Tanker runs aground in Alaska, spills oil products
ANCHORAGE, Alaska, Feb 2 (Reuters) – An oil tanker carrying nearly 5 million gallons of oil and gasoline was struck by an ice floe and ran aground while loading oil products at an Alaska refinery on Thursday, causing a spill, a state official and the refining company said.
“At this time we do not have an estimate as to the amount of product released,” refinery owner Tesoro Corp. said in a statement.
The Tesoro-chartered double-hulled tanker, the Seabulk Pride, was loading heavy vacuum gas oil and unleaded gasoline from the refinery in Nikiski, Alaska, on the Cook Inlet, the company said.
It said the ice floe parted the mooring line and sent the 600-foot (183-meter) tanker adrift before it went aground about half a mile (800 metres) north of the dock, and that the vessel’s tanks were secure.
Is Alaska a good recipe for the American oil addiction?
Here are my two cents for the general discussion on oil.
Whether Bush meant something serious with his proclamation “America is addicted to oil” (most likely not), many neo-conservative hearts must have gotten nervous by those words. Here is some discussion of non-speachless NRO pundits. Bold emphasis mine:
“ADDICTED TO OIL” [Jonathan H. Adler]
Yes, the United States uses lots of oil. Given that it is far cheaper to produce oil overseas, the vast majority of oil comes from overseas. It’s all well and good to talk about alternative forms of energy, but most of those the President touts – renewable fuels, no-emission coal, etc. – will do nothing to reduce oil imports. Most oil goes into our automobiles, not power plants. The President may get lots of applause for promoting ethanol fuel, but it’s hardly sound economic or environmental policy. Don’t get me wrong. I am all in favor of clearing the way for alternative energy sources. I just lack confidence in the government’s ability to pick the winners and losers in energy markets and steer the way toward an oil-free future.ENERGY [Cliff May]
Solar and wind? C’mon.And nuclear is great but it will only cut our dependence on oil when we have plug-in hybrids cars that can run primarily on electricity.
ADDICTED TO OIL [Rick Brookhiser]
Does this mean nuclear power? (Subject of a special issue of NR I edited in 1979, just one month before Three Mile Island!)MORE ON ENERGY [Jonathan H. Adler]
Reviewing the text, it is interesting that the President’s energy comments stressed alternatives to oil (though not alternatives to all fossil fuels, insofar as he mentioned coal). Unfortunately, the President did not talk about policies to free up market-driven innovation in the neergy sector, instead stressing the government’s role as the subsidizer of favored technologies.
Yeah, Adler, government is not 100% effective, but is it the worst thing to spend some 40% above optimum? Is the free market more effective and timely, really?
SOTU BEST & WORST [John J. Miller]
A so-so speech. […]Worst metaphor: “America is addicted to oil.” I eat food every day. Am I addicted to it, like a junkie, or do I merely need it to stay healthy?
ADDICTED TO CONFUSION? [ Iain Murray]
never watch the SOTU, believing that Jefferson had the right idea in delivering it by letter, but my colleague Myron Ebell has the following to say on the energy segment:In his State of the Union address this evening, President Bush took a big step toward returning the United States to the disastrous energy policies of the Nixon and Carter years. The president’s hackneyed and dangerous rhetoric that we are addicted to oil is an indication that the administration is addicted to confused thinking about energy policies. The goals and methods the president announced tonight will be hindrances and obstacles to creating a bright energy future for American consumers. They will interfere with the working of the market that provides incentives for increasing supplies and for technological innovations. In taking these steps in the wrong direction, President Bush also seems to have forgotten the positive energy policies that he has promoted in the past. These include removing the political and legal obstacles to exploiting America’s vast conventional energy resources, including opening ANWR and OCS areas to oil and gas development.
Yea, verily. The current anti-energy feeling will probably go down as one of the greatest cases of groundless mass hysteria in the history of mankind. Sad to see the President has been infected.
