The Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Some Background and What It Means
Posted by Gail the Actuary on April 28, 2010 - 10:16am
We have all been reading about the blowout that led to huge fire and sinking of the Deepwater Horizon drilling rig in the Gulf of Mexico. Now there is news that there is a huge oil spill coming from the underground pipe where this occurred, and there is a possibility that it will be months before it can be stopped. What does this all mean? How could this happen?
Below the fold, I will tell you the story as I understand it. It seems to me that the great depth and attendant pressures, and the learning curve that goes working within these new parameters, probably contributed to the initial leak, and is contributing to the difficulties that are now occurring in stopping the leak.
This particular well was not an important one--one source said it had economic importance only because of its proximity to a platform which was already in the area. The issues are more the possible environmental damage and the political fallout that could come from the accident. Unfortunately, most of the "easy oil" is gone. The oil that remains all has some challenges--but the fact of the matter is that the world economy cannot run without oil. So there are no easy answers.
1. Are these spills very common?
Huge blowouts (explosions, followed by fire, occurring when wells are being drilled), occurring in US waters, are uncommon. The last one was the Santa Barbara Union Oil Blowout in 1969 - a little over 40 years ago. The leak lasted 11 days, and the amount of the spill was estimated to be 200,000 gallons (5,000 barrels of oil), so was less than the amount of the current spill. But it was close to shore, and the oil damaged beaches, besides affecting wildlife. (Correction: The source I used seems to be incorrect. Other sources give 80,000 to 100,000 barrels, which would be much larger. If the current blowout is now estimated to be leaking 5,000 barrels a day, the amount of the spill in Santa Barbara may still not be as large as the current spill, however.)
Much more common are oil spills, typically occurring when a ship powered by oil, or a ship carrying oil, collides with another object. The biggest recent oil spill in US waters was the Exxon Valdez oil spill, which occurred in Alaska in 1989. This occurred when an oil tanker ran aground, and spilled 10.9 million gallons (250,000 barrels of oil). If the current spill is 1,000 barrels a day, the Exxon Valdez spill would be the equivalent of the spill continuing for eight months. No one expects the current spill to continue for that long.
An analysis from NOAA shows that there have been many oil spills from ships over the years. Modern double hull oil tankers are not as susceptible to spills, but the many small ships (especially low budget, unlicensed ships) carrying goods of all types can and do run aground, causing smaller spills. The US Coast Guard has regulations to try to prevent problems of this type.
Besides spills, there are naturally occurring underground seeps that allow hydrocarbons to enter the water. In fact, it is these seeps that led to the discoveries of many of the oil deposits found at sea. National Geographic talks about huge underwater asphalt volcanos being discovered off of California, caused by underwater eruptions of hydrocarbons. These eruptions likely caused huge oil slicks.
2. How did the blowout occur?
The earliest oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico were in shallow waters near the coast. But as these wells have become depleted, it has been necessary to drill in ever-deeper waters. When one drills in deeper water, the challenges are greater--the pressures are greater, the temperature of the oil is higher, and the stresses on the metals involved are greater.
The oil industry is creating ever-more technologically advanced equipment to deal with these issues, but the fact remains that it is virtually impossible to solve every new problem that may arise through computer simulations. If one tweaks one part of the equipment to make it stronger (to deal with the higher pressures, and greater temperature differential between the hot oil and the cold water), it can cause unforeseen problems with another system that interacts with it.
Unfortunately, there is an element of trial and error whenever technology attempts to overcome new hurdles. These issues aren't unique to oil and gas--they are just as much challenges to any new technology, including offshore wind and carbon capture and storage technology. While one would like to move smoothly from one technology to the next, in a short time frame, one really must test equipment in the real world. This means progress tends not to be as fast as one would like: it often is punctuated by setbacks when something that looks like it would work in computer simulations, doesn't really work, or when some unforeseen combination of events takes place.
We don't yet know precisely what happened to cause the blowout--there will no doubt be months of investigations. The basic idea of what happened is that Transocean, under contract with BP, was attempting to drill a new well, not too far from existing wells in a deep water area of the Gulf of Mexico. The well was almost complete--in fact, the well seemed to be far enough along that the danger of blowout appeared to be very low. The casing had been cemented, and work was being done on getting a production pipe installed.
Apparently, a pressure surge occurred that could not be controlled. While the equipment includes all kinds of controls and alarms, and a huge 450 ton device called a blowout preventer, somehow it was still not possible to control the hydrocarbon flow. At such high pressures, some of the natural gas separated from the oil within the hydrocarbon stream and ignited causing the explosion.
Some of our readers have provided their ideas as to what might have happened. Rockman has suggested that the strength of the pipes (to withstand the underwater pressure) might have made it impossible for the shear rams in the blowout preventer to slam shut and cut off the pipe, as they were intended to do. Westexas has suggested that perhaps metallurgical failure at such great depths may have contributed to the accident. It is possible that there was some element of human error as well. Without a thorough investigation, it is impossible to know exactly what happened, and even then, there are likely to be gaps in our knowledge.
3. What is being done to stop the leak?
For the last several days, BP has been trying to use sub-sea robots, operating at 5,000 feet below the surface, to engage the blowout preventer and turn off the flow, which seems to amount to about 1,000 barrels (42,000 gallons) per day. With each day that passes, the chance of this working would seem to go down. If the blow out preventer didn't activate properly originally, and hasn't engaged during past attempts by robots, why would a new attempt work any better?
There are two alternative approaches BP is using to cutting off the flow. One approach is to drill a second well to intercept the first well, and inject a special heavy fluid to cut off the flow. Workers will then permanently seal the first well. This procedure is expected to take several months.
The other approach is designing and fabricating an underwater collection device (dome) that would trap escaping oil near the sea floor and funnel it for collection. According to NOAA, this approach has been used successfully in shallower water but never at this depth (approximately 5,000 feet). NOAA reports construction of such a dome has already begun.
Until one of these plans works, the approach is to try control the oil that rises to the surface. According to one source:
BP is throwing all the resources it has available at the spill, so the cost to the company may be substantial. It has deployed 32 spill response ships and five aircraft to spray up to 100,000 gallons of chemical dispersant on the slick and skim oil from the surface of the water and deploy floating barriers to trap the oil.
Another approach that is being tried is burning the oil trapped on the surface. This approach would seem to work best when seas are calm.
Even with these approaches, there is a significant chance the spill will reach shore, perhaps by this week end. Even if it remains at sea, it can be damaging to marine life.
4. How important are wells such as this one for oil production?
In general, the world is running short of good places to drill for oil. There are a few places where oil still can be extracted inexpensively, but these are becoming fewer and fewer in number. What we seem to have left is expensive hard-to-extract oil, especially in this hemisphere.
In the absence of new deep water wells in the Gulf of Mexico, Gulf oil production would likely be declining.
It can be seen from Figure 2 that between 2003 and 2008, oil production in this region was declining, but in the last couple of years, as deep water wells have started coming on board, it has begun increasing again. If companies are successful in drilling more deep water wells, oil production in the Gulf of Mexico may grow again, perhaps to 2 or even 2.5 million barrels a day, before resuming its decline. This would not be a huge amount relative to world production of crude oil of 73 million barrels a day, but compared to the US's crude oil production of 5.4 million barrels a day, this would be a substantial part. In the absence of deep water drilling, Gulf of Mexico production would likely continue to decline, as it did in the 2003 to 2008 period.
Governmental agencies like to talk about "liquids" as if they were all equivalent to crude oil, but they really aren't. On a "liquids" basis, the US is said to have 9.3 million barrels a day, including ethanol, and natural gas liquids, and the expansion in volume that occurs when refineries combine US natural gas with crude oil imported from overseas, as part of the refining process. (As mentioned above, crude oil production is only 5.4 million barrels a day.) Deep water oil is generally good quality oil, that can be refined to produce the products our economy needs, where these other products are of lower energy value, and generally lower price. Losing high quality oil would be much more of a blow than losing lower quality products that have been added to the reporting category, to disguise our true shortage of high-quality crude.
The world is at this point struggling with financial difficulties. We like to think that our current order of things, in which we can depend on imports from abroad, will continue indefinitely. But I do not think this will be the case. As more and more countries (Greece, Portugal, and Spain, to start with) struggle with their debts, oil exporters will have less and less willingness to sell oil to those with questionable credit. Many in this country think that the US is immune to this problem, but if it turns out that the US has difficulties as well, we may lose even more true oil than a comparison based on overstated "liquids" would seem to suggest. In that case, we would be very happy to have some home-produced oil, at least for a short time, while it lasts.
5. The natural order of things.
Most of us don't take time to think about what the true natural order of the world is. If we go back 100,000 years, there were no cars, no superhighways, and no oil wells. There were also very many fewer people, no wind turbines, and no computers. There was no problem with ocean acidification. Fish were abundant in the seas. The world was very different then.
The natural order of things keeps changing, on its own, without our intervention. One type of animal dies out, and another replaces it. Plants undergo natural selection, so as to adapt to changes in the environment.
In the fossil fuel world, we know their have been changes as well, and will continue to be. Where there are not cap rocks on oil supplies, hydrocarbons tend to migrate upward. When they do this, microbes in the atmosphere tend to break them down. Eventually, oil that is not under a tight cap rock tends to disappear--which is why we are having so much difficulty finding oil now.
The oil that escapes as oil spills will also migrate upward to the water surface, just as it does when it migrates upward through oil seeps. In warm, sunny areas, like area around the Gulf of Mexico, hydrocarbons that migrate upward will biodegrade will fairly quickly--within a few years. Some residue may remain for longer. This will be sticky at first, but then turn to asphalt, before it too breaks down.
It seems to me that as world oil supplies deplete, the world will tend back toward what I have described as the natural order of things. We won't be able to support as many people on the earth. Highways will disappear, as governments no longer have funds to resurface them. Without roads, automobiles will no longer be useful. Cows, and pigs will decline in numbers. Fish will return to the seas. Plant and animal life will change, to fill in the gap we left. We will really have to fight to avoid this natural rearrangement, and even then, we are not likely to be very successful.
We have a large number of people who classify themselves as environmentalists. They have a very different view of the world, and what is important for the long term. One of their concerns is that beaches not be despoiled by what looks like asphalt from oil spills. But these people seem to have little concern about the long stripes of asphalt that are being used for interstate highways. They are very concerned about the tens of thousands of birds that have been killed by oil spills, but they are not concerned (or not very much concerned ) about the billions of fish that are being removed from the oceans by fishermen every year. It seems to me that a major part of their concern is not really for the environment--it is for maintaining business as usual (BAU). Having pretty beaches, now. A nice place for their (many) children. Their plan seems to be for a light green BAU.
6. Where should we be putting our energies now?
If we lived in a world with plenty of energy, my vote would be with the environmentalists. If we don't really need the oil, why not just close the industry down? No need to worry about asphalt on our beaches, or our fishermen getting big enough catches. If we need more oil, we can just use our large financial surpluses to buy more oil from abroad. With all the energy, we probably wouldn't need to worry about enough jobs for the US population either.
But if we are headed toward an energy-constrained world, it seems to me that we need to be thinking about our choices more clearly.
Do we really have options for oil that are better? Can we count on world imports? Should we expect Brazil to do real-time experiments, to try to figure out how to extract its deep water oil, and then export it to us? Should we count on the Saudis, with their unaudited reserves and questionable "spare capacity" to keep up their production? Should we expect someone, somewhere, to find four or six new "Saudi Arabias" of additional oil over the next 20 years?
If we can't depend on imports, do we have more locally produced oil that we can ramp up? From an environmental point of view, would ramping up the oil sands in Canada be better? Or how about oil shale, out in the dry areas of the US West? Would we be willing to devote scarce water supplies in that area to ramping up oil production?
It is easy to say that there should be more rules for the oil and gas industry, but there can be a downside to these rules as well. More rules will delay extraction, and will likely lead to a smaller amount of oil extracted, but at a higher price. There is also the question of whether the rules will really prevent oil spills. If the issue is really that new technology has to be tested live, no amount of rules will really fix the situation. There will always be accidents.
If one is thinking about new rules, one should think about the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. It imposed substantial rules for US public companies after a number of major corporate accounting scandals. But how much good have these rules really been for preventing the financial crisis and aggressive behavior by banks? It seems to me that new rules are usually designed to prevent last year's problem, not next year's problem.
If we don't have oil, would we rather have coal, and a CO2 sequestration site underneath our homes, as technicians test to see whether their computer models are really correct with respect to how well the CO2 will stay underground? (If it doesn't stay underground, it could form a low lying cloud and smother those in its way.)
There are indirect implications of a loss of oil, too. A fisherman may have more fish to catch, if all oil spills are prevented. But if, in the process, the fisherman doesn't have enough fuel for his boat, or his customers don't have jobs and can't buy the fish, he is not as much better off as he would seem to be.
Given all of the environmental concerns regarding oil and gas, I can understand why many people would decide that the best decision is to err in the direction of caution regarding future oil production. But if this is the route we take (and even if it isn't), we need to be thinking about where this puts us relative to the natural order of things. Presumably, with less oil, the downslope in the direction of the natural order of things will be even quicker. While some may not object to this, it would seem to me that it would make the urgency of adapting to the new world order even greater than it would be otherwise. This would suggest that we should be putting our efforts into energy sources that are truly renewable with only local materials--small scale wind, run of the stream hydro, and solar of the type that might be used to heat hot water a bit, but not to create electricity. These would not allow us to maintain BAU, or a world very close to BAU.
To me, there are no easy choices.
The Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Some Background and What It Means
PDF version
346 comments
The Gulf of Mexico Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill: Some Background and What It Means
PDF version
346 comments
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
Why is there not the equivalent of a "fire department" that is paid for by all parties profiting from off-shore oil activities, including shipping. What I mean is a set of strategically located gear/people that could be flown to a spill site very quickly. The gear would be used to contain the spill as soon as possible.
There is. Look at some of Rockman's posts from the last few days.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6397/613751
Thanks. That is encouraging.
So do they parachute gear (eg dinghies & booms) & personnel near the accident site? We should see pics and read narratives of these heroes at work, risking their lives to contain the damage of a spill, no?
They send specially equipped ships and aircraft.
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1985197,00.html?xid=rss-t...
One way or another, you pay for it. The only "good news" is that this is light oil and much of it will evaporate in time. Pray for favorable weather.
That may not be such good news, sounds like the weather may be changing soon, The only really good news is we have a couple of months before hurricane season starts to see if this mess can be cleaned up.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/20100428/ts_ynews/ynews_ts1815
Just read a news story saying that this is tar-like oil that will sink, so burning it on the surface may not help much. Didn't note exactly where on the Web I saw this. FireDogLake, the Website, has this:
Okay, found the story:
What is left is something a lot like asphalt. We seem to purposely place asphalt all over, without too much concern for plants and animals. Many roads are asphalt. We also use it in roofing shingles.
It is my understanding that the short chain hydrocarbons that tend to burn, leaving the long chain hydrocarbons. It is the short chain hydrocarbons that are most reactive--more likely to cause cancer, for example. Long chain hydrocarbons are a lot more inert.
I'm new to this board. My background is in-water acoustics. I have been out to many rigs in my day SEDCO445 being one of them. I helped place the first subsea platform template in the North Sea. I know little about the actual drilling operation. I have placed riser angle sensors on BOPs thats about it. I think this particular problem needs a little thinking outside the box. And before you lay into me I know this idea will sound risky because failure could be even more catastrophic.
My thought was to place focused charges below the BOP to collapse the casement and drill string at several locations simultaneously. Between the charge and casing a steel focusing plate would direct the charge energy to pinchoff points along the string. Maybe the casing and drill string are too brittle. I don't know. Anyone have any comments?
Wake up Dude! Why should they parachute gear and personal near the accident site? To get lost at sea? To increase the number of lives lost at sea? The leak is in 5000 feet depth! It need special equipment - what by the way is already on site!!! PLEASE think before you type! If you read the entire Article you would know what they are planning and that they are already on it!
White House has banned new drilling!
That about sums it up. One can certainly argue that we are better off drilling in deep water and getting some oil for a while - that the risks of that outweigh the risks of economic collapse .... but the only way that path makes sense is if, at the same time, we develop other approaches to finding and using energy. US offshore oil isn't enough to significantly change the big picture as I understand it.
One upside to this terrible event is that it brings home how hard we have to push it these days to get petroleum.
question - I understand this well was in one mile of water. How far below the seabed surface was the reservoir being tapped?
thanks
I am not quite certain on this particular well. One summary I read says
We know that the Deepwater Horizon could drill at much greater depths than this, though. Wikipedia says
The huge depths below the sea no doubt made a difference in the pressure that the hydrocarbons were under.
Some 20,000 feet below coastal Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama is a strata known as the Tuscaloosa Trend. It was formed at a time when the north shore of the Gulf of Mexico lapped at the southern border of Arkansas. In the late 1970s, oil companies drilled to a depth of 27,000 feet below surface and found huge volumes of gas. The down hole pressure was 7 times greater than at surface. Brine that entrained the gas flash distilled separating salt, water and gas by virtue of the lesser pressure at the surface. This same geologic formation is again being reworked and has, in St. Helena Parish (county) which is northeast of Baton Rouge, brought in a well yielding the world's larges natural gas flow...34 million cubic feet a day.
It is likely that the current blown-out well was pressured in a like zone.
What world is that on? In the one I was on, a really big gas well would 100 million cubic feet per day.
Okay, yes. American perspective, where they consider Texas to be big. Canadian provinces and gas wells tend to be bigger.
Hold on Rocky.....size doesn't matter. Recovery does. LOL. Yep...34 mmcfpd isn't a popcorn fart. But still far from the record. I think I recall the record was about 240 mmcfpd....maybe Indonesia?
Okay, I will concede Texas is relatively large. 2% larger than Alberta to be exact. We used to annoy Texans by telling them that everything in Texas was 2% bigger than anything we had.
Except gas wells. The largest gas well I have personally experienced was 150 mmcf/d. Unfortunately that was in a blowout, and the gas was 30% hydrogen sulfide. You could smell it 1000 miles downwind. A real bonus for the environmental activism movement.
Fortunately the wind was not to the south. Otherwise people in California would have been saying, "Who farted?" The farmers in Western Canada just thought the pigs were responsible.
Except for our office in Edmonton. The secretary called the gas company and complained of a gas leak in the building. They came, investigated, and told her, "Hey, it's not our fault, it's your gas well!" Somewhat embarrassing for us.
dovey -- I've heard the zone was at 18,000'. that would be about 13,000' below the sea floor (18,000' - 5,000' water depth)
My question was about the failed underwater valves that would prevent the leak in the first place. How often are these tested? How much do we really know about the condition of other such valves?
jhm -- MMS requires testing/certification of the BOB's every 30 days. Can take as much as a day or more to complete tests. At a daily rig cost of $800,000/day an expensive but neccesary expense.
Thanks Gail. I appreciate your opinions and agree (at the risk of flak), is that a lot of environmentalism is self serving. Sometimes, environmentalism is simply NIMBY. For example, a large windmill farm was suggested for the shallow waters below Quadra Island and views won. (Of course I don't have to look at it so it is easy for me to say)
"To me, there are no easy choices."
We can make personal choices to do our best by separating needs from wants and refining the list as prices inevitably escalate. Regardless of how we make our livings, the market will help this along.
I am in awe of the engineering and scale of these endeavours to find more oil. Regardless of personal beliefs on offshore drilling and all oil production, one can only marvel at man's ability to envision, organize, and set forth in action. I have to drive to town today and appreciate there is fuel in my truck. ....too far to walk.
I hope the experts can get the leak stopped as soon as possible.
How do you know that 'views' won? How many people talking about the loss of a view, or applauding those who did, were privately more concerned about property value?
My own observation of the opposition to windmills in my region is that it is almost entirely motivated by perceptions of personal financial interests at risk. So why would I call these people environmentalists?
Self-interested individuals point to a concern that can be generalized, like a panorama, to gain allies. It is the generalizability, or spatially and temporally unfixed characteristic, of a concern that permits us to consider it an environmental concern. Just because some people decide to mask their private and immediate interest in the guise of a concern about the environment does not make them environmentalists. And we should not smear environmentalism because some people choose to use it as a cover.
It seems like language, like everything else in the universe, is subject to a tendency to disorder.
I am deeply offended by such a callous remark. I do not want to see wetlands destroyed anywhere in the world. I do not want dolphins and whales choked with oil anywhere in the world.
