: (Score:2)
not really (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Me neither. The look on his face is going to be priceless.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Russia Sucks - It is a shithole. (Score:4, Interesting)
But has he actually done that? Current and former members of his cabinet and inner circle have made it clear he's suboptimal. He's certainly thrown wrenches in the machinery, but it's pretty clear even from the Pentagon response to the Administration wanting to put troops on the streets that the organizational momentum of the Federal Government has not been changed. In other words, whatever real or imagined changes his supporters think they've brought to the Federal government, it's very likely that if Joe Biden is elected in November, by the spring, the new President will likely shift, with very little difficulty, the direction of Federal departments Trump has either tried to stymie or outright damage will quickly move back to where they were before.
In international relations, well, the relationship with Russia has not been improved, because Congress has made it pretty clear that it's not going to allow the US to abandon the overarching themes of the Truman Doctrine. On China, the Obama Administration had already been moving to fence China in (that was the entire purpose of the TPP, which Trump and his supporters so furiously railed against). In other aspects, his foreign policy has been so incoherent as to do little else than cause a lot of anxiety, but with little productivity. His renegotiation of NAFTA created a USMCA agreement that has no significant changes, simply because, again, Congress was never going to enact a trade agreement that had the potential to damage their key constituencies.
I suspect the Trump Era will be remembered as little else than an unproductive period of moderate chaos that will cause the Administration some difficulty, and likely some backtracking, but other than some judicial appointments, won't have much of a legacy at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sound familiar, Trump supporters?
Yes, that's why we are glad Obama is gone and Clinton lost the election.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
So You are telling me that a "shithole" country is powerful enough to have the president of the USA as their errand boy?
[Insert Condescending Wonka meme image here]
Re: (Score:2)
So You are telling me that a "shithole" country
I know geography is not American's strong suit, but Russia is not in Africa, and "shithole countries" had a group of very specific countries in mind when it was first used in vain by a country leader. Russia was never considered a "shithole" country.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't go as far as to assume that author of the comment was confusing Russia and Africa.
After all just because one moron calls a specific country shithole, doesn't mean that when another moron uses the same term he means the same country.
Re: (Score:2)
When he's in hock up to his armpits to that country's banks, and those banks are controlled by cronies of that country's leader? Hell yeah.
Moron spewing drivel (Score:3)
Had you bothered to read the article you'd see this happened because the permafrost melted causing the tank to shift and rupture.
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
Re: (Score:2)
Does it matter if it's because of permafrost melting or removal of safety regulations? No one knew about the spill until it was posted online. That means either the company didn't care what happened, or had no monitoring in place to detect the spill.
Which is exactly what will be happening in this country as sensible safety rules and regulations are removed.
Further, I can guarantee if someone in this country does post photos of said spill, there will be a lawsuit against them for reporting it.
Re: (Score:2)
Permafrost melt is a product of the inability of the major emitters to bring emissions under control. I can't blame Trump for that, because that trajectory was set over two centuries ago, but the fact that both Trump and Putin have put short term economic interests ahead of policies set to protect future citizens of their nations. Greenhouse emissions are essentially a kind of environmental bond that our children and grandchildren will have to pay back at a very high interest rate.
Re: (Score:2)
Permafrost melt under a massive oil tank is a product of the inability of regulators to require the tank operator to have deep enough foundations and to provide means like refrigeration to make sure it doesn't melt out from under the foundations.
Re: (Score:2)
In parts of Siberia, the permafrost is something like 5,000 feet thick. That's going to make building foundations a monumental task, and keeping it cold probably just as costly. That's where fossil fuel revenues begin to get hit by the sheer expense of extraction and storage. That's what makes climate change so expensive, and creates the vicious cycle where you need to extract more oil to pay for extracting the oil, until the point where the costs exceed revenues.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the warmest May on record, and temperatures in Siberia are 10c over normal.
https://phys.org/news/2020-06-... [phys.org]