“I’M THE PRESIDENT, AND I’M AN OIL ADDICT” [Iain Murray]
As an indication of what the rest of the world thought was important about the SOTU speech, here’s the BBC’s headline: “Bush urges end to oil addiction.” That one, silly, inaccurate metaphor has attracted more press around the world than anything about Iraq, Iran, cloning, spending cuts or globalization. Le Monde called it his “principal announcement” and even translated the phrase as saying oil is like a drug to America. The lesson for Europe is that America will cave on something fundamental to its economy if you harp on about it long enough.MORE ENERGY REALISM [Iain Murray]
It’s worth looking at just who supplies the US with its oil. Of the top suppliers of oil to us, we presumably are seriously worried about the stability of Saudi Arabia and Venezuela. Nigeria, Angola, Colombia and Algeria presumably fall into a middle ground where we are trying to support the governments against potential destabilizers. We are presumably happy with Canada, Mexico, Iraq, Kuwait, Ecuador, the United Kingdom (!), Equatorial Guinea, Norway and Trinidad & Tobago (although some may fall in the middle ground). Reducing US energy use generally hurts all of these trading partners; unless we’re advocating a Cuba-style boycott of Saudi (but not, according to the President, Venezuelan) oil that would simply increase the pain felt by American consumers at the gas pump, because the price of oil is set in a global market. The oil addiction message makes less and less sense the more you look at it.SPECTER JUMPS ON THE OIL ADDICTION BANDWAGON [Iain Murray]
Presumably cashing in on the President’s anti-oil rhetoric last night, Sen. Specter has said it’s time to legislate on oil prices, although how artificially lowering prices will cure an addiction, I don’t know. For a great, comprehensive essay on just why windfall taxes and anti-gouging laws are a really, really bad idea, see Marlo Lewis’ treatment here.
Reducing energy consumption will hurt some, and will please some. Just like global warming. Why would you care, Murray?
President Bush said the United States is “addicted to oil.” What a poor choice of words. It’s like saying humans are “addicted” to oxygen. The simple fact is that our modern-day economy could not exist without the inexpensive and abundant supplies of petroleum that drove the dynamism of the previous century. Oil has — quite literally — fueled our economy and provided Americans unparalleled standards of living. Oil has delivered levels of sustained economic production unimaginable a century ago. And it has helped advance the concept of personal automobility that is so much a feature of present-day America. Those are all good things.
So why did the president’s speech make it seem like using oil is, well, so dirty and wrong?
Certainly no one is happy with the wealth transfers to kleptocrats in Riyadh or agitators in Caracas. But bashing foreign oil overlooks the fact that the main supplier of crude oil to the United States is not Saudi Arabia or any other OPEC nation. It’s Canada. We should obviously look for ways to lessen our dependence on supplies from unstable parts of the world. That’s why the development of Canadian oil sands and the liberalization of Mexico’s energy sector (America’s number two supplier) are so crucial. Same with opening federal lands such as ANWR to new production. And we should look to new technologies for solutions to our most pressing energy challenges. But we shouldn’t condemn oil as some sort of narcotic or poison when it does so much to enrich our daily lives.
Perhaps Bush considered for the first time the possibility that the inexpensive and abundant supplies of petroleum will not be available at some time. Say, we have oil for 50 years. That’s maybe fantastic… But wouldn’t it be most sensible to make it available for 150 years instead, by conserving it somewhat? Can we be sure that the coming new technologies will provide just as abundant, cheap and effective sources of energy for keeping up a dynamic booming economy?
And here is how Detroit strikes back:
What Would George Drive?
Bush goes green at the State of the Union.By Henry Payne
Detroit — In Tuesday’s State of the Union address, George Bush hit the rhetorical low of his presidency. By calling for an end to “America’s addiction to oil,” he not only embraced the radical, green vocabulary of Al Gore, but he undercut the principles of freedom, innovation, and anti-isolationism outlined elsewhere in the very same speech.
The president touted his commitment “to encourage innovation… and give our nation’s children a firm grounding in math and science.” But his oil-addiction comments were just the opposite, a prescription for ignorance. With his cynical pander to opinion polls and special interests, the president missed an opportunity to educate the nation on the essential role energy plays in our prosperity.
At least he didn’t ask: “What would Jesus drive?”
Bush promised that “we will change how we power our automobiles,” as if there is an alternative. There is not. Gasoline-powered engines are not dominant because oil company pushers have addicted us to the oil drug. Gas is simply the best energy source on the planet. At 18,700 BTU (British Thermal Unit) per pound, gasoline vastly outperforms ethanol — the president’s stated alternative — at just 11,500 BTU/lb. That means a gallon of gas goes farther, cheaper.
Yeah, as long as there is some oil…
[Crossposted at Daily Kos.]