We are destroying the earth, we are polluting the lakes, inland seas are drying up, rivers are running dry, species are going extinct, deserts are expanding, forests are being clear cut and the land where trees once stood are washing away. Ocean fisheries are disappearing.
And you suggest that these concerns are just NIMBY selfishness?
The market will help you along but not the environment. The market does not give a damn about wetlands, of dolphins, or trees, or rivers or expanding deserts or…
The market is totally anthropocentric, like a lot of Homo sapiens. Anthropocentrism is the purest form of NIMBY selfishness.
Ron P.
If you don't get the significance of his remark, and deny it's truth in eg. Kennedys v.s. ofshore wind turbines, then you're simply living on a different world. There's knowledgeable and committed environmentalists who train their skills in both nature and engineering well enough to distinguish for themselves real issues from their own investigations of primary data, and those who simply follow the most fashionable current cause simply because it is in vogue and who can be lead around like sheep by any interest willing to put up the small amount of resources required to get the required PR, eg. most anti-nuclear power advocates.
Do they fight for baby seals but don't care about chickens?
Do they fight for dolphins but not tuna?
Do they fight to preserve first-growth forests (often near their vacation properties) but care little for second-growth?
etc. etc.
Len Gould, you simply do not understand what the debit is all about. First, environmentalist are divided no nuclear power. We all agree that nuclear waste is dangerous and difficult to store forever. But we all also agree that coal power plants dump dangerous soot, sulfur dioxide, arsenic, radium and other dangerous and choking materials into the atmosphere. The debate is all about which is more dangerous.
Do they fight for baby seals but don't care about chickens?
I am astonished that you would post such a silly statement. Seals are wildlife, killed for their fur, not for food. Chickens are not wild, they are grown for food. If they were not grown for food they would not exist. Many environmentalists are vegetarians but not all of them.
Do they fight for dolphins but not tuna?
Dumb, dumb, dump. You apparently know absolutely nothing about the environmental movement or people who are concerned with the oceans in general. Of course we are concerned with tuna. The tuna are being overfished and are disappearing at an alarming rate along with all other food fish. We are very concerned about tuna!
Do they fight to preserve first-growth forests (often near their vacation properties) but care little for second-growth?
You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Environmentalists are just ordinary people like me. No greater percentage of us has vacation homes than people who don't give a damn about the environment. We fight to preserve old growth forest or any other kind of forest. To say we are not concerned about second growth forest is just silly. We fight to have the clear cut forest re-planted. We fight for second growth. How can you possibly make such a silly statement?
Ron P.
Long experience, Ron.
I've seen the difference between old growth and 2nd..., I much prefer old growth.
To address just the last of your objections, can you tell me precisely how much of your fighting against clearcutting of forests has simply resulted in the loggers shifting from conventional logging to helicopter logging, which I estimate is about the most wastefull application of high technology I have ever seen. I do know that in the area of the interior of BC where my parents had built their retirement cottage the only logging operations I ever saw were several heli-logging operations, and I understand they are also common on the coast.
The point is, if you don't have a very clear and detailed strategy of how EVERYONE is going to go from where we are to where you want us to be, comprehensively, totally, covering all issues from world inequity to malthusian dieoff-dreams often expressed to a myriad other issues, then you should stop shouting and get planning and publishing the plans. Put up or shut up.
Old growth forests are more valuable, home to more unique and endangered species, and also more rare. Thus they are more of a focus for preservation.
The idea that "unless you can say how every detail will work out you should be quiet" is kind of odd. Especially on an internet forum. Does anyone have a plan like that? It would get pretty quiet around here ....
Exactly, not only around here. If everyone were concentrated on fixing government then we might actually get somewhere.
I ran for president last election. How is that for trying to fix government?
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed future,
You can read my plans on my blogspot site listed in my profile. But generally what you are asking us to do is almost impossible without also being GOD. As only a deity can make humans listen to him, and seeing how many people listen to deities these days that ain't happening either.
Publishing anything is a hard thing to do, as it takes a lot of money, but what are you really asking? Do I have to also have a degree and a university job so that I can get my paper published in a Journal? Do I have to have a book with my name on the byline? Do I have to have a newspaper with my articles in it?
I have a blog where I post short fiction and non-fictional essays and thoughts, so does that count?
Just because I can't tell you all my ideas, and some of them would be considered radical by most of you if all of them were posted, I have in the past posted them and gotten called names for it. I don't have the dates, but it was last year in a drumbeat.
Even if my ideas were published, who would listen to them? Would you go out and reform your life to deal with the issues that I say you should?
I think it is stupid for people to mow their lawns and then bag up the grass clippings and have someone haul them off. I think it is stupid to clear cut any forest, at any stage of it's growth cycle. But what I think as a conservationist which I prefer over environmentalist, only can be practiced by me and those that I can convince by my own actions, not by what I write about.
I have cut down trees on my one land, because they had grown sickly and thin, and were a danger to my house. I can't use fire wood, but cut it up for others to use. I don't grow grass in my yard per se, there is grass but I preffer the mixture of wild weed like plants because they offer a better ecosystem for everything else.
I could go on and on, but that won't matter, unless you think that posting here is published enough to be of value.
Oh and I use my dollars which are fewer than most here, yearly income under $9,000 (US), to vote on my opinion.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed future, (Hint I do practice what I preach).
I applaud the efforts you are making, C, but appologetically propose they will have very little effect on the future of M. Earth if 5 billion or so others don't do it also. And who knows if even your small footprint on earth is sustainable, or whether you could safely increase that footprint to include a manicured lawn? By what scientific (eg. analytical, data-based) process did you arrive at the conclusion that what you are now doing is the correct thing?
I see no reason to require every or any individual to become a genius-level polymath. What I'm advocating is that we must collectively learn how to arrive at consensus based on the best data and analyses available. IPCC's initial process on climate change is a good model, eg. a very few (16 total staff last I checked) clerical types educated in the art of publishing scientific information request, prod and poke top scientists to produce synthesis reports on the matter of interest regularly. The later process, of allowing politicians to then modify the science, is of course flawed, that process should be limited to the recommendation of actions phase. It's the start of a model, IMHO. Of course, far more important is to get rid of the whole concept of nation-states and start sharing our earth's bounty fairly and equitably under a common system of rules.
I've been trained as an Architect and Landscape Architect, I have gardened for over 30 years, I have studied wild edible plants in this region of the the US. I don't have a degree, But I don't think I need one of those to be sensible.
I don't want a manicured lawn, never have and never will. I barely manicure my garden plants.
I can't change the future. I can only change me, and that is a hard change some days. I don't expect to be able to fix the world's problems either.
I'd like to put all the crimnals of the world on little islands(one per) out in shark infested waters, but that is not going to happen.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed future.
Do they fight for baby seals but don't care about chickens?
I am astonished that you would post such a silly statement. Seals are wildlife, killed for their fur, not for food. Chickens are not wild, they are grown for food. If they were not grown for food they would not exist. Many environmentalists are vegetarians but not all of them.
reply:
Eating chickens and other factory farmed animals is the best way to consume more energy and other inputs. If we are ever going to mitigate energy decline, widespread adoption of vegetarian diets in the wealthy parts of the world would be required. Most environmental groups are reluctant to suggest this.
Do they fight for dolphins but not tuna?
Dumb, dumb, dump. You apparently know absolutely nothing about the environmental movement or people who are concerned with the oceans in general. Of course we are concerned with tuna. The tuna are being overfished and are disappearing at an alarming rate along with all other food fish. We are very concerned about tuna!
reply:
How many environmental groups urge people - especially those not near a beach - to stop consuming factory trawled fish?
Do they fight to preserve first-growth forests (often near their vacation properties) but care little for second-growth?
You haven't a clue as to what you are talking about. Environmentalists are just ordinary people like me. No greater percentage of us has vacation homes than people who don't give a damn about the environment. We fight to preserve old growth forest or any other kind of forest. To say we are not concerned about second growth forest is just silly. We fight to have the clear cut forest re-planted. We fight for second growth. How can you possibly make such a silly statement?
reply:
Here in Oregon, the environmental groups are mostly concerned with protecting the last of the old growth forests, on public lands. Few of them ever say anything about the clearcutting of second growth forest, especially that which occurs on corporate timberland. Most paid environmentalists are dependent on foundation grants, and many of those foundations are philanthropic divisions of large polluters, including (in some cases) oil companies. The environmental groups willing to take stronger positions for ecological sanity than the Democratic Party usually have to forego foundation grants to have their editorial independence.
A corollary: none of the national environmental groups, with only a few minor exceptions, have ever mounted any sort of campaign to oppose the expansions of the interstate highway system such as the transportation bills of 1991, 1998 and 2005. An even bigger expansion is currently being considered by the Transportation Committees in Congress. Highway expansion is bi-partisan, so the environmental groups would have to criticize the Democrats as well as the Republicans, and few of them dare do that.
see
http://www.road-scholar.org/peak-traffic.html
for more about the failure of the "environmental" groups to address highway expansions after Peak Oil
How does one define an environmentalist? Constructing a straw man "environmentalist" then denouncing them as silly, ill informed and naive is akin to Fox News' denunciation of "liberals," self serving and not terribly helpful. Yes, some who refer to themselves as environmentalists are silly, self centered and uninformed. But many other are serious, concerned for humanity as well as the other inhabitants of earth and extremely well informed about the trade offs in trying to address current energy, climate, population, environmental degradation and economic issues. So in the interests of clarity (and not offending all of us who consider ourselves to be environmentalists) I suggest you try to be a bit more specific in who exactly you are describing. A bit of study of environmental science and ecology might not be a bad move either.
Again: There's knowledgeable and committed environmentalists who train their skills in both nature and engineering well enough to distinguish for themselves real issues from their own investigations of primary data, and those who simply follow the most fashionable current cause simply because it is in vogue
Example: If you don't know a mSv from a becquerel, or the atomic weights of all the relevant radioactive isotopes involved in the production of nuclear power, their half-lives, daughters, what conditions it takes to encourage their fission and what their fission products will be, and a myriad other issues, then you've got no business at all making unattributed statements about nuclear energy. I started out on the topic by purchasing a nuclear engineering textbook with which to supplement my general physics education, and essentially learned enough to know I don't know enough to make unattributed statements. Yet I regularly see "environmentalists" stating errors as absolutes with references, if any, to completely erroneous sources which anyone who got away from an arts school for half a day would know are suspect.
"If you don't know a mSv from a becquerel, or the atomic weights of all the relevant radioactive isotopes involved in the production of nuclear power, their half-lives, daughters, what conditions it takes to encourage their fission and what their fission products will be, and a myriad other issues, then you've got no business at all making unattributed statements about nuclear energy."
Elitist crap! I don't need to know the chemical makeup of used motor oil to know that if I bury it in my backyard it can contaminate the ground water, nor do I need a degree in organic chemistry to tell my neighbors it's a really bad idea.
I don't care if you know the science or not, BUT IF YOU DON'T, then I require that you provide the reliable scientific reference on which your position is based, ESPECIALLY if I request it. If you do know it, then your own credentials will suffice.
Len, Ghung nailed you.
Well, I can ignore both of you then.
Len, can we get your address so we can bury our waste in your backyard?
That's actually quite funny, but not for the reasons you think.
We actually used to dispose of oilfield waste by plowing it into farmer's fields. We'd lease a field from a farmer, spread oil on the surface, and plow it in. We'd put oil-eating bacteria into the soil and turn the ground over every so often so the bacteria got oxygen.
When the oil-eating bacteria had turned all the oil into dirt, we'd fertilize it and otherwise improve the soil, and then turn it back to the farmer. The farmer would get a bumper crop the next year, plus all the money from renting it to us the year before.
Farmers liked to do this when they had worn their land out from overproduction. We'd fix it up for them, and they'd have a few more good years before they wore it out again.
Well Rkymtn since oil is made from plants I suppose that might make sense (I'm sure ya'll and the farmer made sure none would leach into nearby waters). But you didn't say you put oil on the fields but oilfield waste. Any nasties in there that might have gotten into the food chain? Making things grow for a few years doesn't mean that what you grow is safe or sustainable
Cluster of systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) associated with an oil field waste site: a cross sectional study
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1821321/
It varied depending on what we were trying to dispose of. Our drilling waste was mostly bentonite clay, with some rock chips in it, and not a lot of hydrocarbons. The farmers liked the bentonite clay because it improved the water-holding characteristics of the soil (it was in a sandy, semi-arid area).
We also used to dispose of oily waste by land farming. However, we used to do chemical tests on the stuff to be sure that the oil-eating bacteria could deal with it, and we also did soil tests regularly. If it's done right, nothing gets into the food chain.
Here's a US Department of Energy web site discussing disposal of oilfield waste by land farming .
The paper you cited is interesting, but their sample population is too small to be meaningful, and their controls are poor to nonexistent. The people were living in a subdivision built on an old oilfield waste pit, which is a very bad idea.
Pits don't allow oxygen to get to the oil, so the bacteria don't have an opportunity to dispose of it and it persists more or less forever. We don't use pits any more, at least not where I was working.
I have serious doubts about their references to mercury. Crude oil doesn't normally contain mercury. Mercury pollution is usually from other sources (industrial or natural).
Oh, sure. It's 1600 Pensylvania Ave, Washington, DC
Which one SE or NW?
I agree that there is more disinformation being spread around that too many important decisions are being based upon. I think you'll agree that some things are just common sense. Setting emotion aside, I've often reached the right conclusion (after exhausting the science and analysis) by resorting to pure intuition. Sometimes the generalist can see things that so-called specialists miss every time. Methinks we ignore this at our peril.
99 times in 100 your uneducated intuition will simply make matters worse for earth, not better. (Helicopter logging, coal power over nuclear, spurious campaigns against solar thermal (because it's large and ceentral or needs water. Give us a break. Could the coal funding be any more obvious?) Etc. etc. etc.
We have a situation where no proposed "environmental solution" can come unbiased by the proposer's personal biases to what they think they've learned should be "good", and no two peoples proposals will agree. At that point, it falls into the realm of what governments are supposed to be doing for us, which is negotiating among competing interests (the "absolutely no technology" proponents v.s. the "anything but coal or oil" group). Both have pro's and con's. Our present system of government will NEVER offer either one to us. Until we fix that, the rest is simply a minor sideshow and waste of valuable resources.
Our Govt. is motivated by greed and the election process. My intuition revealed that to me.
Somewhere between belief and learning, between bias and clarity lies wisdom. That's what we need.
I seriously doubt that your intuition had anything to do with realizing what our government is motivated by. The prosecutions, election campaigns, and various other glaringly obvious information sources would be the inspiration for that type of opinion.
Seriously, lengould is making a good point. Most people make sweeping remarks about things that they really don't know that much about. Hell, I'm guilty of it as much as anybody else and am probably worse than most. He is merely asking that if you do so, and are not a recognized expert in the field being discussed, be willing to show sources from such experts when asked. Otherwise, be willing to say that you're stating a belief and not a "fact."
Actually, you do need a degree in chemistry. Oil is not as toxic as most people believe, so you need to know what contaminants are in it - e.g. heavy metals. It also does not behave the way people think it does. It is lighter than water, will not go down into deeper strata, and unbeknownst to most people, it is biodegradable. There is oil-eating bacteria in the soil that will turn it into dirt in a few months or years.
I do have a degree in chemistry and used to be involved in oil disposal systems. Oil is generally easier to dispose of than most people think, but the best methods would not make any sense to an average layperson.
Sometimes we used to deal with on-shore oil spills just by monitoring them. Since oil is lighter than ground water, it would migrate along under the surface without going into the water table. As it did so, the oil-eating bacteria would gradually turn it into soil. We would drill observation wells to monitor it. If the bacteria ate all the oil before it reached a body of water, we would rub our hands, say "That was easy!" and walk away.
The problem with aggressive efforts to control oil spills is that they can be worse than the actual oil spills themselves. The detergents and chemicals they use to clean up the oil are considerably more toxic than the oil itself. They make the beach look nice, but the little plants and animals are all dead.
Hey Chemist
What in your mind is the difference between a carbohydrate and a hydrocarbon??
Can you eat oil safely aside from the heavy metals??
FF
A hydrocarbon contains only carbon and hydrogen. A carbohydrate also contains oxygen, and the hydrogen and oxygen are in a 2:1 ratio - i.e. it is a hydrate of carbon.
I can't eat oil, but oil eating bacteria love it. They turn it into water and carbon dioxide. They're quite efficient at it. These bacteria were discovered relatively recently, but have revolutionized oil spill clean up. Here's a site discussing environmentally friendly oil spill cleanup
Even more recently, it has been discovered that earthworms will eat some of the heavier hydrocarbons that the oil eating bacteria can't handle.
Is it possible to speed up biodegradation by introducing bacteria to the spill in question? Or do you need the right conditions ie types of soil or what have you
You have to create the right environment for the oil-eating bacteria. It helps to add nitrogen and phosphorous fertilizers. Here's a Web site giving a simple description of how bacteria clean up oil spills
The right environment is the key. I used to do these sorts of clean ups for a living. N and P help, but almost always, the limiting factor is oxygen availability. No oxygen, the bacteria just can;t eat the oil. The best way to accelerate the rate of bioremediation is get more oxygen in there, which can be done by digging up the soil, or blowing air into it, or blowing air into the groundwater.
Once you get that going, you can then do start to do some testing of the degradation rates, and predict the time required for the cleanup. The more porous the soil, the faster it goes, generally, because you can get more air in there.
I can concur with RMG that the degradation products become part of the organic matter, or humus, in the soil, and generally improve it's qualities - essentially the same process, and result, as composting garden waste.
Yeah, oxygen is critical. In a land farming operation we used to run a plow through the soil every so often to turn it over and give the bacteria oxygen. That plus a little N and P fertilizer and after a few months or years, depending, the oil was just gone.
Gone, like yesterday is gone,
Like history is gone,
Just try and prove me wrong, and pretend like you're immortal.
Okay, I'll stop singing now. The neighbor's dog is complaining.
Looks good on paper, Rocky. In the real world it doesn't seem to work that way. I can take you to a church a few miles from me that has been trying to get their well reapproved for 6 years, since it was condemned for contamination from what??? you guessed it! Improperly disposed of motor oil and fuel oil from a defunct auto shop several hundred yards away. Several wells are affected. The property where the shop was located can't be sold because of the cleanup costs. It seems the clay soil emulsified the oil and acted as a carrier. It was discovered because the folks at the church could taste it. Their well is over 400 feet deep.
But if you want to bury your used oil in your backyard, go for it.
Now, in a case like that, and remember I have a degree in chemistry, what was that auto shop really doing?
I say that because they used to use tetra-ethyl lead as an antiknock additive in gasoline. Often the fuel tanks at gasoline stations used to leak, and as a result the ground around them became heavily contaminated with lead.
Now, saying "the clay soil emulsified the oil and acted as a carrier" doesn't mean anything to me. But if you said, "the gasoline tanks were leaking", I would tend to become quite concerned.
The clay doesn;t act as the carrier, the water does. When the oil/gasoline gets down to the water table, it then moves along the surface of the groundwater. To get several hundred yards suggests sandy/gravelly soil and/or a lot of product. It can happen in fissured clay soil, where the oil runs through the fissures (cracks) but the clay itself tends to grab and hold the oil - lots of surface area.
Now, it doesn't always need groundwater, product can move down through permeable soil and then hits a clay lens (impermeable) and spreads out and follows the dip of the clay lens - think of pouring water onto a table, and then it runs off the table onto the ground.
This can be cleaned up, but it sounds like no one has wanted to, and the site owner has likely declared bankruptcy to avoid the costs - unfortunately, a common tactic.
I knew of one property developer in Australia that only "bought" these sorts of sites - the companies would, of course, pay him to buy them. he knew how to clean them up (and how to tell if a site was "uncleanable and thus not buy it), and he made a small fortune in the process. Often the solution is simple, but no one wants to have a go.
Some sites will clean themselves up, with sufficient time, but this can be decades, and in some cases, centuries - it's all about the oxygen.
There we have it, from the experts. So it's OK to bury my old oil in my yard. With humility, I stand corrected. Appologies to all.
(And I've been saving it and taking it to the recycling center. Silly me!)
Well, yes. Silly you, but not for the reason you imply. I didn't see any place where the chemists suggested treating used engine oil with bacteria, they clearly stated at least once "pure hydrocarbons". Used engine oil is a foul mix of soft bearing metal scrappings, ring and cylinder liner scrappings, factory added modifiers of a broad description, and matter filtered from the atmosphere inside the engine during operation, all lightly suspended in a mix of hydrocarbons and detergents. If you bury that in your yard you deserve the fines you will get.
No, I wasn't saying that it was okay to bury your old oil in your yard. You should still take it to the recycling center, and with a little appropriate technology they can turn it into new oil and you can put it back in your car.
However, used motor oil is not generally the issue, it's the tetraethyl lead they used to use in gasoline. Hydrocarbons are biodegradable, lead is not.
As Paul pointed out, if you know the difference, you can make a lot of money on distressed real estate.
However, if you own a site that had an old gasoline operation with leaky tanks on it, maybe the best solution is to declare bankruptcy and move to a country with strong bank secrecy laws and no extradition treaty.
As an oil executive once told me, they would never sell an old refinery site. They might pave it over and turn it into a truck terminal, but they would never sell it. Some developer would probably build a housing subdivision on it.
Now, RMG, was that executive telling you this before or after the Lynwood Ridge situation?
For the record, another site that can get almost as contaminated are railroad yards, and these have (also) been know to be turned into housing areas!
The best thing, after the clean up, is continuing industrial or at least commercial uses of the site. I have seen sites where the clean up has been taken to the extreme to create an "as new" site, in terms of removing soil contaminants back to background levels. While that may seem like a good thing to do, the massive amount of resources (energy) required to do so, is simply a waste. Some(not all) areas are better off being quarantined and use the scarce resources for productive use elsewhere.
If the cleanup of a 10 acre site requires the equivalent of tens of thousands of tons of coal (electricity) and large amounts of oil for earthmoving equipment, is there actually a net benefit?
Not many people know this, but one of the most contaminated sites in Australia (I worked on it at one point) is the site where the Sydney Olympics were held - it used to be an uncontrolled industrial waste dump! All the soils was (and still is) contaminated, but measures were taken to keep the contaminants in place - they were leaching into Homebush Bay. The basketball centre sits over about 3metres of asbestos, and, my personal favourite, the athletes village was built on a place that was previously known as dioxin hill. (the name was changed prior to bidding for the olympics, for "marketing" reasons).
You can always engineer solutions to these problems, but you can't always do everything and return it to pristine state - sometimes, you just have to settle for preventing any further damage from occurring.
I used to work in a Homebush Bay timber-yard (when a student - 1970) and the whole area was a nightmare - Union Carbide, paint factories, the brickworks, abattoirs - and much else. The Parramatta River was polluted beyond belief.
My grandfather could not drive over the Ryde Bridge into Rhodes, because the smell recalled the gassing he received in WW1 in France. Nice place to turn into an expensive yuppie paradise indeed - but at least the river is much cleaner now, and the mangroves are back.
What the refineries have spilling about looks to be a little more problematic than the raw crude this discussion started with. Nothing like a little water soluble product like sulfolane getting loose. I'm guessing dilution is about the only solution to that type of polution. Our local refinery has a bit of a spill history which could have something to do with its changing hands at least three time in about a decade.
You should either take it to the recycling centre, or burn it. I have seen a boiler specially built for firing on used engine oil, used a post combustion cyclone and magnetic and electrostatic precipitator to collect the metal "ash", and you could put a white cloth over the flue outlet, and it would stay white.
Used oil is a bit like sewage, the base product (oil or water) is relatively benign, it's all the stuff that got mixed in with it that is the problem. And used oil is concentrated enough that it is possible to get the contaminants (metals) out, and if not recover/recycle them, at least concentrate them into a very small volume.
If you were to "farm" your used oil, it would improve your soil, but would also be adding heavy metals over time. It's the same problem with sewage sludge, lots of organic goodness, but if it has lots heavy metals (or pharmaceuticals), then you are gradually contaminating the soil.
For that water well, the aquifer around it can be cleaned up, with a huge amount of effort, or you can clean up the produced water with much less effort, or you can shut down the well and get water from somewhere else, for probably less effort still. You can see why prevention is so much better than cure in these cases.
Fortunately, oil/gasoline spills/leaks are not being created very often these days - we have learned how to prevent them, but some of the old contaminated sites can be impractable to clean up - they just have terminal cancer, and are a sorry legacy of industrialisation.
+10 for Ron's remarks.
It's true some twits call themselves environmentalists, but that's a problem with twits, not environmentalism.
The caricatured view of environmentalists which is often put forth here, and in Gail's article above, is a bit offensive.
So if "environmentalists" now, by definition, means shallow twits concerned with cosmetic issues, what do we call the many intelligent people posting here who have spent a lifetime studying the issues? Conservatives? No wait, that one's being used by the twits as well. D'oh.
So what happens when twits start calling themselves geologists... does that invalidate peak oil?
Does environmentalism have a purpose?
Google it. I've got the flu today.
Not sure that's the case. A great many people who identify themselves as caring about the environment fail when the chips are down; lip service is everywhere. Hybrid SUV's for single-person commuting. 4000 sq. ft. "green" house (Concrete is oil in solid form, as are shingles and siding. Lumber comes from somewhere, as does gypsum...you get my point.) Only one trip to Europe this year. They don't see that turning off their compact fluorescent lights does not counterbalance turning on the 42" surround-sound TV. And up here in Canada, the fact that people don't acknowledge that the seal hunt is natural, sustainable (after a fashion, and probably organic, if it comes down to that), while the PETA protester's house and environmental footprint (highways and other infrastructure, etc.) destroys animal habitat (as, indeed, all our homes do)and indirectly kills animals (in the short term, as nature abhors a vacuum, and something will fill that niche eventually), is galling...Buffalo aren't as cute as baby seals, but pound for pound (and probably pelt for pelt), we've killed more of them, and replaced them in the ecosystem with cows, corn and freeways. The idea that it's virtuous to follow one trail of environmental concern, while ignoring others that aren't as sympathetic or convenient, is a problem that leads to complacency or inaction, or worse, ill-considered action.
The lack of self-knowledge and the inability to see the internal inconsistencies and the resulting compromises in one's position, and the failure to consider the environment as a system are what I see as the problems. If I saw more people wrestling with the issues than following the MSM and celebrity-endorsed viewpoints, I might accept your viewpoint. However, I am afraid your "many intelligent people posting here who have spent a lifetime studying the issues" are a tiny portion of those who profess to be green. The fight is not with people who have examined, nuanced views on the environment; it is with people with SUV's saying how their next SUV is going to be a Hybrid and complaining about the plight of the seals as they wait for their veal while on a weekend mini-vacation 3000 wiles from home. Paulo should perhaps have labeled them "faux-environmentalists". As to where to draw the line? If a term is so amorphous it can be self-applied by anyone without meeting any qualification or defining set of characteristics, it is essentially meaningless. Your actions and positions define you, not an overused and debased label.
It may surprise you, but I don't disagree with anything you've said here, except semantically: whether people who call themselves "environmentalists" automatically are. Though "lip service" is hardly exclusive to environmentalism. We are a rationalizing bunch of silly monkeys, no mistake.
Of what relevance is it to my career that there are a lot of wankers, and spurious critics, misusing the word? Answering my own question, I'll agree that in popular parlance it doesn't mean what it used to mean; it's become a cliche. It's just a shame, because environmentalism has some important things to say.
So what new terminology do you suggest? Should actual environmentalists coin a new word?
Seems to me your problem is with shallow posturing wankers, and I'd argue we have common cause there.
Or applied by others in the same way, I suppose.
Best hopes for stomping out granfalloonery.
Hi Greenish.
It doesn't surprise me that you agree with me...I thought things were getting a little heated there for no reason, and that it was essentially a semantic battle rather than one of ideas.
As for what to replace the concept and label of "environmentalist" with, that is a tough question. I find that my current political views, while falling broadly under an "environmentalist" label, are not really encompassed by it, and "peak oil theory advocate", "Declinist/Doomer", "Population reduction supporter", etc., don't have much of a ring to them, and require a half hour explanation.
I suspect that someone else will label us eventually, and we won't like it...however, that will only happen when people have heard what we have to say.
I think that a derogatory label will mean that our ideas are becoming mainstream, so I guess it's something to look forward to.
Lloyd
Hi Darwinian,
I do believe you have missed the point for the first time since I have been reading this forum.
Of course it could just be me, but the truth as I see it is that a good many people do wrap themselves in the cloak of environmentalism for purposes of thier own,just as scumbag politicians often wrap themselves in patriotism.
This is the way I read the comment that has you so up in arms today.
The proof is in the lifestyle: No matter how many oil-soaked ducks Americans dip in Dawn dish soap, the fact is it's their lifestyle that causes environmental devastation in the first place.
The poorest American tree-hugger has a carbon Big Footprint compared to the vast majority of the second- and third worlds, who are lucky to have a scooter.
(Yes, that includes me, car-owner, coal-burner extraordinaire.)
Those wishing to dismiss environmentalists and environmentalism take have two main tactics (besides denial that there is any problem):
1) They point out that environmentalists are inconsistent because many live something like ordinary--that is enormously over-consuming--American (or first world...) lives. Since it is nearly impossible to live in America and NOT take part at some level in the absurdities of over-consumption which surround you, this claim can almost always stick, to some extent.
2) If they do come across someone truly living close to an environmental lifestyle, they satirize them as a super-crunchy hippy wacko living in a way that is so far outside the mainstream as to be ridiculous. A variant on this is to say that these more consistent environmentalists are being "holier than thou" (this often from Christians who think they are going to eternal bliss because they pronounce the creators name the right way, while the environmentalist, assumed to be a pagan/druid/atheist, is doomed to eternal damnation).
It is of course quite easy to be consistent in your convictions if you have no convictions.
The real question for those posing these criticisms of environmentalist is, "What do you care about?" If that doesn't include the future viability of the planet, then say so and we can know what your morality really is. If it does include giving a fig about how future generations might be able to live on an ever-more-depleted earth, then you are in fact an environmentalist, so apply your criticism to yourself.
(This is not a specific criticism of ofm, by the way--we all love the old walrus dearly, of course;-)
The real question for those posing such crit
I have to laugh at your #2 point, because I am a Christian and I am a conservationist as well( environmentalist by another name). I don't think God told us to waste the planet while going about and using it. It is true that I have problems with other so called Christians that don't care about the environment around them and scream hell and damnation toward everyone else.
I try to practice what I preach, with both my labels. Oh and I have long hair and eat wild plants and dress in shorts almost always even when its cold and snowy.
I don't own a car, don't watch TV, but do watch tv programs for free online, if I had to pay for them I'd go back to reading more books I guess.
I have only thoughts on the possible solutions to our problems, I can only change myself though and if you don't agree with me, so be it, lets sit down and have a beer and wait for a pool table to free up.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed future.
Now we just need 100 Million more like you and we're set.
Around here if somebody tags their car with their beliefs a subcompact is somewhat less likely to have Christian symbology as any other.
On the other hand I have never seen a large SUV with anything but Christian symbols.
On the secular front: small cars frequently have local band stickers while SUV's and trucks tend to sports.
Everyone boosts their school. At least we can agree on that.
There are huge cultural divides right now, and it is interesting the ways they show up.
Actually 100 million is WAY too low, unless your plan include some dramatic means to reduce earth's human population to 100 million.
100 Million people in a wealthy nation is enough to move culture in a big way, and in particular there is a nominally Christian "my god can beat up your god" culture that I figure would be consumed or at least swayed in that particular shift.
I think that getting preachers off the "Gospel of Prosperity" would make an enormous difference to the world and environment. Of course, that won't happen because it is a message that people want to hear and there is always someone willing to tell people what they want to hear.
Thanks.
Most days I feel like I am fighting an uphill battle, when I tell people my growing ideas, most people think me odd because I don't really want grass growing in my yard at least not much of it. I have wheat in a few clumps in one bed, and just got through yesterday planting some more, It is the only grass species I have planted recently.
If I had the money later when I live alone, I'd get a small car and label it, but I doubt I'll own another car any time soon. I never put labeling on my cars when I did have them.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed future.
Mac, I enjoy your posts immensely and you are right far more often than you are wrong. But boy you sure missed this one by a country mile. For instance:
Gail is not speaking here about people who wrap themselves in the cloak of environmentalism for purposes of their own. People who complained about the 1600 ducks dying on the tar sands tailing pond in 2008 were not wrapping themselves in a cloak of environmentalism for their own purposes. What possible purpose could people have for doing that? We complain about it because we think it is disgraceful that such a thing could be allowed to happen. Also:
The salt in the wound here Mac, is the charge that people such as myself, and others who complain about this maliciously destruction of waterfowl... the unkindest cut of all... is the charge that we do not give a damn about the wanton destruction of ocean fisheries, the charge that we just don't care that the ocean is being turned into a watery desert. That is a charge that we environmentalists are heartless hypocrites who faint concern about dead waterfowl but really do not give a damn about the environment.
My god man, how does one make that connection? We bitch about dead waterfowl for our own selfish purposes and we don't give a damn about the oceans. As one who cares deeply about both fish and foul as well as all other forms of wildlife, such a charge just makes my blood boil.
No Mac, you are wrong on this one. And no matter how wrong you may have been on other subjects you have never been more wrong than you are on this one.
Ron P.
Hi Darwinian,
I do believe the problem here is that we are reading the original comment two different ways; I am willing to give the man the benefit of the doubt and listen for WHAT I THINK he is or was TRYING to say.I grant that his comment is somewhat ambigious and is subject to various interpretations, some of them very harsh, such as yours.Many people , the vast majority of people , are not exceptionally good at the written word.
I myself should have written that I believe you missed the intended meaning of the author rather than the literal reading of the comment in question.
Every once in awhile I take exception with the readership , or at least the majority of the people who post regularly, when I see them taking the written word too literally.This is especially the case when literature is being discussed , when the people who don't like a novel insist on interpreting it as a blue print instead of a study in human nature.
I suppose this is another such occasion.
Of course this might have something to do with my taking a lot of extra English courses,and reading a serious novel nearly every week for several decades.
Now at heart I am an old softie, but as far as my reasoning goes, and my perception of human nature goes, I am utterly convinced that nearly everybody here is overly sentimental and idealistic in interpreting the behaviors of other people whose philosophy or actions they agree with; but when the shoe is on the other foot, the actions of those they disagree with are almost invariably attributed to base, selfish motives and ignorance.
Personally I don't believe that the majority of nurses are nurses because they want to care for the sick, or that the majority of teachers want to be teachers because they really care about kids, ditto cops, lawyers,etc.
So far as I am concerned any body who does not understand and agree is either niave as hell or has led a very sheltered life.
Now I would consider myself an environmentalist of sorts, having posted many comments in opposition to biofuels and in favor of renewables, in support of tough environmental leguslation, conservation, eefficiency, a low energy life style etc.
I am as concerned about the possibility of a general environmental collapse as anybody here, and am in the process of helping my brother build a root cellar cum fallout shelter on this very day.I reuse , recycle, conserve, burn wood,have never folown except when neccessary on business, vacation within a couple of hours of home, burn wood,will soon be heating my domestic water with the sun.
I get it.
About the only real difference between my views ,and those of you ,Darwinian, or Greenish for example, is that I am somewhat more optimistic about our chances of squeaking thru the coming bottleneck more or less whole , at least here in the US. I have posted my opinion several times that a lot of the world is a dead man walking.
Sorry folks but you are taking the inch the man gave in serious and legimate commentary, and spinning it out into a mile of what YOU want to think he said.
I have had some dealings with environmentalists when it suits them to be myself, on a very personal level.
One of my very best friends owned a piece of rural property located near a proposed landfill a few years ago. His stated own intention was to take that very nice old farm, which was being operated in a relatively sustainable fashion, and to turn it into five acre lot filled with mc mansions , neaqrly twenty five miles fro the neareast jobs.
He is a fairly sharp guy, and he mobilized the nieghborhood and had fifty people at the first public hearing , and a couple of dozen letters to the editors published in the local papers.
I admire the kennedys, for the most part, but any one who thinks thier opposition to the proposed wind farms off Cape Cod is seriously based on environmental rather than political and personal considerations is im my opinion a niave in the extreme,at best.
I believe Paulo's point is self evident on the face of it. Period.
But in general I agree with everything you and Greenish have to say about the environment, today ,and every other day..
Incidentally I do believe the large majority of professionals in the environmental field are serious and passionate about thier work.
But as far as the public goes-most self described environmentalists are nearly all mouth and very little action.They will support action only so long as somebody else, in some other job or nieghborhood, feels the pain.
(These remarks are not aimed at anyone in particular who posts here regularly, although I do strongly suspect there are a few holier than thou types who post regularly and perhaps are earning a fine living doing what they seem to oppose here.)
But I see now that Greenish has explored this aspect of environmentalism rather well sometime this afternoon and will not elaborate any more on it.
Mac, Gail is not a man, she is a woman. And she has posted several comments on this thread since I and several other environmentalists objected to being told we did not care about ocean fisheries. If we did not interpret her words correctly then she has had ample opportunity to put the record straight. She has neglected to do so, so I must assume our interpretation of her words was correct.
Ron P.
hi again Darwinian,
I suppose my face ought to be pretty red right now, but I'm just laughing at myself because although I usually read very carefully and at my liesure, this evening I am cooking dinner, cleaning the kitchen, and cleaning, wrapping and freezing a large haul of stripers donated by a friend who drove a thousand miles round trip to catch them.
I'm afraid that my intellectual train of thought jumped the track from the word go due to just skimming the thread between stirring pots and so forth.I thought you were responding to an entirely different comment, rather than Gails.I have been reading the Drum long enough to know Gail is a woman..
You have my apology of course.
No problem Mac.
One of the main reasons I am such a doomer is because of what is happening to our oceans. A few years ago I read a book called "Ocean's End". It really tore me apart. We are destroying the ocean and ultimately the ocean gives life to all the world. Every environmentalist worth his salt knows that.
Of course we aren’t just destroying the oceans we are destroying the rest of the planet. I have known this for over forty years and that is how long I have been thrashing this straw. Peak oil is a Johnny come lately to me. I only discovered it about ten years ago. I knew we were destroying the ocean's long before I knew we would likely collapse from lack of energy.
So I hope you understand why this is a touchy subject with me. I hurt for every species, be it fish, foul or four legged creature. I know their days are numbered because of the evolutionary success of one species of great ape. We are killing them all.
And I care. I care very deeply.
Ron P.
Here is a website with a series of four forty-five minute documentaries on the ocean.
It is presented by David Suzuki, Canada pre-eminent environmentalist. I think you'll appreciate the quality of the documentaries, both visually and intellectually. It's best to watch them in the order of their presentation on the CBC from March 4 to March 25.
http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/Shows/The_Nature_of_Things/One_Ocean
I am outside canada and they tell me I can get it streamed to me to watch. If they are available elsewhere that would be great.
Thanks,
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed and housed future.
It was 25-30 years ago when I was stake netting for red salmon (about as regulated and sustainable a low energy input method of fishing we have these days) that I heard a Norwegian Bering Sea dragger skipper end his most entertaining Saturday evening single side band broadcast with matter of fact finality, "Well when there's one fish left swimmin' in the ocean there'll be a Jap right along side it to catch it." A bit of the pot calling the kettle black there but those in the business have known what they were about for a long time. I can still about see the platinum blue light over the near flat sea and hear the tone of deep brogue in that skipper's voice. Nobody is less happy about what we are doing to the seas than the people who have been fishing them for generations.
Wow, all these years of reading the oil drum and I never noticed TOD was so hostile to environmentalists.
Let the scapegoating begin.
Look, I'm not "hostile to environmentalists", only to those self-declared prophets of "the way" who have never actually sat down and analysed if their "way" will actually make an improvement for M. Earth, or whether their "way" is far too drastic a solution for the problems at hand, eg. an immediate 95% dieoff of humans, presumeably with their utmost assistance if necessary.
While a problem with computer simulations may exist in cases where one part in the system is strethened to the point where another part then becomes the defacto weak point, or as written above:
"If one tweaks one part of the equipment to make it stronger (to deal with the higher pressures, and greater temperature differential between the hot oil and the cold water), it can cause unforeseen problems with another system that interacts with it."... there is probably another more frequent "error" that occurs. That error is where the simulation itself does not adequately represent the environment in which piece/system in question operates.
When simulations occur, all possible scenarions need to be considered. The field of study which considers the effects of decompression on soluable gases in highly pressurized fluids is a relatively new one. Fogging, cavitation, and the ability to slice through metal (or a sealing ring) as if it was warm butter are but a few problems that relatively few people have a working experience with.
From a friend in Florida:
That's almost as ignorant and stupid as Palin.
Nothing is that stupid. Although disingenuous would be a better word to describe Palin. Did Palin ever acknowledge the risks involved with off shore drilling? An honest assessment of the benefits and costs of drilling would be welcome but I am sure that she is intellectually and temperamentally incapable of that.
I hate offshore drilling but understand that almost all of us are culpable to some degree for its necessity. In the mean time, I would like to see a Manhattan type and World War II type effort to make this technology unnecessary. Perhaps that is impossible, but we have not tried yet, so I am not ready to write off its impossibility.
In the mean time, maybe a few people could forego driving their multi ton trucks and SUVs to the store to buy a loaf of bread. Not enough people give a damn or understand what is happening to the oceans to take some personal responsibility.
You wouldn't be interested in rigging up a boat to look like an infamous old Russian fishing trawler and setting it out in the lake in front of her Wasilla home would you? I just seems it would be a heck of way to have some fun.
They idea that a sudden "surge" in pressure doesn't make sense to me. If the reservoir had been tapped, and assuming that it is large and contains compressable gasses, the only thing that would cause a surge in the reservoir pressure would be some sort of large seismic or ignition event . This leads me to believe that the surge (in the system) would have to be some type of equipment failure. Knowing that the pressure in the reservoir is effectively in a steady state, any "surges" would have to be man made, and anticipated. Sombody screwed up. Perhaps Rockman or others could enlighten me about this.
You're exactly right ghung. Formation pressures don't surge. Just an estimate but bottom hole pressure was around 15,000 psi. Any surge would be a response to a system failure: seal failing, valve exploding, casing collapse.
Though ofetn a mechanial failure is sited in these accidents it's almost always human error. Even when a piece of equipment fails it's often because it was pushed beyond limits by human activity.
When the riser was displaced to sea water, in 5000 ft of water then anywhere around 1000psi was relieved from the well, depending on the mud weight, maybe this is the surge you are talking about. It works out at 250 psi per pound difference between mud wt and sea water. Not being familiar drilling in the Guff, but I am sure Rockman could have a fair idea.
I was responding to often reported speculations that could imply that somehow the formation pressure suddenly surged, as in Gail's post:
A more accurate statement would be "Apparently an error or equipment failure occured allowing an uncontrolled surge of pressure from the formation."
Picking nits, I suppose. I just wanted clarification that any surge in the system was due to equipment failure or human error and that the source of the pressure (the formation) could not suddenly experience a sudden increase in said pressure (an "act of God"). It goes to the difficulty of dealing with extreme depths and related pressures.
Thanks!
Ghung
The bottom hole pressure remains constant, what surges is the pressure seen at surface. The idea of using heavy mud during drilling is for the weight of the column of mud to be equal or greater the formation pressure. If the weight of the fluid column is decrease for any reason, dilution, influx or as in this case changing the heavy mud for sea water then at surface you will see a sudden increase in pressure. The greatest increase is seen if the total fluid column is evacuate to gas. Then for all intensive purposes you could read bottom hole pressure on your surface gauge. Not recommended!
There is some Well Control 101 for you.
The other way to get "sudden pressure surge" is when you are actually drilling, "making hole" and you drill through a sealing formation, normally shale into a permiable formation, usually sandstone or limestone. This is where the formation pressure can change quickly and is the classic kick situation, controlled blow out for want of better words.
The equipment failure and or human error are the things that happen afterwards that turn a controlled event into holy hell as what happened on DW Horizon.
Hope this helps.
Your comments on surges are not entirely correct. We have seen, especially during under-balanced drilling operations in mature fields, where off-set producers and injectors are turned on or off and can change the bottom hole pressure can account for a surge.
But I totally agree. Human error, process safety equipment failure or some lethal mix of the two likely lead to this disaster.
I agree with, producing fields with water injectors, down hole pressures can change, but as I understand it the DW Horizon was drilling a exploration or preproduction well on a non producing field. So in this case I will stand by my comment the the formation would have stayed constant.
I feel this one is going to be less human error, and more a drilling program and procedure error, as in how did a "tested" liner fail? How did they set the balance plugs? With a liner running tool or open ended drill pipe? Usually one of these plugs requires tagging or pressure testing? Why did this test not show a failed barrier?
As they were flushing the riser and discharging through the diverter they had no no knowledge the well was kicking until it was too late. As for the BOP failing to operate, I suspect a physical obstuction will be the cause, Hydrates, heavy wall pipe or cement are just some possibilities.
At this time it way too late. One thing they seem to have done well, was getting into the lifeboats quickly and getting off the place
I agree. This isn't a mature field, so I don't think bottom hole pressure could have surged. I just thought I would mention that it can change under the right circumstances.
I am a consultant in other BP operations.
We had a little tele-conference update yesterday with management. Many of the senior managers and technical experts from our team have been pulled in to assist where they can on this disaster.
The plan forward from what I heard is:
1. Start 2-3 relief wells ASAP (in case they have problems with one, they don't have to start over from scratch)
2. Continue to try and contain the leak at the riser by some how funneling it into process equipment on the Enterprise drill ship.
3. Continue ROV work on the BOP equipment.
4. Looking at attempting to crimp the riser and stem the flow.
Apparently, they were either running, setting, pulling or testing temporary abandonment plug in cased hole when all hell broke loose, that is pretty much all they said.
We heard that 2 BP wellsite leaders, a wellsite leader trainee, the BP operations manager and 2 drilling engineers evacuated off the rig.
BP management asked us not to speculate with our crews on what happened.
"I feel this one is going to be less human error, and more a drilling program and procedure error, as in how did a "tested" liner fail? How did they set the balance plugs? With a liner running tool or open ended drill pipe? Usually one of these plugs requires tagging or pressure testing? Why did this test not show a failed barrier?"
It will be interesting to find out exactly what happened.
These things never have 'one thing' that went wrong. Likely, there were multiple small things that all lined up, a 'black swan' so to speak (equipment failure, human error, procedural error, process safety gaps) to cause this. Looking at the causal factors of industry failures over the past 10 years, it is never 'one thing' that did it.
Given all the lawsuits out naming Halliburton and the cement job out already, I am sure there are plenty of people pouring over the cement job and the PT of said cement. I would think you would cement, wait, tag, circulate and test? Is that right? It is anyones guess what happened with the abandonment plug, they didn't say if they were setting or testing or pulling when it happened. Somehow that cement and plug didn't hold.
I have to disagree with the 'human error' statement. About 4 years ago in a training class, BP management let it slip that 'within the next 5 years, 85% of BP well site leaders globally are expected to retire.' We have seen a fairly large turnover in the past 5 years in our group. You can probably guess that this is exactly what happens when you place people with college degrees but abosolutely no drilling rig, real-world experience as company men after running them through a 2 year boondoggle program called 'challenge engineer' or 'wellsite leader of the future' as BP does. Plus, it stresses the contract resources they keep on staff by forcing consultants to 'train their replacement'. I have seen it more than once over the past few years. People lock up. They make mistakes like closing the bag on tool strings or try to call town or otherwise sit on their hands and fail to make a decision when TSHTF.
"As they were flushing the riser and discharging through the diverter they had no knowledge the well was kicking until it was too late."
Just to be clear, I have never worked directly on the rigs, I have been around operations, maintanence and well work for 10+ years though and been through well control certification classes multiple times. I don't really understand your above comment. The diverter still diverts the flow to the pits, right? As soon as they saw pit gain, someone should have shut down the pumps to check for flow, pulled up, made up the safety valve joint and closed the bag, no? We've ran this drill on coil tubing ops many, many times.
Or were you implying that they were diverted over the side of the rig or something where they can't monitor flow? It would seem to me that, regardless of what they were doing, they would still have to know they were getting more back than what they were putting in and had time to do something. Unless they had it lined up to dump over the side. Is that what you were getting at? Lining up the diverter at any point in the operation, where you couldn't watch the returns at the pits seems patently insane to me. Am I missing something? Do I have a flawed understanding of drilling fundamentals and this offshore equipment?
I would think at all times you would be taking and monitoring returns to the pits so you can see a kick. That is the only point of well control equipment in the first place.
As for the BOP's. Who knows? Tried to cut or close across a collar? Tools across the stack? I am sure we'll get more information down the road and I will be sure to post anything that I hear.
Schadenfruede
Thanks for your reply I am busy at the moment and I will reply in full later, but diverting means straight over the side, as you would do you had shallow gas kick. The reason they were comfortable doing this is because the next operation once out of the hole they would disconnect the BOP and pull riser. Then off to the next well. You never displace the riser until the cement is fully tested, as in pressure test or tag with 15klb.
Schadenfruede
Interesting to see BPs plans, I hope #3 works, ROV on BOP it will be much quicker.
I hope the plug had already been tested as they were circulating sea water to the riser. There is a good photograph floating around the the rig was on fire, if you ignore the flames all over the rig, there a great jet of flame coming out the side. Lookings like they are flaring off. It would be coming from the open diverter line. In normal operation this would be closed.
It sounds as though they did not get any warning as all the BP men got off. If they were working on a problem you would expect at least one company rep to be on the floor. Looks like you had one of your land based managers on board, he will not be volunteering for any more free trips the rig in future!
There was definatly more than one thing that went wrong, as it is required to have two tested barriers in place before abandoment. Both failed severly. Plus the BOP not operating. Normally after setting liner and getting ready TA. You would cement liner, set packer, POOH with liner running tool. Makeup cementing mule shoe and run in hole on drill pipe. When at cement plug depth, pressure test liner, open BOP and pump cement, pull out of cement, circ hole clean, wait on cement, test cement but tagging with 15klb or pressure test, Pull up to top plug depth, pump cement, pull up to BOP and displace to sea water.
It seems to save time they did not pull out of to change the to a mule shoe, and they pumped the cement plugs through the liner running tool, which has a great chance of disturbing the cement as they pulled through it.
To me the human error component is going to be involed in the steps mention above along with a few more details, but these decisions would not have been made on the rig at the last minute. They would have been well discussed in town and part of a signed well procedure. I becomes very easy to blame people who can not defend them selves.
I agree with the loss of expertise, the baby boom is getting older and the drilling industry has laid of as many people as they could when the opertunity ptrsented itself, which did not encourage new people into the business.
The diverter, diverts the fluid over board, not to the pits. It would be a 12 to 14" line directly over the side, and at night you would not have much of an idea of the flow rate. The reason they felt they could do this was the well was finished, a few hours later they would have disconnected the BOP and would have been off the well. To leave the well it had to be made safe and this should be two test barriers. In their case one barrier was the cemented 7" liner, and the second should have been a tested cement plug. Both failed!! Both tested??
Running liner you normally do not have collars in the hole, HWDP but not collars, if the shears could not cut the heavy weight, why didn't the pipe rams work?
See you around sometime
Thanks for the reply, it was very informative. It makes sense now why they would be going over the side if they were getting ready to break off.
I will certainly post more information as I hear it. We're pretty far removed from the emergency.
The figure of 42000 g/day is given in almost every story on the blowout. Do you or anyone have an idea of the probabilities that this figure will change-discharge amounts, time interval, etc.
I do doug. It's very likely those numbers will change. They could fall to just a trickle or increase to 20,000 bopd. I'm not being silly (as I can be at times). The rig may not be burning. No big dramatic photo ops. Despite an attempt to put a calming spin on the situation matters are far from stable. There is a live well under high pressure with malfunctioning controls and severly damaged equipment. This is far from a static situation and events could swing wildly from one extreme to the other in just minutes with no notice at all.
Talk about orders of magnitude. I was fretting tooth and nail several years back putting in a gravity feed water system for the house at 130 psi.
I've noticed that, too.
This doesn't address your question, doug fir, but it strikes me as an overly precise number. It seems clear that someone estimated a round 1,000 barrels per day, which someone converted to gallons. If the figure 1,000 barrels was meant to express 1 x 10e3 barrels, i.e., one significant digit, than it means somewhere between 500 and 1,500 barrels per day. So "around 40,000" gallons per day is probably more accurate terminology.
I have no idea how they estimate this flow.
I think you are right. I've read one story, Wall Street Journal, that used the 1000 barrels figure.
Probability of a change in amount of oil leaking will change now stands at 100%
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/04/29/louisiana.oil.rig/index.html?hpt=T1
The new estimate is 5000 barrels per day (210,000 gallons). For reference, the Valdez dumped at least 10.8 million gallons.
pusher -- I'm not too savvy on the exact numbers. But some people might think that such seemingly low pressures wouldn't be critical. But what happens in a typical blow out is that the heavy fluid starts flowing out of the well. It might occur easily at such low pressures. But there's an important fee back relationship: as the heavy mud is displaced it reduces the amount of back pressure holding the well back. Reduce the back pressure and the well flows more oil/NG into the well bore which, in turn, pushes more of the drilling mud out. At that reduces the back pressure even more so the pressures increase even more and more oil/NG flows into the wellbore. This can go on until all the drill mud is displaced from the casing/riser and you have a live oil/NG looking at you. This can take several hours to happen. It can also take several minutes, And even if you see the well coming in it isn't always possibile to stop the process. That's when you activate the BOP and pray it works.
Gail -
Fear not.
Surely you don't think we are going to stop extracting oil from the Gulf of Mexico just because of a major oil spill, do you? Of course there will be lots of noise over the short term, and maybe some proposed legislation just to show that Congress is on top of things, but after a while things will calm down, and it will be business as usual.
My take on what you have written is that you believe that any attempt to curtail the activities of the energy extraction industries in the US will only hasten our downfall because it will result in less oil/gas/coal but at a higher price. So I guess the operative idea here is: drill, baby, drill and dig, baby, dig.
I see this spill incident in the Gulf, the death of the 11 oil rig crew, and the recent death of 29 miners in West Virginia as a not-so-gentle reminder that the extraction of fossil fuel doesn't just cost money, but also lives. By the way, I'm not aware of any recent deaths involving the erection of wind turbines or the installation of solar panels (though I suppose someone falls off a roof now and then).
The availability of oil does a lot to provide pharmaceuticals which we depend on for health care, and asphalt we depend on so we can transport our food over long distances, and thus increase our options for supply greatly. I would contend that wind turbines and solar panels do not have anywhere near the benefits that oil has.
"...which we depend on..."
Our dependency on the items you mentioned is a myth told by an addict. We are addicted, not dependent, and we think we need the thing that is causing our addiction. An alcoholic is only dependent on alchohol until they realize they are addicted.
But we are not addicted to oil. We are addicted to industrialization. And the only way out of this mess is to end industrialized civilization.
Our dependency on oil-based food is a hard one to break. It makes our current population possible. It is hard to find population reduction volunteers.
And it is hard to find an alcoholic who wants to voluntarily quit drinking. Life, as well, is an addiction.
Gail -
Nonsense!
The amount of petroleum-based raw materials used by the pharmaceuticals industry is miniscule compared to the major uses of oil.
This fact should be readily obvious if you compare the weight of pills even a heavily medicated person takes annually with the weight of gasoline an average driver might use. That person might consume perhaps at most a half pound of pharmaceuticals (which is a LOT!), but if he drives 10,000 mile per year at 20 mpg, he will have consumed 500 gallons or 3,500 lbs or gasoline. That's a 7,000-to-one ratio.
But not all pharmaceuticals are made with petroleum-based raw materials (many are produced from botanicals and via various fermentation processes), so the actual ratio is probably many times higher. The pharmaceuticals industry, for all its enormous size, is a relatively small user of petroleum products.
Which gets to the question: is it best to extract as much hydrocarbons as fast as we can so that we can burn as much of them as we want as fuel to power vehicles and heat homes, or is it best to attempt to conserve these irreplaceable hydrocarbons for more high-value uses, such as your pharmaceuticals and petrochemicals? In that regard, wind and solar DO add to that benefit by freeing up a certain amount of hydrocarbons for these more high-value uses. It's simply a matter of displacement.
As I've said several times before, if we had an inexhaustible supply of oil/gas/coal, no one in their right mind would even consider wind or solar power. But we do not, so we must.
What is your vision as to the manner in which people in the future will heat their homes and transport themselves and goods from here to there when fossil fuels become so scarce as to become unaffordable to the average person? Buffalo chips? Ox carts?
But but wind and solar are sooo much more expensive and have such a low EROEI compared to fossil fuels that we shouldn't be wasting our resources investing in them. Not only that but a wind farm a few miles off shore, though barely visible from the beach and despite the fact that it creates fish habitat around the bases of the turbines, offends the esthetic sensibilities of the very people who want to continue to maintain BAU at any and all costs be they financial, environmental or energetic.
So no, Joule, lets keep pushing ahead with the drill baby drill and let's make sure we never use any of that oil to build an alternative way of life. Solar and wind are not viable alternatives for any civilization that we might be able to build if it doesn't look like the one we have now. Get it through your head once and for all that Wind and Solar are not options!
Edit: This just in:
Nation's first offshore wind farm approved for Nantucket Sound
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/28/cape.cod.wind.farm/index.html?hpt=T2
The wind and solar PV currently being built are just being used to maintain current lifestyles, as far as I can see (not plan for the future). They are no more sustainable than oil and natural gas--they really depend on our current system, and will disappear at the same time (wind) or shortly after (solar PV), as I see it.
The plan seems to be mostly hoarding a little of what we have now, for the future. With solar panels, the owners hope to get some of the hoarded energy, buy having the other rate payers pay for the system. These other rate payers are likely less educated, and perhaps less well off.
I'm not sure which PV facilities you are thinking about. Everyone I know that has decided to go toward supplying some or all their electricity from solar went through a long and rigorous, even painful, process of massively reducing the net amount of electricity they use. This to me is one of the most important aspects of going solar, given its relatively low EROEI--it drives most to really examine closely their own energy usage and usually leads to using much less and using that much more efficiently.
But maybe you have a different experience or are thinking of some kind of non-resident usage for which the above would not apply?
EXACTOMUNDO!
The very first conversation that I have with a prospective customer who is interested in going solar is about that process and I do it to make sure they clearly understand the paradigm change they are about to embark upon. I try to make it as clear as day that there are huge gains to be made from efficiency, conservation and most importantly lifestyle change before we even begin to talk about panels, inverters and installation costs. Sometimes I have to tell them that as far as I'm concerned they are not a good candidate.
Hey, if I wanted to make money in sales I'd be selling Credit Default Swaps and I wouldn't be trying too hard to educate my customer...
I agree 100% with you joule. We do have what seems to be a cold dark view of such accidents in the oil patch (old saying on the drill floor: "Get to work. If you die the paycheck will still make it home at the end of the month". Just a defensive mechanism to deal with the obvious anxiety I suppose. I'm sure the miners have a similar rant.
There's really nothing heroic about the effort. It's just doing a job. A paycheck at the end of the month. Despite the news coverage not as dangerous in the long run as many would think. UPS driver may have a higher mortality rate than floor hands for all I know. I mentioned the other day I gave up working offshore a couple of years ago at the tearful request of my 8 yo daughter. She had not perceived my being in danger out there until her best friend's dad was killed. Throwing statistics at her weren't going to get rid of the fear. Wasn't that hard a decision to make: my old knees were telling me the same thing.
UPS driver may have a higher mortality rate than floor hands for all I know.
Well you are right on the money there Rock.
A CNN Money 2005 article http://money.cnn.com/2005/08/26/pf/jobs_jeopardy/ has the best graphics I found, though they won't come up as such here. The numbers pretty well agree with the Dept of Labor 2008 stats.
Rank Occupation Death rate/100,000 Total deaths
1 Logging workers 92.4 85
2 Aircraft pilots 92.4 109
3 Fishers and fishing workers 86.4 38
4 Structural iron and steel workers 47.0 31
5 Refuse and recyclable material collectors 43.2 35
6 Farmers and ranchers 37.5 307
7 Roofers 34.9 94
8 Electrical power line installers/repairers 30.0 36
9 Driver/sales workers and truck drivers 27.6 905
10 Taxi drivers and chauffeurs 24.2 67
The first number is the number of deaths per 100,000 workers and the second is the total deaths per sector.
Interesting, looks like the only things on the list that aren't on my resume are lineman and pilot. 'What a long strange trip its been.' ?- ) Luckily odds are pretty much against getting killed on the job in the US.
The Big Picture is, your solar panels and windmills do not yet reproduce themselves with their own energy. Lives lost now in the pursuit of fossil fuels are indirectly or directly if you like, related to their manufacture, installation and maintenance.
So I guess one could prosecute you for murder and for being responsible for environmental crimes, just for sitting at your computer and typing comments on TOD. Everything we do right now is directly or indirectly related to the pursuit of fossil fuels. Strawman much?!
However I'd be curious to know what you are planning to use fossil fuel for that might prevent continuation of BAU. Perhaps investing some of that fossil fuel energy, the pursuit of which is already causing all that death and destruction anyways, in building out the infrastructure necessary so that Solar or Wind can be able to reproduce themselves, might be a bit more benign than other uses? Such as say nuking Iran...
Something tells me that BAU in general is just fine by you and you don't feel much personal responsibility for participating in it let alone would lift a finger to change anything.
Try pulling out that beam in your own eye before pulling out the mote in the eyes of environmentalists and of those who are working on building the infrastructure of wind and solar.
Either that or go live in a cave and you'll have the right to make your comments with a clean, fossil fuel less, conscience.
Where did I deride environmentalists?
I think in fact you have lost the plot with that reply.
You can rationalize all you want. If you think that solar panels and windmills absolve us the hundred years of environmental destruction in the pursuit and use of fossil fuels you are delusional. The reason we need solar panels and windmills now is because we have grown our population and infrastructure to utterly rely on energy supplied with fossil fuels.
Prosecute me for murder? ......childish drivel.
If you can honestly say that that is what you think I'm saying, then I have nothing more to add to this conversation other than that you might perhaps need to upgrade the quality of your reading comprehension.
Ditto, absolutely..............
If the company doing the drilling had to pay for all the costs to clean up the oil (including time spent by the Coast Guard), a sum to all businesses involved in the local seafood and tourism industries to compensate them for any losses as well as a sum to local, state and federal governments covering all loss of tax revenue, a sum to all coastal real estate owners to compensate them for any decrease in property values, a fee for any animal killed or maimed that had no commercial value, and a fee to pay for the rehabilitation of any wetlands impacted, and if these costs couldn't be waved away in the future with insurance issued by large corporations who in turn insure themselves against poor risk assessment with credit default swaps guaranteed by the federal government (i.e. taxpayers via AIG), then all the true costs of drilling for this oil would be factored into the price and I wouldn't have a problem with it.
Your optimism may be naive. There is precident in these things:
(bold/italic emphasis mine, quite interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exxon_Valdez_oil_spill
Rest assured, plenty of Lawyers are already lining up, palms sweating.
I wonder if the same Maritime Common Law applies to drilling rigs. Since this rig was afloat, my guess is yes.
G-
You are correct, as those controlling the rules, never suffer the consequences.
Exxon has proved that.
Ghung:
So what you are saying is that the Exxon Valdez spill caused one type of toxic substance (crude oil) getting into the environment, which in turned, casued another type of toxic substance (CDS) getting into the environment? Sort of a cascade effect, I suppose...
Pete Deer
The consequenses of our addiction to growth/security are quite....biblical, don't you think? Relax, it's only evolution, doing what it does.
As I see it, the industry is pretty much in the situation you describe that you wouldn't have a problem with. I believe BP is largely self-insured, and is carrying most of the cost. Apparently Transocean is insured, and their insurance company has already mentioned that they expect a large claim.
Both companies, along with anyone else vaguely involved, also are exposed to the rapacity of a legion of ambulance-chasing lawyers, some of whom appeared on television within 24 hours of the initial explosion. These social parasites, by the way, demand far higher hourly payments than anyone who actually works on an offshore rig, and probably far higher than anyone involved in the design or construction of the equipment used.
Taoman,
Good reasoning , as far as it goes.
But most of the commercial value of the properties you mention would not EXIST without the oil industry.
Back when there were no highways, airplanes, and automobiles to get people to the beaches, I could have bought some present day hundred thousand dillar a foot waterfront real estate for a hundred dollars an acre, or even less.
I sympathize, but the thought circle must close in order to fully understand the oil problem and make balanced decisions.
Personally I expect a number of people, people very important to me, who were in thier working days among the last Americans able to function in a pre oil society, would be dead rather than fishing and gardening and play ing with thier great grandchildren-dead from over work.
I simply LOATHE the sight of the vacation houses going up on the ridges around our home, but I suppose given the choice of the new houses and being able to drive to town, instead of bicycling or walking, I will accept the houses.
Damned if we do, damned if we don't seems to sum it up.
Given the choice of being a Cherokee in this area five hundred years ago, I believe I would take it in an instant.
A lot of the comments will run toward a flavor of Gail being an industry mouthpiece, they always do in this kind of discussion.
But there is one hell of a difference between pious talk(this remark is not directed at you personally) and actual action;all the ardent environmentalists I know personally are almost without exception fairly prosperous and believe that they will remain prosperous even if draconian curbs are enacted on energy consumption.
They ain't got a clue.Futhermore the energy consumption cuts are coming no matter what.The political fight building over offshore oil is simply a distraction,an opening scene, within the larger scheme of things coming in the later acts.
When they are suddenly confronted with the choice of supporting a few tens of millions more people on welfare becaus the formerenergy dependent jobs held by such people vanish, they will sing a different tune.When thier retirement portfolios melt away, when thier own high dollar clients/professions vanish....
The first act, the act depicting the century of oil, is about to close.
Act two, dealing with the decades of agony and decline , will open any day or year now.
I won't live long enough to see it played out.
The younger readers will see at least the opening scenes of the third act, the reconciliation and the eventual reconstruction of a new low energy society.
Maybe a century from now everybody will have enough renewable energy to live a dignified and comfortable life.
I simply can't see this renewable energy becoming available on the scale needed any time soon.
Most people who actually can think a little would rather die than do so, and most people cannot think at all.
We are truly between the devil and the deep blue sea, and the water is full of great white sharks and box jellies.
The very best we can hope for in my estimation is a long period of very tough times.The worst keeps me awake at night, and making such changes as I can to live a low energy, self sufficient likestyle by day.
Good discussion. I would simply add that far more important than any fight for the environemnt is the fight, not yet joined, for the modifications in government which are absolutely required if we and our grandkids are to make it through to stage 3 in any condition to enjoy life at all. Present environmental fights are simply a waste of resources if none of the large issues which have enabled the problems to be created in the first place are not addressed.
As peak Oil takes hold, I don't think our Governments are going to continue as they have been doing for the last 100 years, They will change into something that we have never seen before, IMHO.
I can run for President again, or run for local office, but my voice will be drowned out by those people that can't see the coming cliff, be it that they can't see it, or see it and don't think about it.
What is true is that we have never been in this kind of mess before, at least not in living memory. Never had we had so many people using so much energy as we do now. The system is so complex that even those of us who take time to study it, get boggled at the size of it.
A Gardening analogy. One Tablespoon full of the average garden soil ( a soil where a lot of plants live nearby ) has more seeds in it than you can count. Take some and spread it out on top of bagged soil mix in a pot, watch as seeds sprout and then think of all the things you aren't seeing that are also going on. The seeds that don't sprout that will live in the soil for years, the microbes that are in there, the movement of chemical compounds within the soil mix. My garden is as complex as the world is, but it is still only a little slice of it.
Government is not the only thing that needs to be changed, and not the only thing that will be changed in the future.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed future.
"Given the choice of being a Cherokee in this area five hundred years ago, I believe I would take it in an instant."
Mac, If you've not been to Joyce Kilmer Forest (near Robinsville), it's a must see. Until I first went there, years ago, I had no real idea of where the Cherokee really lived.
I have had the privilege of visiting Joyce Kilmer forest twice, once for a several days long backpacking trip. We find it difficult to imagine what has been lost since so little primeval forest still remains, and most of what does remain wasn't the best that was here.
One of the challenges for the energy descent is how to avoid wrecking what's left of the biosphere so that when the oil is long gone the Earth will be able to recover from what we've done. If we reorient ourselves away from exponential growth and convert the military industrial complex there is a possibility humans will be able to be part of the recovery.
Not a bad idea. But that was tried, kind of, with the Exxon Valdez spill, with a very large jury award against the company. The company just took it to our Supreme "Court" (Corporatists would be a more apt term) and got the judgment reduced to practically nothing.
And as the consequences of "whole cost" assignment throttle down energy production resulting in economic slowdown, gradually increase poverty, consequently increase mortality... what is the cost of that, and who pays for it? Why stop the "who pays for what" at your preferred point? Instead of all this recriminating, I say let's continually use our human capacities and figure out how to move civilization forward. Enough quitting already.
mom -- then I suppose you won't have a problem with it. BP will pay for every thing including court imposed civil penalties from private property owners. Depending on how negligent BP actions might have been they'll may also be subject to big punitive penalties. Even worse, if they prove to be criminally negligent they could loose all rights to drill and produce on federal lands. And the Feds don't have to worry about funds being available. At a minimum BP has at least a $50 million bond in place. Just a WAG but this accident could easy cost BP a few billion $'s before its over. And maybe many times more that.
If the true costs to us using FF were calculated we would not be able to afford them for very long. We have pushed those costs into the future, via the global outcome that will happen in total. Maybe even with a lot more human deaths piled on to the end result. Without FFs we would not be where we are today, I don't know what the world would look like really, but it would likely not have the internet. But tar and pitch were used thousands of years ago, Hydrocarbons were in surface deposits, so they were used in our past.
To write a fictional world where there was no Fossil Fuels of any kind, would be a fun bit of thinking, but it would be fictional and wouldn't help us much today, as we are where we are because of our own past actions, and those that have gone before us.
But the cost of the Oil Spill if it hits land will be great and almost everyone will be paying the price, Even if BP were to be forced to pay the single people involved, the costs would get passed down the line, they wouldn't just come out of thin air.
I hope that they can burn it off, so it don't reach land except as a nasty smog cloud. The clean up would be hard and damaging.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed future. (with as little Fossil Fuels as possible)
That's true CEO. Probably true for everything we do. What's the true cost of car ownership? Do we include the lost incomes of the tens of thousands of folks who die in auto accidents every year in the US alone? Do we include the billions of $'s for medical treatments for the injured? You can see it's difficult to find a stoping point in the effort to calculate the costs when something goes wrong.
As far as passing the costs down the line, the only folks BP can do that with is its shareholders. Doesn't matter how much this incident will cost BP. When they sell oil/NG in the future it will be sold at the going market rate. No oil buyer is going to pay BP more then any other producer just because BP lost a few billion on this incident. About the only loss outside of the BP circle will be the loss of tax income from the shareholders who won't be making a profit on the BP stock.
But those shareholders have clever accountants, so they probably don't pay much tax anyway. I wonder how many BP shareholders are US residents for tax purposes. And does BP pay much of its company income tax bill in the US - or somewhere more relevant - like Jersey, Gibraltar, or the Cayman Islands?
Speaking from the point of a professional environmentalist, I'd like to say that many of us are very concerned about about road infrastructure and overfishing-and all the other cumulative human impacts. The oil spill garners attention because it is more immediate, but it is fundamentally less damaging than many other impacts-the death of a thousand cuts. Admittedly, there are lots of Prius drivers who want a green veneer to life, but still want the American lifestyle. But for me it comes back to the John Ruskin quote; "There is no wealth but life." We can carry on without oil wells, computers, wind turbines, cars and superhighways but we will not fare well without drinkable water, breathable air, and ecosystems that support life. I don't really give a fig about a pristine looking beach-a swampy, impenetrable wetland filled with mosquitoes, alligators, fish and birds, where no one would want to sunbathe is a much more important resource. While we should lessen the slope to a low energy future, it will little avail us to re-localize our lives if we find we've fouled many of our support systems in the process.
Most people criticizing the environmental movement have little knowledge or literacy on the subject, and base their statements on story and myth.
That being said, many of the larger organizations do cling to a BAU world.
Those with their hands dirty don't.
Very well expressed , Trekker
Big debate on environmentalism in today's Drumbeat.
I hope our environmental movement contains many people like you. The impression one gets is that way too many seize on the issue of the day to support their underlying agenda.
I expect the environmental issues will eventually resolve themselves, but there is a long intervening time, and there are legitimate questions that can be raised as to what should be tackling first--encouraging one child families; encouraging veganism; taking up highways; preventing oil spills; or something else. I would tend to vote for different things than many environmentalists.
Hi Gail. I'd be curious to hear how you would unpack or justify this statement. I don't see this at present, unless taking into consideration the current rate of species extinction would include us top-of-the-food-webbers.
On the other hand there are a lot of truly wasteful, stupid things we could stop first, such as using pure drinking water to flush toilets, feeding most of our grain to livestock and tending lawns as the one of the world's largest (completely un-productive) agricultures.
It looks to me like we are at the edge of collapse. We don't know the exact dates, but it looks to be starting very soon. For example, read the Tipping Point Paper series.
If I thought there were any reasonable plan of a nice power down that I think most environmentalist think is possible, I would be all for it. Instead, I see us a heading quickly to collapse, pretty much regardless of what we do. In terms or earth's time, collapse will come quite quickly--it terms of people time, it likely will take place over a number of years, so may not seem so quick. The healing process for the earth will begin as the human population drops, and the utilization of the earth's resources drop.
I suppose I am partly worried that in our interconnected society, trying to make major fixes on one part will inadvertently cause discontinuities other places, and simply accelerate the collapse. But I do agree with you, some of the truly wasteful things should be stopped--or we better yet, we should start working on a sustainable plan, that can carry us on beyond the collapse.
"The healing process for the earth will begin as the human population drops, and the utilization of the earth's resources drop. "
Many of the processes we have started will and are triggering mechanisms that will lead to further, much worse consequences.
We are not pushing the earth up a gently sloping hill, so that it will gently roll back the moment we remove our forcing.
We are pushing the earth to and over a cliffs edge (google tipping points, feedbacks...), and it will take a long, long time for her to recover in her elderly, decrepid state, if she ever does. We cannot know these things for certain.
I too think the characterization doesn't fit the people I know of as environmentalists. Thursday I was with 220 such at a local Sierra Club event and I didn't hear people talking about beaches. We did have some discussion about loss of wetlands, PCBs and Phosphorous in the Great Lakes, endocrine disruption, infertility and other health effects of PCBs, loss of Great Lakes fisheries to contamination and invasives, riparian buffers for streams, green roofs, and that was all just in the Water breakout I facilitated.
The theme for the event was Transition, and there was pretty good awareness (30%) of PO in the crowd- far more than you'd get at, say, the Rotary Club.
I do agree that we are always reacting to the most recent crisis, but this is more true in the economic sphere (including S-OX) than in environmental circles, where we've been warning of the same issues since at least the publication of Rachel Carson's Silent Spring (1963?).
Thanks for the post, Gail. A couple of quibbles.
Keep in mind that it takes something like 10 million years for evolution to fill an empty niche. And we're talking about the simultaneous destruction of entire ecosystems, globally, over an extremely brief period.
I'll echo Sionnac here and suggest that this caricature doesn't paint a very accurate picture. It's possible to be concerned about all of these issues, but on the timescale of decades-to-centuries, the carbon that will be liberated by the successor to Deepwater Horizon is by far the biggest concern.
The US Minerals Management Service announced today that the 2010 Annual Industry SAFE Awards Luncheon for the offshore industry has been postponed indefinitely. It was scheduled for May 3 in Houston.
Hmm, I wonder why they postponed it.
Actually, they're at least partially upfront about it: "The ongoing situation with the Transocean Deepwater Horizon drilling accident has caused the MMS to dedicate considerable resources to the successful resolution of this event, which will conflict with holding this ceremony next week."
The positive PR value might also be, let us say diminished, if the event were held next week.
"To me, there are no easy choices."
Risks/costs need to be weighed against benefits. If we use offshore oil to buy ourselves time to implement a power down plan then the risks/costs may make sense. If, on the other hand, all we do is extend BAU a few years then it makes no sense at all. An extra few years of BAU is not worth additional damage to the biosphere.
Gail the editorial writer..has a nice ring to it (LOL).
I think this makes the case for unconventional onshore oil(UOO) over offshore oil very well.
UOO has the virtue of being observable('Warts and all') and concrete (and the target of enviros) not hidden away under the sea or in the inner councils of OPEC.
It has some serious drawbacks-- large energy and water consumption, large CO2 emissions and government leadership is absolutely required.
We can all thank, Saint Ronald the Mad for
destroying the US Synfuels program
It also has some serious advantages--bitumen and shale oil reserves together are as big as
all proven conventional oil resources.
The technology is largely proven if under funded.
And it largely is located outside of OPEC(except Venezuela).
Gail, your swipe at CCS was gratuitous and fallacious. The scientists at DOE are endorsing it. The Big Fossils is opposing it--'if it works, we'll actually have to DO it!'
You should initiate a debate on these matters but TOD is mainly for venting and hysterics and of course, the TOD Oil Deathwatch™.
But these people seem to have little concern about the long stripes of asphalt that are being used for interstate highways. They are very concerned about the tens of thousands of birds that have been killed by oil spills, but they are not concerned (or not very much concerned ) about the billions of fish that are being removed from the oceans by fishermen every year.
Gail makes an interesting point here, and of course it is not true of all environmentalists. But new road construction, or four-laning of existing streets and roads don't seem to cause much opposition except for a few people directly in the path. I wonder how x miles of new road compares in total impact to a spill of x barrels of oil on a particular beach?
And wind energy is "cleaner" in many ways but I'm afraid that turbine farms are not all that friendly to bird life. And I don't think most people really want to know how bad it might be. When I search for actual studies on the numbers of birds killed by colliding with turbines, it seems like it is really hard to find any hard numbers.
In general, the modern large turbines are not much of a problem for birds and bats, though of course there are likely a few exceptional locations. The original problem was the much more rapidly rotating small turbines of twenty to thirty years ago, when erected in particular falcon habitats in California. Treehugger - Common Eco-Myth: Wind Turbines Kill Birds does a decent job of covering the issue.
For an excellent overview of all the major bird mortality categories we (Treehugger) suggest you visit this site page maintained by the American Wind Energy Association
Yeah, the bird issue for wind turbines is way overblown. If you want to do something about birds then get people to keep their cats indoors or have the de-clawed. The number of birds killed by windmills is pretty small . . . and how about comparing it to the effect of coal emissions and ash on birds?
In good news on the wind front, the Obama administration approved the cape wind project off Cape Cod. Nothing annoys me more than NIMBY people that oppose green energy. The deserve coal or nuke plants instead.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126363616&ft=1&f=1014
You do not de-claw cats. Stupid and cruel idea.
My solution was to train the cat not to go after the birds.
WTF
When I search for actual studies on the numbers of birds killed by colliding with turbines, it seems like it is really hard to find any hard numbers.
- heard the number before somewhere but can't bring them up offhand, i do know they are tiny compared to the number of birds that die from hitting windows!
True. On the other hand, smaller fires are more common, as are injuries and deaths. The federal Minerals Management Service has tallied 69 offshore deaths, over 1,300 injuries, and 858 fires and explosions in the Gulf since 2001.
CNN reporting- US Coast Guard: "Controlled" burn to begin within the hour. Weiners and marshmellows, anyone?
http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/apr2010/2010-04-28-091.html
Horizon spill controll burn according to the link
Does anyone know about the containment dome? If it was placed over the well and it sealed it, how difficult would it be to pump oil collected to the surface?
x - -The containment dome doesn't exist. I suspect they are still working on the engineering parameters for design purposes. If (and that's a big if) they decide it's can be done they still have to build it. No one has ever built such a device. Once built (in weeks at least) they have to design a method to lower it in 5,000' of water and then stablize it against unpredictable currents. Actually, if they over come all these huge challenges pumping the oil into a tanker will be relatively easy.
IMHO we can forget about the magic dome until we hear they completed construction. And if they do I would give it only a small chance of being effective.
Yeah- I take it the pressure will just take the path of least resistance and just dig a new way 'out to freedom' under the perimeter of the dome-skirt.
Thank you Rockman. More important and sobering information. Believing none of what I hear and half of what I see in MSM is probably being too generous. I'd been seeing reports...
http://www.favstocks.com/bp-spots-third-leak-from-deepwater-horizon-rise...
...so I thought I'd ask if it ,if it was built, would it have a chance of working. Sounding like a long shot.
I imagine an oil executive talking to an engineer-"Can we just put something over it, like the guy putting his helmet over a grenade in the war movies?"
So, if the engineer comes back with the Linda Lovelace solution instead, can they deploy it from Texas?
Hmmmm..... "Deep Cone". Luv it Jon...needed a laugh this morning really bad.
I'm still waiting for the Chernobyl Sarcophagus.
It's been 24 years!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jvEDVuGOJ6Y
Hope BP can do better than that!
BTW, BP has a phenomenally shitty environmental record(aka Alyeska spill).
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/573947058.shtml
Gail, are you sure of this data?
At 50,000 - 80,000 barrels released, it would take 50 to 80 days at 1000 a day to reach the Santa Barbara spill.
I'm a UCSB Alumni, and I remember.
Here is the data:
http://www.countyofsb.org/energy/information/history.asp
It looks like I should have looked at more references. At that level, it sounds like it might be similar in size to the current blowout.
The natural order of things keeps changing, on its own, without our intervention. One type of animal dies out, and another replaces it. Plants undergo natural selection, so as to adapt to changes in the environment.
That's a pretty shocking comment to what we humans have been doing to the planet over the past century or so. Obviously there is always some natural selection, but with our way of life, and the huge numbers of us here, we have destroyed a vast number of species (and will continue to do so). Most environmentalists would know this, and care for a bit more than just a pristine beach...
You would also not have to look back 100'000 years to see no cars, superhighways and oil wells - 200 would be enough.
Instead of engaging in stupid drill-baby-drill plans which will do nothing at all to help us deal with peak oil, we should be changing our way of life - it's not as hard as you make out, in particular not in the US with its record-low-mpgs...
Gail, I deeply appreciate the contribution you have made to The Oil Drum and also the many informative posts you have contributed. But here you totally miss the boat. Your statement quoted here could not be more wrong. And it also defames virtually all environmentalists.
I have met hundreds, perhaps thousands of environmentalists and to a man/woman, they are all concerned with the disappearance of ocean fisheries.
Sure we are concerned with oil soaked beaches, but we are even more concerned with what the oil spill will do to the wetlands of Louisiana and other Gulf States. Gail, it is slanderous to say that we are only concerned with maintaining business as usual. It seems that you confuse us, (we environmentalists), with right wing cornucopians. After all, that is their main concern.
Also, I really don't think a thread on the worst oil spill since the Exxon Valdez is the right venue to attack environmentalists. I know, you probably don't consider what you said constitutes an attack on environmentalists however when one accuses me, and other environmentalists, of not being concerned with the disappearance of ocean fisheries and being only concerned with BAU, I must consider that an attack upon my character and that of other environmentalists.
Ron P.
I stand 100% behind Darwinian on this one.
I went out to check on coral growth on an artificial reef off my local beach this morning.
I personally know environmentalists who work with Reef Rescue, Turtle Rescue and Pelican Rescue in my area. Every one of them understands the big picture and how interconnected everything is. To suggest that these people are for BAU and that they are unconcerned about say Tuna fisheries is beyond absurd!
I'll stand by Gail on this one. Anyone who claims that "all environmentalists" have a clear-eyed understanding of the interconnectedness of all the issues on which they self-declare themselves experts is so deluded that their every statement should be suspect. It took me only a few months of membership in Greenpeace in the 1990's to have this rude awakening imposed. I now trust NOTHING without reliable references, and only advocate for changes which a) are applicable worldwide b) will help less-developed regions at least as much as priveleged c) have a very high liklihood of making serious contributions to moving the developed world to a sustainable footing d) avoid proven systemic design failures of the past. The result is, I only promote switching from carbon-based energy to sustainable energy sources, and implementation of infrastructure changes which will assist that. Otherwise, I spend my efforts studying and designing recommended modifications to present systems of government which will promote such progress.
Nobody is claiming anything of the sort! Let's stop with the BS straw men. We also need to define who is and is not an "Environmentalist". People who drive a Prius and take a cloth bag to the supermarket do not automatically qualify.
Most of the people who I consider to be environmentalists, are either themselves scientists or are part of a group that is science based and are often connected with Universities and research labs. It is precisely because of their deep scientific knowledge that they have become politically active or joined or started grass roots movements themselves.
Many of these people have made and continue to make deep personal sacrifices and they are often on the forefront of trying to educate the population at large.
Check out this link: http://www.turtlehospital.org/
It costs an enormous amount of money and a lot of blood sweat and tears to run this one organization. Your statements are a personal attack on these very fine human beings. I will not let you slander people like these without a fight! You are in the wrong here.
So what exactly is your definition of an Environmentalist? I assume that you don't consider yourself to be one. So let's take this one one outside shall we!
Have to agree with Gail AS she stated it, not as it's being received. Light green is a good metaphor...
My morning coffees are often with a Sierra Club board member, and he's pretty discouraged with rank and file commentaries at their meetings.
As someone said earlier, it's still mostly about maintaining the lifestyle, not changing it, and it seems based on American exceptionalism, like the immigration issues, the oil war issues, ad nauseam. There's little comprehension of other humans as worthy of having a lifestyle.
Ritual hand-wringing if the subject comes up, of course, but the willingness to admit the facts necessary to raise up those folks in our zero-sum energy universe, which means we have to actually use less ourselves, no, that doesn't fly, no matter how long you run with that kite.
"Have to agree with Gail AS she stated it, not as it's being received. "
Me too!
Way to stir the pot Gail!
Unfortunately this hijacking of the post by a few wounded egos has seriously detracted from what I think is its original intent, namely is the benefit gained from deepwater oil equal to its true cost?
In some sense, I am probably an environmentalist. It is just that my views on which issues should be tackled, and with what priority, do not match up with what seems to come through to us through to us as "envrionmentalism". As I note somewhere below, I don't think that many of the environmentalists have gotten the message that fishing is resulting in an overall reduction in fish stock, and this is not good. Instead, many of them seem to be hung up on a "biodiversity" message. In their view, as long as we don't fish the rare species, then fishing is OK. When I read books such as The Green Book, they tell people that it is fine to eat fish, as long as it is sustainably harvested, not mentioning that really nothing is being sustainably harvested. We are taking way too many fish out--both the total number and the size of fish is shrinking (because the big ones are being caught).
I personally do not see any difference between intentionally taking fish out of the ocean, and unintentionally killing some of them (or some birds) through an accident. The result, ten years down the line, is still the same, from the view of wildlife population.
As I stated in another post, you greatly underestimate the knowledge of the average environmentalist. You, an actuary of all people, are basing your views on one silly little book and anecdotal evidence you picked up in a fish market. You are looking at the wrong book. Try one of these:
The End of the Line: How Overfishing Is Changing the World and What We Eat
Fish, Markets, and Fishermen: The Economics Of Overfishing
The Empty Ocean
Who Rules the Waves?: Piracy, Overfishing and Mining the Ocean
Ocean's End: Travels Through Endangered Seas
And there are dozens of others. Just one silly book gives no indication as to the mind of most environmentalists. Also just Google "fish wars" and you will get hundreds of hits about overfishing, some of them dating back almost 100 years. All fish wars made the "headlines". Some of these fish wars was front page news, every few days, for months on end. Or just Google "overfishing" and you will get 907,000 more hits.
The world knows about overfishing Gail. Perhaps a few misguided souls say it is all about biodiversity but they are a tiny minority. Biodiversity is important but the oceans are being destroyed by overfishing and whaling. Coral reefs are being destroyed because of pollution and climate change.
Gail, the vast majority of environmentalists are just not as stupid as you have been led to believe.
Ron P.
Gail, you can't possibly be serious! Have you read my comment on that point?
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6407#comment-616022
It really does seem more and more like a semantic problem. The word "environmentalist", in popular parlance, now apparently means "shallow wanker with pretensions of good karma".
There's drift with any terms, and there is strong cultural motivation to trivialize and caricature those who are recommending difficult changes. I'm not saying Gail has done this intentionally; rather that she is using the term in it's diluted, bastardized, Faux-news version, while you, I and some others - for whom the term has had deep meaning - are seemingly using it as it is rigorously defined. On a little reflection, for practical purposes of communication I'm probably the one using it wrong.
How many Americans of polish decent introduce themselves as Polacks? (although it may be term of coolness now for all I know).
One of my pet peeves has been the use of the misleading term EROI to stand for energy returned for energy invested. The main reason this is dumb is that "return on investment" is already defined and in use, and it's about money. Yet the academics forge on with it, hell-bent on obscurity & confusion, because their definition is clear to them even if it confuses about everyone else.
I may have the same problem with "environmentalist".
"environmentalist" has been successfully re-framed (not by an overt conspiracy, just by the sum total of derisive remarks by those who didn't like the message, and fools who claimed to be one) just as so many other issues and people have been, and will be in the future.
And that process continues; it's now seemingly morphing from "wanker" to "dangerous wanker", with terrorism implications. Indeed, one of the best reasons not to self-label as an "environmentalist" in the future is that it will likely get you pulled off an airline or otherwise detained. What will "environmentalist" mean in 20 years?
So arguments about what it "means" may be useless. Insisting on rigor within a dynamic language is probably wasted breath at this point.
Henceforth, I'm an eco-jedi, and my only arguments will be with George Lucas' trademark attorneys.
You are as guilty as anyone of poor semantics. What message exactly is it you accuse me (sic) of not liking? I am thoroughly committed to supporting the message "we must conserve M. Earth by developing long-term sustainable zero-damage lifestyles". If it is "we must conserve the (relatively) old growth forests by insisting that all logging be done by helicopter" or "we must preserve animals by planting explosives at the workplaces of food processing plant workers (PETA)" or "every duck is sacred except the millions killed by hunters each year or the 1.5 to 3 million waterfowl die from lead poisoning annually. Stanford.edu - Metallic poisons" then count me out.
That's why I'm trying to encourage semantic precision among environmentalists. I would like to see comprehensive plans for solutions which don;t simply create as many or more problems than they fix. Is Greenpeace chasing whalers in motorboats discouraging whaling or glamourizing high-powered motor vessels more? How much wildlife is destroyed by the vessels propellors? How much non-renewable fossil fuel is spent in the activity, and what are its effects on the antartic environment? I simply suspect that it may be FAR more effective to use diplomatic means, or failing that, an enforceable world treaty which does not require agreement. Of course USA will never accept such, as it might in future be used as a precedent for limiting US international activities. THAT's what needs to be fixed. Get busy on that!
That was rather the explicit point of the post you're responding to.
I'm not sure what the (sic) is for, unless it refers to my flu today. But here's a news flash, Len, I wasn't talking about you. Are you just spoiling for a bar fight or something?
Sorry man, but you appear to be raving. I've never talked about anything like that. Wipe off the spittle and go home to your wife, dude.
Len, I think you mean well. However, these random footnotes to sophomore greenie philosophy are nothing you have a right to put in my face. You're championing semantic precision (or claim to be) in a vitriolic babble. I have worked on international treaties and strategies for decades, successfully, among many other things. You evidently have not. I have knowledge and experience, you have anger and demands. How's that working out for you?
Yeah ... look how well they have worked - CITES is going great ... Are you in competition with the cantankerous and touchy Darwinian - trying to mount the highest of high horses?
Get a grip - and I agree with Gail - many people who are self-styled "environmentalists" are very narrow in their views, and do not question things much beyond BAU plus saving the baby seal and wetlands - while they bike to work. It's perfectly okay for them to think and act that way ... and donate $100 to the Wilderness Society each year, but it remains what it is - fairly token and unrealistic.
I know more than most of what Greenish has done. And you would recognize some of his successes.
Alan
Greenish
Might help if we consider the value in proclaiming that no one is an environmentalist since there is no way to walk the talk while living in present modern society.
Best we can do is to be environmentally aware, concerned and responsive to what ever degree we can manage to become.
I appreciate the conciliatory spirit in which you offer this comment.
However, I do hold myself to a higher standard and have rigorously met the criteria originally defined as "environmentalist". I don't wear it on my sleeve; the only place I've ever even mentioned it is here, anonymously, and it took awhile.
The core of that standard is that I want the earth's capacity for life, and its life systems, to be better off for my having lived. This is a "net" effect. Obviously, the computer I'm typing on was manufactured and is using electricity. Thus, I have tried to arrange my actions so that less fossil fuels are burned, and pollution occur, than if I had been stillborn. I am generally considered, by those who know my work, to have succeeded very well at that.
There's nothing special about me except my unwillingness to accept less of myself.
The best we can do is far beyond what most are willing to do. I realize it's an uncomfortable notion. There is no implied criticism or judgement of others in what I say here: it's just an honest and rather personal comment.
So saying, I really am no longer an environmentalist. You may think I'm kidding, but I will never self-apply the E word again. I haven't in a number of years anyhow. I'm an eco-jedi as of today, which is rather a cooler thing than being an environmentalist anyhow.
Greenish... eco-jedi has a cool ring to it. I wish you well with your fight for what you hold to be right and good.
For what it's worth, if you ask me, that's pretty special...
I try never to use the term "ALL" when applying it to a group, except for the fact that ALL living things tend to die after a time. You can't and others shouldn't bunch anyone into an "ALL" catagory.
Your list almost got me thinking I couldn't do anything but sit in bed everyday, because nothing I did on the small scale that I do, would be good enough for you, and I might as well give up. (Sarcasm).
My BioWebScape designs (living systems, home building and food producing) Are not meant to be cookie cutter alike. They are designed for those regions in a different way. You can't grow some plants in my area, that you can grow in your area, or I could grow in the amazon, or a desert climate.
Humans live to many different places to lump them all together and say that one thing will work for ALL of them.
If I were king there would be a lot of changes I could make. Everyone fed, Everyone living within a small footprint, greed would be wiped away, People abusing others would be wiped out. Oh Never Mind, I am not king and I can't do anything like the such.
I don't really know why your post makes me upset, maybe it is the "final say" that you seem to have in it's wording. The solutions aren't going to be so cut and dry, they have to be more flexible.
Finally, you do what you want to do, and I'll do what I want to do. Don't yell at me if I might do them differently than you do.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed and housed future.
Hmmm... So does that go both ways? Say for instance another person, after thorough study and reflection, decided that IF baseload power generation plants must be constructed, then nuclear plants make much more sense as transition strategys than coal generating plants? (Disclaimer: I personally advocate for rational powerdown, solar-thermal-with-thermal-storage, long distance HVDC transmission, nuclear where that cannot work, and a seriously large effort to improve direct conversion solar technologies eg. PV, Optical Rectenna, graphene based etc.)
What does this actually mean? Modifications to present systems of government could include the introduction of democracy, say.
And I stand behind Fmagyar, not that he needs it. Let's form a line.
On this point, I'll stand behind Gail.
Most greenies have a romantic conception of the environment, are totally impractical and are unwilling to confront hard choices or to compromise.
They should follow what the scientists tell them to do and stop with the NIMBY-nonsense.
So you define the stereotypical attributes, creating a class of strawman "greenie" dumbasses, and then point out that they're dumbasses?
"The scientists" are not always particularly wise, either.
NIMBYism is annoying and shallow, but that has nothing to do with environmentalism. These "greenies" seem defined around the rigorous standards originally explored by the "Polack Joke".
My point is that it is government which is broken, not businesses or capitalists or whatever your favourite tilting horse may be. We need to get together and figure out how to fix government. Without that, we'll simply be endlessly chasing whaling ships or tuna boats or whatever whatever whatever.
Damn! Why didn't I think of that?
Ron P.
Brand new to TOD / have to say I enjoy the comments as much as or more than the articles. Darwinian has nailed it - it isn't a governmental/multinational corp./"establishment/status quo" issue - it's a species issue. Every place we metastasize to we consume - everything that can be consumed. Replacing every sitting congressman with another of our species will only introduce a new crop of people to the perks of "campaign contributions" and non-existent term limits. Carbon energy is our weapon of choice and we will use it, no matter what, until it is gone (gone=too expensive/energy intensive to get to). Think Jared Diamond's Collapse, but on a global scale. Those that already do without oil will suffer little. Those that do with a lot will suffer like the Easter Islanders
I'd suggest your statement about "that already do without oil will suffer little." is way off the mark. Under present systems, that minority who have worked out a decent means of survival will simply have it expropriated, by one means or another, but those who want it and can convince "representatives" to do that for them. At no time did I propose that I think the fix for present broken governments simply involves switching to a different group of representatives. I've said before that representative democracy (as opposed to genuine democracy) is the problem. Observe eg. Thailand or Venezuela presently, Haiti recently, many countries which have suffered military (right-wing) coup's, clear examples of the case that "what group of representatives presently hold power" makes a big difference to various groups of people's wellbeing, obviously by selectively benefiting their supporting group. Or present USA, and other OECD democracies to a lesser extent. Representatives are simply too easy for "interests" to corrupt and capture, and there is no protection from it except in the rare cases outside the USA where the representative gets far too bold and leaves documented evidence of their corruption in the public domain, and gets sanctioned mid-term. (I say "outside the USA" because for some reason, even that doesn't get a US representative sanctioned.)
The obvious solution is to get rid of the "representatives" in democracy. With creative application of modern communications capabilities it is an entirely reasonable thing to propose, and I'm convinced that if these systems were available to the US founding fathers in the 1780's the US constitution would bear only passing resemblance to what is now in place. It's time for a re-do. Sure it might be a slow and clumsy system which makes changes more difficult, but in truth, if it weren't being constantly thwarted and modified by "representatives", our present body of laws works well enough that it doesn't need a whole lot of drastic changes. A lot of careful and well-advised simplification over time would be a good thing, and people as a whole would have the right to hire (through their civil services, on their command) whatever experts a significant group of them decides could publish useful input to such decisions.
Hey Len, what's in your backyard?
(Please excuse the mess. I'm working on it.)
NIMBY be damned.
Remember, y'all. Environmentalism starts at home!
I must respectfully disagree. Moral suasion from commited and knowledgeable environmentalists simply will not reach enough of the general population. Period. (After 50 years, how many have the best environmentalist persuaders convinced to make the changes necessary?) I admire your commitment and sacrifice indicated by the solar panels, but are you sure that solution should even be available to you, or should they be installed at a location where there are full-time expert mechanics to keep the tracking systems operating and properly aimed, as at least one of yours is not. Should our economy even be building present technology solar PV, should we be mandating that ALL solar PV must be installed under 250:1 or 500:1 plastic lense concentrators in order to stretch our supply of PV fab. materials as far as absolutely possible, or should we be conserving our resources until we have achieved a level of efficiency with them that guarantees a net positive ROI?
Many other issues.
After 50 years, how many have the best environmentalist persuaders convinced to make the changes necessary?
I'd say a fair amount of environmental thinking has seeped into the general population -- e.g., here in Seattle, we've completely replaced polystyrene containers with compostables, and we get curbside composting for table scraps. Microsoft's cafeterias have compostable diningware exclusively. Denver has just started its bicycle sharing program. There are quite a few examples of recent environmental wins like these. Too little, too late? Maybe, but surely better than the null result some might claim.
I'd be more impressed if they were containers that could be washed and reused. Anything that is a "use once" thing is greatly inferior to compostable / recyclable / whatever greenwashing term is currently in vogue.
In the 1980s there were campaigns to ban neurotoxic polystyrene food containers, a number of cities actually prohibited these useless things. The plastics industry mounted a P.R. offensive to pretend that they were recyclable when that is an exaggeration at best, and this helped neuter the "no styrofoam" movement.
Most of the environmental movement seems to be pretending that this is the year 1960, we had just learned about M. King Hubbert's prediction and Rachel Carson was about to publish Silent Spring. Asking most environmental group leaders why they don't mention the half century where our society largely ignored the warnings is a great way to get ostracized from these groups.
For such a stickler about accuracy, you sure do make assumptions. My trackers are self assembled (from old salvaged satdish trackers), as is my entire system (and home). The tracker that seems misaligned is in the process of tracking back to optimum after a cloud passed. It has a smaller, slower actuator than the others. They all had moved due to a prolonged edge-of-cloud effect (during which the system was producing about 120% of rated output). They work very well. Good eye, though.
I chose to go off-grid for several reasons, not the least was the distance from the grid and the energy/resources/money required to have a much higher carbon footprint joining all of the grid people. I felt that I should practice what I preach. Combined with very effective passive solar, solar pumped spring water, wood heat from deadfall, solar hot water, and a home built from mostly salvaged materials, one would be hard pressed to do better. No tax incentives taken. Oh, damn! We use propane to cook... and my wife won't do the composting toilet thing (hey, I see biogas in my future!)
Of course, considering your holier-than-thou attitude, I suppose I could just shoot myself and have my neighbor plow me into the garden ;-)
"Juuuust...plant a little watermellon on my grave,
Let the juice (drip, drip) trickle through.
Just plant a little watermellon on my grave,
That's all I ask of you!"
BTW: I never refer to myself as an environmentalist, though I have helped others significantly reduce their environmental impact. I rarely toot my own horn either, but in your case I'll make an exception. Most people talk.....Some people do.
Lengould, I respect your top-down approach, though it's not for everyone. I have had 2 candidates for local office (both Republicans!) accept my invitation to come by and see what I've done and am corresponding with them (and others) about getting local building codes changed and other issues (although, in my area, it'll likely get me shot).
I'm just reacting to a lot of the "civilization off a cliff" type attitude which goes on here. IF we have only 20 years or less until petroleum fuels become too expensive for anything but fueling Virgin Airlines, then your strategy hasn't a hope, we'll need to start preparing to eith get dramatic about reforming world government or start preparing for wars-to-end-world.
"my tilting horse"? Why imply I'm ineffectual?
And I've been posting here for a bit of time now; why don't you check and see whether I've ever gone on about capitalism or corporations. What you'll find is that I have had a strong resonance with the stuff Nate used to post, which pointed t0 more basic roots of predicament.
In contrast, you seem to have deduced that the problem is "government", which is as simplistic as the positions you lampoon.
Government seems largely about attempting to achieve subjective egalitarian fairness, in process and result, for the members of a single plague species in drastic overshoot. It's not broken, it's an absurd premise to assume that it should work competently at all.
Chasing whaling ships is street theater, though sometimes useful. Use your imagination.
And you call environmentalists, naive?! With your logic as soon as we put some duct tape on government and get it to do a better job overseeing the SEC we will no longer have any more oil spills, everyone will have health care and we will all be employed in "Green" industries, and live in LEED certified homes purchased with low fixed interest rate mortgages.
It is BAU that is broken and government, business and capitalism are so deeply entwined in the BAU paradigm that any pretense that any one of those can be separated from the others is either profoundly naive or disingenuous to say the least.
So what's your proposal? Anarchy has a way of dealing harshly with everyone and everything, including environments.
I guess it would depend on how you define and implement Anarchy.
http://www.simplyanarchy.com/
So in some sense Anarchy might be exactly the fix for government that you seem to be looking for.
For the record I'm not an Anarchist nor do believe competing systems of police forces, and courts would really be workable but since what we have now doesn't work either, I'm willing to keep an open mind.
While I love the idea, the evidence suggests that anarchy does not scale well.
My money is on some variation on a democratic republic as the optimum given people as they are, the US model has some holes in it but seems to me to be within the right area. Unfortunately there are a lot of easy paths that lead away from it (remember that Rome was a republic once).
It scaled quite well in the Ukraine, and in Spain.
Historical literacy is needed.
Do you know who Nestor Makhno is, or have you read Goodman's primary reports?
It didn't have the necessary staying power in either location.
Anarchy is like a round-topped pedestal. The view is great, but it's hard to stay on it and there is never a shortage of people with grease willing to help.
Then it promptly devolves into government of one sort or another.
Historical literacy is needed, after all.
Greenish,
I am active in my local green circles and I tell you that not one member in 20 has a serious interest in climate change, energy depletion or change. Many are shilling their home 'green businesses'. Others are interested in petting zoos, hunting for mushrooms, earthworm farms, gardening and arts-and-crafts, not to mention New Age spirituality...muuaaahhh!
You mention Peak Oil and they have no idea what you are talking about and an hour later of careful instruction, they still don't know anything.
At least the investment types know something about Peak Oil.
Believe me when I say I could probably tell more horror stories about fools posturing as green than anyone else here. I've been in the belly of the beast and out again for years.
Then again, posturing is what fools do.
Again, just because some idiots think they're environmentalists doesn't mean it's so... but I think I'm fighting a battle that's already lost. "greens" and "environmentalists" are the new "polacks", the all-purpose butt of jokes.
I guess that's what you get when you try to bring shallow folks into complex issues. I am not a believer in that as a strategy. I guess I'd be more of a machiavellian earth-ninja, but that really doesn't roll off the tongue as well.
I've seen them all too, but I should point out that gardening and local food are pretty important to the Transition Town model. As much as I find New Age spirituality unappealing, the Yoga people at least have been big supporters of our Transition Initiative, and they as well appreciate my more technical perspective.
Oh by the way, The BioWebScape design projects that I do are free of charge. So I might be Pushing a Green Business, but to keep it green I don't ask for green.
Pardon the puns.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed and housed future.
I'm in the Gail / Len camp (pissing out). I try very hard to reduce my impact on the environment but that doesn't mean that my net contribution is beneficial. We are all capable of self-deception, for instance I still see people driving to the recycler. The whales vs tuna debate is bogus: when I see someone feeding themselves to a hungry rat I will revere them as a true environmentalist.
Rats only eat humans when they can't get good pizza.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed and housed Human future( not to mention other creatures)
I help the poor and homeless in my area of the world. The NIMBYs struck here a while back when the city had a nice unused building that they could ahve bought and set up a day shelter, resource center for the homeless in Central Arkansas, but the people living in the area of the building were more willing to leave the building empty than to have homeless people walking on their streets, to get to the center.
I put my money where my mouth is on the homeless issue, I house 2 people who would otherwise be homeless. I'd give you their number and you can call them, I pay for the phone, just so you know.
I have not reproduced, I don't own a car, And I don't grow only green grass in the yard of the house I live in, which is not mine (it is my parents). I understand that we have 7 billion mouths to feed, but I also don't think that the system we have in place will be able to support them all as peak oil shows up in the coming months and years.
I don't want any more roads built in my area, nor the swamps drained, nor would I like beaches made so people can go soak up the sun. Beaches do happen in the natural course of tides and currents, but not all of them should be opened up for people to trash.
As far as scientist, some I might listen to while others I won't. Sorry you are lumping them all together into a pile as well as you are environmentalist (conservationist).
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed and housed future.
Perhaps what influenced me is that last week-end I went to an upscale mostly organic market that I rarely visit. It had a huge display of fish, pretty much all from the oceans. I had a feeling I wanted to scream. Why do these folks, who think organic fruit and vegetables are this important, want also to be taking so many of the fish from our oceans?
I probably shouldn't think of these people as being environmentalists. They are just well-to-do citizens who are "into" the local trendy thing to do.
Edit: Also, earlier I was sent a copy of the NYT best seller The Green Book: The Everyday Guide to Saving the Planet One Step at a Time to review. I was sufficiently disgusted with it that I didn't. What it says about fish is:
It goes on some about why farmed are bad. It also mentions buying fish from a local farmer's market--which was where I was on Saturday, and saw all the fish from around the world. The book doesn't mention at all that there might be a general problem with overfishing. The issue was just that farmed varieties are bad, so choose wild varieties.
It may seem perfectly obvious but great disasters stimulate great changes. People respond to dramatic incidents, especially regarding environmental and safety issues. For example, the current oil blowout, all of a sudden, seems to have doomed offshore drilling in Florida and probably other places. The politics have shifted overnight. Likewise since the recent coal mine blow-up all of a sudden mine safety rules are starting to be enforced. The bigger disaster the more action. Incremental decay, decline, destruction doesn't get as much attention.
I think there is some common ground between us on this one.
Probably the only reason these people even eat fish is because it is supposed to be good for their health.
I've been to places like the one you describe and have walked away with the impression that these people are usually uber elitist BAU folk who don't have much of a clue about the environment or how they are connected to it.
I'd love to see them buying plantains and fish at the local market in Manaus...though they still wouldn't get it.
If someone does choose to eat fish, the choice isn't so simple as between wild and farmed, and the problem of transport distance (fish from every ocean) is separate from the problem of fishery depletion.
The book is correct to point out sustainably harvested wild fish, since some fisheries are responsibly managed with sustainable catch limits. Some farmed seafood is relatively sustainable too. You'd think they could point that out in a full length book, but maybe that was going in to too much detail.
This seafood guide from the Monterey Bay Aquarium makes it pretty easy.
http://www.montereybayaquarium.org/cr/cr_seafoodwatch/download.aspx
I think that somehow this particular group of environmentalist got the idea that as long as a fish isn't close to endangered, it is OK. So as long as there are 1000 pairs left, or whatever, it is OK to eat the rest.
Without looking at your booklets, I think there is a tendency in them as well to encourage eating seafood, just not the kinds that are in low supply. But I still think this message misses the issue that the total number of fish is very much too low, and the sizes of fish are getting smaller. We should be measuring the total fish weight for all fish, and comparing to historical amounts, and building back up to historical amounts --not telling people it is OK to eat fish, as long as a sustainable supply of that particular variety remains.
It seems like I have correspondence with Charlie Hall in this regard, too. If I recall correctly, he says the current trendy thing (at least with some subgroup of scientists) is "biodiversity". It doesn't matter if the total number of animals / fish is very low. As long as they are "biodiverse", then the popular belief is that everything is (close to) OK. That is what gets published in papers, and other scientists read. And that is what underlies the ideas of the "The Green Book", and quite possibly also what underlies your booklets from the aquarium as well.
I think it is this biodiversity message that is being spread by the environmentalists, not the fact that the oceans are badly overfished. We really need to build the size and number of fish way back up again, and this message is totally being missed.
I actually don't eat much meat or fish. When I eat fish, it is generally a small serving of farmed fish.
I think you greatly underestimate the aquatic knowledge of the vast majority of environmentalists. Most of us have read books like Ocean's End and are very aware of the fragile state of the world's oceans and fisheries.
Fishing wars have been pushed out of the news lately, they are now old hat, but a couple of decades ago they were front page news almost every day. Fishermen in New England were batteling the government over catch limits and Canadians over territory. And the environmentalists were always there getting their say in. The environmentalists hated the fishermen and vise versa. Overfishing was called a myth back then, just like peak oil is today.
But time has taken its toll. Now everyone in New England, and everywhere else for that matter, knows that fish stocks are being depleted. Even when they are allowed to fish, their catch is down to almost nothing.
But we are not so dumb as you seem to think Gail. We know what is happening to the world's oceans. We have known for many years now.
Ron P.
Thank you, Ron.
It's amazing the strawman stuff going on here. You can find silly people everywhere. To dismiss a group as diverse as "environmentalists" based on an experience in a market is, well, not really sound.
You win the prize for selective reading. Here, its a big catfish (oops, sorry, silver snapper, yes, that sounds better.)
I'm sorry but I just can't buy that line about scientists being into "TRENDY" views. It just goes against what science is all about. BTW "biodiversity" with regards ocean fisheries, at least as I understand it, is *NOT* part of some trendy view...
If you are really interested in what scientists think about bio diversity and the state of ocean fisheries I'd suggest you talk to some scientists who are specialists in these areas.
I don't personally know these guys but do occasionally read their blog and have asked them questions to which they usually reply without condescension. In general they tend not to be into "Trendy Views"
http://deepseanews.com/
This is the topic of the first post on the blog right now.
Some of us pseudo environmentalists actually take the time to study and read about marine science sometime between midnight and 2:00 AM... Then while most people are driving their SUVs to their cubicle so they can buy frozen Chilean Sea Bass some of us are diving on our local reefs to see how the coral transplants are doing... In rough seas, from a kayak.
I've commented on this many times in the TOD past. Many decades ago, I identified uncounted invertebrate samples and computed Shannon-Weaver diversity indices. Computers were still central mainframes at the university, alot was done with handheld programmable HP calculators. And the school of thought still had a big section for abundance.
I think we lost alot by coming to fixate on diversity at the expense of abundance. It seemed we could no longer afford to analyze abundance, what was left. We opted for diversity, it was quicker, produced a benchmark figure, and later, we did away with even strict diversity indices. Biologist time required for taxonomic evaluation was too high, we needed quick and dirty assessments, like the SCI-Sequential Comparison index. Garbage, esp with untrained eyes.
The concept of biodiversity includes the genetic diversity within species as well as numbers of species. Biodiversity is likely to be damaged to some degree if the population of a species falls as the gene pool contracts.
And it was certainly around in the seventies when I did my biology degree. I don't remember whether we used the term biodiversity then though.
Seems that the book was written with a heavy hand toward the likes of the "there is no peak oil crowd". Things that not all us conservationists would write. I like fish farming in limited areas, feeding them a more natural diet, more like free range chicken than bag fed chickens.
Sorry you had to get the nasty side of the coin. It is just the same with all groups, they divide into camps within the parent name.
But I would suggest that you do read the book and tear it apart with what you see that is wrong with it, that way your point of view will help others to see where this author and his ilk have been going wrong.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed and housed future.
Gail, you are basing your opinion on anecdotal evidence you picked up while strolling through a fish market? Gail, you should sit down with an actuary and let him/her help you with assessing the value of anecdotal evidence. You see actuaries know about these things because actuaries...
Err... wait a minute.... Never mind.
Ron P.
I find it disturbing that the folks that seem believe they are being particularly "green" are the ones who seem to be eating these fish, and really putting pressure on the resources in the ocean. Somehow, there is a disconnect between the real issue, and what mainstream is perceiving.
I've been involved in plenty of environmental groups in Sweden for the last 10 years, so I feel I have plenty of anecdotal evidence to add to your "Environmentalists are driving SUVs to buy their organic fish at expensive markets" claim.
I find the notion that you claim that environmentalists eat fish ridiculous. I know hundreds of people in Sweden involved in the Green Party (including members of parliament) and several different environmentalist and socialist groups, and thing that unites this very diverse group of people the most is their vegetarianism/veganism. They just dont eat meat because it is so inefficient and a waste of energy. (I guess some people appreciate the whole ethics side of it, but its mostly about the Carbon.)
The environmentalists I know that eat meat/fish/poultry probably would probably be less than 5% in all. There is a HUGE stigma around consuming meat in the green movement, and most people caught doing would be considered pariahs.
I just dont think the people who bought that fish cared about the environment, they probably just wanted food of higher quality than the standard fare.
There is a HUGE stigma around consuming meat in the green movement, and most people caught doing would be considered pariahs
You got it on the money there, stone the sinner he is not of our pure faith. All these new religions almost make you yearn for the good old days of 'the reformation.' Give me a break or a least a good broiled or dried red salmon. By the way, what happened to the big salmon that used to run up your rivers?
Recently on Earth Day in Santa Barbara I happened to be out on a walk and went thru a park where lots of stands of vendors were being set up as part of an Earth Day celebration. Here's what I learned:
- Experience of the rainforest comes in a can. Really. I am not making this up. A banner proclaimed that some fruit drink made from a fruit harvested in rain forests provides the experience of rain forests.
- Environmentalism involves drinking beer. A big beer section was being set up.
- Environmentalism involves selling home made jewelry. Who knew?
I had all sorts of antiquated ideas involved with protecting habitats and cutting pollution. But I'm hopelessly out of touch.
Does it? I didn't know that. Based on my experience with environmental activists, I thought it mostly involved smoking dope.
Okay, now I'll run away very very fast before anybody sees me.
Gail, When I read what Darwinian just quoted I wanted to stop reading your aricle and post something, but I didn't I just continued reading, though not as throughly as I had been before.
It almost seems like you opened another can of worms with that bit, and most of the comments to this post are about environmentalism and what it means to us. Rather than what the oil spill and sinking of the rig is going to mean, and what caused it.
I've called myself a tree hugger for a long time, but I was not just concerned about the trees but just about everything man has done to the world in the last few decades.
All in all mankind has changed the world almost everywhere he has set foot upon it. There are those that walk in and walk leaving the landscape as untouched as possible. But the general population does not do that.
Ron, thanks for saying what I had in mind, you said it better than I could have.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a better fed future.
Not that this is a criticism, but Gail's apparent editorial bias toward the extractive energy industry is well known here. She is entitled to her biases so long as we understand them.
I believe that the choice between continuing high risk energy extraction and lack of food and medicine is simplistic.
From what I see around me--high intensity lights on every store and factory and shopping center and road and rural backyard burning all night the year round, everyone with a yard using a riding lawn tractor to avoid the beneficial exercise of mowing it, dozens of useless and unnecessary pharmaceuticals being sold for billions and contaminating our waterways,--the list goes on-- we could easily cut our energy usage in HALF almost immediately just by eliminating this and other obvious waste.
Some days I think Gail is simply trying to stimulate debate. Most of the time I think that she has used her actuarial/risk assessment skills to ascertain our true situation and is really a closet doomer.
I always appreciate the time and work she puts into this site ;-)
I'm a long time reader of Gail and appreciate her contribution. While I think I understand what Gail does not believe I have no idea what she does believe in. Lately I have been skimming or skipping her comments because of this.
I don't think she is a closet doomer at all. She wears doom on her sleeve as do many of us. Just what her advocacy might involve I think might be a more complex question.
Right, she was out of the closet from day one.
Ron P.
She is one of the biggest doomers of doomerdom. Don't know why she is even bothers going through the work of posting this stuff.
I'm so glad we got all of that out in the open!
Luv Ya, Gail!
Hi Ghung,
I agree with you in respect to Gail, except in one respect-I have no doubt she is a doomer. Even though she does not say so in so many words, everything else she says leads to this conclusion.
And I am willing to give her the benefit of the doubt in terms of being to sympathetic to the energy industry.Many regulars here "have it in" for my own industry, commercial agriculture, and I understand thier pov.
But that does not mean they have a realistic view of the world AS IT EXISTS.We are simply and irrevocably stuck with both the fossil fuel industry and with industrial agriculture, as a practical matter, for many more decades at least.
Any near term failure large scale of either one is a sure recipe for a mad max or worse scenario.
Just because such a scenario seems to eventually be inevitable, there is no reason, from a personal pov, to wish for its early arrival.It means among other things the death of lots of cute little girls and boys who have done nothing wrong.
My opinion is that gail has come to grips with this obvious ( to me anyway) truth and that this goes along way towards illuminating her forgiving evaluation of the ff industries.
Of course she might have an agenda of her own, and it might involve a personal interest of some sort in the bau energy picture.Most of us do, why shouldn't she? Of course we can hope for the theoritical perfect editor, but in real life.......
In my estimation she is a great asset, and her shortcomings , such as they may be, are trivial in comparision to the effort and the quality of the work she puts into this site.
Gail's a mother.
I also appreciate Gail's hard work and the useful data that she organizes and presents here. Even in the comments Gail posts graphs and other distillations that took work to prepare. People who do not do this should try it and see how hard it is to get the data, chomp on it, graph it, upload it.
Even though I'm not as pessimistic as Gail about what declining oil production will bring (I am pessimistic - just not as pessimistic) I value her contributions here. I wish more people brought as much information to their comments as she does.
"But these people seem to have little concern about the long stripes of asphalt that are being used for interstate highways. They are very concerned about the tens of thousands of birds that have been killed by oil spills, but they are not concerned (or not very much concerned ) about the billions of fish that are being removed from the oceans by fishermen every year."
Speaking as an environmentalist, I can tell you it is possible to *be concerned* , and even *desperately concerned*, about a lot of issues, but not possible to *act on* every single one, or even *donate to* every single one.
Most people I know that are actively working on the vast slew of environmental issues have a pretty good perspective on the big picture, but, not being superpeople, can participate in a relatively small number.
How easy it is to sit at a computer terminal, and, with the stroke of a pen, dismiss the actions of millions of people trying to do what they can for the environment, mostly on a volunteer basis, in spite of the billions of corporate dollars countering their efforts, as the supporters of Business As Usual.
Environmental efforts suffer from "divide and conquer" - the real proliferators of BAU know this - time and again, they use their monetary means to employ delay/deny/distract tactics to water down any effort at true environmental action.
Why did it take almost a week for anyone to even start discussing the true environmental issues surrounding the spill ? (my guess - most people were hoping it would go away, but were meantime marshaling the attorneys to construct the "official story")
First, the most important thing was to put out the fire
The second most important thing was to search for the missing, while downplaying any potential environmental impacts
The third most important thing was to tell everyone how many things BP is throwing at the situation. I heard the press conference yesterday - the BP spokesperson said how amazing the engineers were - they were inventing new and fantastic ways never imagined, to address the spill.
While, all the while, 42,000 gallons of oil were spilling into the sea, and will likely continue to do so.
Addendum : As of this morning, Thursday, the spill is now estimated to be pumping out 210,000 gallons per day, and BP is calling on the US Military for help, while placing the blame squarely on Transocean, Ltd. "Heckuva job, Brownie !"
Pretty amazing that the world's largest offshore drilling contractor is headquartered in landlocked country. But then Switzerland has been home port to big money for a long time, so one shouldn't be surprised. Yeah BP is pretty big on putting everything on its subcontractors, I'm guessing there is enough documentation to hang em both on this one...or at least there was.
Every time I read about the dome idea, I just can't help but think of the pollution dome in The Simpsons Movie.
lulz
Coast Guard Begins Burning Oil
Thank you Barrett, I've been looking for news of this. Please if anyone has any news of how this is going, can they post it? Thanks
Or not:
Controlled burn of oil in Gulf has not yet begun
UPDATE: Delayed Gulf oil spill burn to begin later today
4:20 ??
It's 4:20 somewhere, 24 times a day ;-)
Coast Guard sets fire to portion of gulf oil spill
New leak found; leak rate five times higher than previous estimate:
Oil spill from rig explosion at 5,000 barrels a day
Meanwhile, still waiting for some MSM outlet to "break" the story of the crash in oil production on the main portion of the Thunder Horse Field. Here is a link to the data table that Undertow pulled together from MMS data:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6391#comment-613054
The peak production rate was January, 2009, when Thunder Horse produced 168,000 bpd of crude oil and 4,000 bpd of water (this excludes the Thunder Horse, North trap, which has so far not shown a water breakthrough).
Comments by BP's CEO a year ago:
http://www.glgroup.com/News/BPs-CEO-Tony-Hayward-noted-Thunder-Horse-suc...
BP’s CEO Tony Hayward noted Thunder Horse success in his recent comments to the AGM
April 20, 2009
Here is what a MSM source (Financial Times column) had to say about Thunder Horse on April 1, 2010 (emphasis added):
http://blogs.ft.com/energy-source/2010/04/01/a-new-era-for-gom-deepwater...
A new era for GoM deepwater oil, and what it says about the majors’ strategy
April 1, 2010
The January, 2010 production rate for Thunder Horse was 64,000 bpd of crude oil and 29,000 bpd of water. This is an annualized exponential decline rate of almost 100%/year (based on monthly data), and a simple percentage decline of 62%.
The main part of TH is shown as south in the chart below. That's a huge fall from 168 kbd in Jan 2009 down to 64 kbd in Jan 2010. This story should be on MSM.
The smaller part of TH is the north satellite which is estimated to have only half of the reserves of south and should be producing less than south but instead it's producing more.
Thanks to Undertow for the lease codes from this thread.
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6391#comment-613054
The "whisper number" I have heard for URR for the main (south) structure at Thunder Horse is as little as 200 mb, versus original estimate of 1,000 mb.
When they see water encroachment on the north trap, they will probably see the same kind of sharp production decline that the main structure experienced.
And this is what Wikipedia says:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunder_Horse
Someone should update the Wikipedia entry with this info and Ace's chart. As the info is fully sourced (well the production quantities) it shouldn't get reverted.
Curiously I've just checked the history and the last edit was made a couple of days ago by an anonymous US IP address (with no other edits) and the single change was "BP say that it is now exceeding that. " to "BP says that it is now exceeding that." which changes UK English (collective noun) to US English
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences
Do the January, 2010 data show any water production for the north trap?
Water production on the main structure showed more than a six fold increase from 1/09 to 1/10.
Not yet. The February data hasn't appeared yet even though historically it looks like BP would have submitted this by now. and it looks like the MMS data for February all GoM production is mostly complete for February.
Either the data appears any day now or BP seem to be slow in providing the latest month.
Great Work Undertow and Jeffrey-
At the suggestion of another- Have you looked at Atlantis??
FF
A reliable industry source told me in October of last year about the crash in production from the main (south) Thunder Horse structure, due to a rapid increase in water production, which was presumably related to very high vertical permeability.
Undertow has been the hero of the month, for being willing and able to dig the actual data out of the online MMS data base (after trying to figure out the MMS website, I ran screaming from the scene of the crime).
I have no info on Atlantis, but I think that the Neptune Field showed the same kind of catastrophic production decline as Thunder Horse (South).
G15607 seems to be Atlantis production from a very quick scan but there could be other lease codes which would need to be added on. Will have a proper look later if I have more time. You can plug that lease code in at http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/fastfacts/production/master.asp
A bit more digging. According to the MMS latest GoM figures.
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/fastfacts/pbpa/pbpamaster.asp
Jan 1.553
Feb 1.431
March (not yet complete)
However Thunder Horse is missing from that above February total if you (errm..) drill down.
Either the data appears any day now or BP and/or the MMS seem to be slow in providing the details for February.
Gail...
I am a long time reader of the oil drum. I don't post here much.
I'm really offended by this characterization of the environmental community:
Green activists are extremely diverse. I just think to characterize the green movement as a BAU crowd is ridiculous on the face of it. It's just a bizzare broad characterization with little or no nuance. The BAU crowd is largely big corporations and their interests in my book...
I found your discussion of the reasons beyond the spill and associated details good, but found your analysis of what it all means highly opinionated.
Sure, the truth is that oil is going to be supremely difficult to impossible to transition off of. The point is that it WILL be gone at one point or another. If some type of ordered descent is important to us, then we eventually must build economies not based on oil. The point of disasters like this is to highlight how very disfunctional all aspects of the growth-based/oil-based economy are to our long-term ecological and enviornmental health. We probably are going to see more deepwater oil, but events like this are an opportunity to fight for taxes on oil that will ease the descent and help build alternatives, not to make excuses for the oil industry.
Agreed... there are no easy choices.
What we need to do is actually harder than building an economy that is based "not on oil". It needs to be based only on local materials, and that is very, very difficult to do, given that our mines are pretty much mined out, if we have to use only local materials. I have a hard time seeing natural gas, or coal lasting (or large wind or solar PV either) --so things will likely change pretty quickly, with or without our effort.
Gail are you sure about this? It seems to be out by several orders of magnitude but tbh I'm not sure if you mean 9.3 billion barrels of reserves or 9.3 million barrels a day.
I should have said barrels a day. Going from 5.4 million barrels a day to 9.3 million barrels a day with low valued products is slight of hand.
New NASA pic released today - taken yesterday. I've altered the brightness of the image from the NASA version to hopefully more clearly see the slick in the new image. First is the pic from 2 days before for comparison.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/NaturalHazards/view.php?id=43829
And updated forecasts at http://www.d8externalaffairs.com/go/doc/2931/533387/
Dear Gail,
First and foremost, you are one of my favorite regulars here. You are to TOD what Greta is to Fox (a singular observation).
I'm not computer literate, and I don't know if this is the proper way to express my thoughts.
The Deep Horizon wreck was bad. Some profit-oriented folks are cutting into profits to fix it.
My issue is with gross numbers that may be off base by a magnitude beyond comprehension.
It is now being bandied about that 42,000 gallons per day of oil is escaping from the ocean floor at the original drill site. Because the oilfield measurement of a barrel is 42 gallons, that strongly suggests that 1,000 bbls per day is escaping.
This is a highly calculated and engineering-oriented calculation, which resulted in the approximate value of 1,000 barrels per day.
I can equate this measurement to an equally scientifically measured event I experienced @ 2am this morning. While asleep, I experienced a mild abdominal cramp, and to relieve myself, I raised one leg and cut a resounding fart. Before I drifted off to sleep again, I surmised that I had passed exactly one cubic foot of gas.
While shaving this morning, I dwelled upon my previous and highly scientifically arrived-upon conclusion, and I had to reconsider. There might have been exactly one cubic foot of gas expunged from my system, but it was a relatively short-duration test, and I might have been deluded by slumber.
It might have been exactly .5 cu/ft. It really might have been 4.324 cu/ft, as it was quite resounding in its intensity and duration.........
Numbers can be confusing......and they should be reported with an asterisk if you didn't crunch them yourself.
If that well is spewing 1,000 bbls/day, and if captured completely, one year of production would pay for @ 27 days of rig time at @ $500,000/day.
More research on all fronts, please!!!
Deeper
Deeper,
LO f'ing L. Thanks for that. After dealing with grumpy Lengould, two broken post hole diggers, and four very gassy, pungent standard poodles today (we fed raw yesterday) I needed some comic relief.
Jeez folks. It occurs to me that Gail put this post together in about 48 hours. It seems to me that if some questionable numbers or facts/assumptions crept into Gail's post today, it's up to us to test them and make corrections. That's the point of TOD, AFAIC. It's what keeps me comming back. We can do this without slamming the poster. If some of you have time to research a topic and want to hang it out there, then go for it. Better have thick skin, though.
This is a joint effort. We can correct each other or refine the data without being a'holes about it (well, most of us). Then again, if someone takes a holier-than-thou attitude, go for it.
A little consideration and humor (in these trying times) will help us all.
Best hopes for civility!
/rant
Oops. Looks like the leak rate just went up by 5 times (until they find the next leak).
Gulf Oil Spill 5,000 barrels/day, not 1,000
http://www.wwl.com/Coast-Guard--Oil-spill-much-worse-than-thought/6920130
I dread this one, Exxon Valdez redux,
Alan
Yes, Alan. We now get to an Exxon Valdex-size spill in about 7 weeks, with one of those already gone by since the accident -- and the estimates for drilling relief wells quoted at 2-3 months, or more.
thank you for an excellent overview of the situation Gail. You have become one of the most knowledgeable, authoritative and important writers on energy working today.
NYT should fire their whole stable of clowns who cover energy issues and hire you.
It is pretty clear that a lot of writers for other publications read The Oil Drum (including the comments). In the last 24 hours, I have been contacted by reporters from Science Magazine and BBC.
Cool!
It turns out the Coast Guard raised their estimate to 5,000 bpd only after an environmental group called Sky Truth put out an estimate that there is actually 20,000 barrels per day leaking into the Gulf, based on a satellite image analysis. Oh those pesky environmental groups are at it again with their BAU truth squads.... Here's an excerpt from the Los Angeles Times:
Since there are no easy choices, shouldn't we take ones that favor the continued existence of the human species over a few more years before dieoff starts? Since everyone dies no matter what, shouldn't we want the choice that provides a more livable world for future humans. Don't future humans get to be counted in the equations?
I don't really like the idea of a massive die off, not that I could stop something from happening to cause it. The reason I started My byline of BioWebScape designs was to help inform people here locally and elsewhere that we don't have to go on living the way we are, we can change how we build homes, and how we grow our food. Every little bit helps in my opinion. I can't make policy for a large number of people, but I can tell the people that run things locally that I want to continue being able to have chickens in my yard if I want them.
As Yet I have not gone that route. I am still trying to change some of my dad's bad habits. Not to mention all the other people I'd love to get to grow food plants in every yard in town. When you have 100's of species of plants that already grow in your yard, and looking them up is taking a lot of time, as well as hunting for more to add and finding sources of them, plus budgeting for their purchase. Just doing my own yard is time consuming. I've let a lot of wild plants into my yard over the years, and a lot more just seem to show up with time. I have no clue how the redbud showed up, as there aren't any within several blocks of here, but it did. Likely the squirrels are bringing in seeds or some birds.
How many children under 10 are there in the world today? If they all live to be say 30 Those will be the people we will want to save a future for. I know of several in my own extended family and elsewhere. Teaching them all that they can grow food would be a great help to them later in life.
Basically do as much as you can to teach those around you that though the future is unknown and could be bleak to be cheerful when possible and to always look for the best.
Charles,
BioWebScape designs for a brighter and better fed and housed future.
BP CEO on Gulf rig disaster: "How the hell could this happen?"
A huge load of BP BS IMHO. Let me state very clearly who is responsible for every phase of offshore drilling: the operator. In this case BP. They are responsible, under Federal law, for maintaining safe operations. While the rig equipment and personnel are a part of the drilling contractor operations, BP is responsible for certifying the integrity of all safety equipment, including the BOP (which Fed law requires BP to test and certify every 30 days). BP has personnel onboard monitoring all activities. At anytime the BP personnel observe any unsafe practices by the drilling crew or any unsafely maintained equipment BP IS REQUIRED BY FED LAW to shut down ops and remedy the situation.
OTOH, this doesn't mean the drilling contractor is automatically off the hook. BP might have complied with all proper procedures but at a critical moment a drilling hand might have made a mistake that was solely responsible for the accident. In this regards, BP can't be held responsible. But it is pure and indefensible CYA crap for him to make the statement he did until the details are determined. I'll take liberty and speak for the entire oil patch: we are ashamed of this blatant, and so far unsupported, effort to shift blame by BP. Mistakes are made all the time during drilling ops. When you screw up you're suppose to step up and accept it...even if it cost you your job. As this accident shows, lives can be lost in a heartbeat. If a hand is being unsafe or safety equipment is not being maintained then action has to be taken immediately. Unlike most geologist that sit in their office all day I'm an operations geologist...I work directly with the drill crews. Replacing a hand ("running him off") if he isn't conducting himself safely is not uncommon. Even if you like the guy or he's a lifelong friend. In the last two weeks I've personally run of 5 hands. And this well is just a little 4,000' hole sitting on some cattle land....not a $600 million offshore drilling rig.
Can you sense just how p*issed off I am? That's how most of the oil patch is feeling right now after that BP BS. Even if the investigation shows BP wasn't at all responsible for the accident it won't justify their current position IMHO.
I agree it seems astonishing and callous especially at such an early stage. Over in gcaptain forum someone said the rig was streaming real time diagnostic data back to BP in Houston at the time of the incident. Just perhaps BP's CEO knows something we don't. Or it could just be pathetic smoke and mirrors with BP in a panic.
Callous is an understatement tow. We have a very strick unwritten rule in the oil patch when lives are lost: no finger pointing until the funerals/memorial services are held. Maybe one of the dead hands might be proven to have caused the blow out. But the families will deal with that then. Now they are to be protected. That big mouth BP spokesman might want to avoid contact for while with any of the drilling contractor personnel or any one else in the oil patch. He could end up loosing a few teeth. Men are always going to die...it's unavoidable no matter how safe you try. But shooting your mouth off at the wrong time is 100% unavoidable. And 100% unforgivable.
Rock,
That's why it's so surprising he said what he did considering he should understand exactly what you are saying.
BP CEO Tony Haward Biography
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Hayward
He's spent the latter part of his career surrounded by accountants and lawyers and mixed with the world's elite, picking up their sociopathic tendencies (although presumably latent from the beginning) along the way and forgotten (or more likely doesn't give a toss) where he started and who he hurts.
Interesting tow. He might well be the smartest oil man in the business today. But that won't stop him from getting his butt kicked should he run into the wrong coonass on his next trip to Lafayette.
Rockman
What our Mr Haywood does not say, It is BP's Well Program and BP's Well Precedures. the well program is signed off by half dozen or so BP manages. Transocean may have one signature on it but it is written by the oil company.
From the well program, daily work instructions are written and distributed by the company man or the Snr Pusher. These are just bite size pieces of the well program with more detail for the drill crew to follow, and are to be followed if you wish to remain working on the rig. That is not to say they can not be changed but everybody needs to be consulted. Minor details are up the company man onboard, other wise a call to town occurs. Anything major requires a adjustment to the well program along with the half dozen signatures, so there is no "Well I was not told".
Now in emergancies you do what you need to do.
If the Transocean owned and operated BOP failed, then it is only the last line of defence from failures in well design, cementing program and test procedures.
These rigs are day rated, and therefore the drilling company drills the well how ever the oil company wants, unless safety is an issue. If it was a turn key, BP would hand over a well design and then stand back. The Drilling company would then drill the hole as they wished as long as they could hand over a completed well to the specs of the well design.
Oil company operation seem to be various much split between the companies themselves and contractors. I am sure there are some financial benefits, but it would seem to me that it makes it harder to make sure all of the bases are covered properly. Also, if a subcontractor has a problem (financial, for example), it can affect the total operation, and it is much more difficult to plan for.
When I visited BP's natural gas facility at Wamsutter, WY, I was surprised to learn that the person in charge of safety was a subcontractor. I had always thought that was a company function. I asked a question about how many injuries there had been at this location in the past year, and got sort of a blank look (perhaps they weren't prepared to talk about the topic). The question that came to my mind was, with all of the various subcontractors, were people really looking at the project in total, including all the contractors? Presumably, different contractors could have different workers compensation insurers, so summarization of the results may not necessarily happen.
In recent years, the financial end (and "competition") has gotten so important that vertical integration seems to have gone away. When everything is going right, this is OK, but not when there is a problem. I am afraid we will see problems with this in other sectors as well--particularly electricity.
Gail - It might sound odd but, as general rule, I have more confidence in a sub-contractor then a company employee. Areas such as safety including BOP integrety are so complicated it's much better to have an expert running the show. And these days the experts tend to the the sub-contractors. The numbers haven't come out yet but don't be shocked to find out there were only a couple of BP employess onboard at the time...maybe even none. Fields ops are intensely technical and complex. You want someone who handles that job 100% of the time and who also has many years of experience. But you'll seldom find many employees of a operating company fit that description. For the first 10 years of the 21st century I handled fields ops for ExxonMobil, Anadarko, etc, on a consulting basis and it wasn't uncommon to have only a couple of company employees out of as many as 140 souls on board. As we say in the oil patch today: the operator manages and the subs do the work. And that really is the safest approach IMHO. Until, of course, management starts telling the subs how to do their jobs. Been caught in that verbal knife fight more times than I would care to remember. Been run off more than one job because I refused to do something their way. About 7 years ago I was on a Deep Water job logging a well under very dangerous conditions. Some of the hands, when they came off their shifts, were actually sleeping in the esape capsules. Took 6 days to get my part done. Someone sitting behind a desk in Houston was willing to rish the 130 souls on board that drill ship to get the job finished. And what did they gain by risking those lives -- a dry hole.
It's all part of that curse of modern workers, the idea that "a manager can manage anything". Apparently, knowledge of what the workers are actually doing is superfluous information. I see it in the software business also, constantly, since about the mid-1990's. The best workers are the ones who keep repeatedly and politely and definitely NOT publicly, dragging the manager's butt out of the slings it gets into due to the application of "management theory" to the real world. Just another of the many obvious outcomes of the "GE Way" (Jack Welsh) of managing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Welch
A former senior manager at Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC) told me that when the shareholders ousted founder Ken Olsen and replaced him with Robert Palmer, Palmer called the senior management in and asked them the question "What is our main product?" None of them got the "right" answer until he told them. Answer: "The Share Price".
Enough said.
Those who can do the work are too valuable to be booted up to management?
Yes, spending decades working your way up the ranks, becoming thoroughly knowledgeable of the product, the company, and the industry, is ideal preparation for top management.
Unfortunately, what happens if you get "downsized", or manufacturing is "offshored" to China?
The problem is that there are just not that many companies - or even entire industries - in the US anymore where that type of career ladder even remains. Furthermore, who even knows which will remain in business for another several decades?
This is another one of those unintended consequences, totally off the radar screen of policymakers in Washington and movers and shakers in Wall Street and executive suites. We are assuring that the next generations of corporate leaders are not being properly trained and nurtured. Yet they just assume that the growth curve will continue to going onward and upwards, forever.
So the BOP has to be fail-safe valve, I can't think it would be any other way. The hydraulic pressure to control it must be used to open it, loss of control signal and/or control pressure will close the valve. Presumably the shutdown system is some triple-redundant Triconex system or similar. So everyone who has seen the telemetry this rig was sending from every instrument every second or so onshore will know that the valve must have failed to close in the reaction to the overpressure in the wellbore and the shutdown system then is almost certainly not the problem. The fact that the deep see robots can't close the valve seems to be the clincher to me.
I haven't followed all the press releases, but this seems to me to be how the evidence is pointing right now. Wondering who else has other information?
Gail are those the only two possibilities you can imagine? How about requiring carpooling and 4 day work weeks to use the fuel saved for agriculture and farming?
If we hadn't had oil in the first place we wouldn't have overfished our fisheries and oar and air powered boats would still be getting good catches. Now they have to go farther out and put out huge nets to get the catches and this is likely going to send some species into extinction - we do not know how much more we can take out of the oceans and still have much left to feed ourselves. Since more fishing is bad and oil spills are bad I suggest less oil, and less fishing, and let the chips fall where they may for this generation so that future generations have a chance. I never see you put the future of the human species or the welfare of any future humans into any of your equations for what we might choose. Are we who are living now, especially we the pampered humans of the US the only humans who count when you evaluate these fuel vs. environmental issues?
I think of a real environmentalist as either being a scientist or people who think like a scientist. They are Malthusians. They believe in limits not BAU.
What is described in this article are more like environmental groupies.
Most of these groupies are green cornucopians who are more interested in air quality, water quality, furry creatures, Climate change and maintaining ABU.
That jives with my view as well. They do not in general follow fads or "Trendy Views" and most certainly do not get hung up on "Biodiversity" as a fad, as a rule they actually understand what that word means and how it impacts the overall health of the marine ecosystems and the fish stocks.
Stereotypes such as "Green" groupies need not apply.
So these environmentalists, which do they propose to shut down first, nuclear power or coal generation? I consider that to be one solid litmus test. In proposing to seriously reduce domestic energy consumption, what systems are they also proposing to put in place to ensure that the energy consumption is not simply outsources to cheaper manufacturing regions of earth?
Yes, I've had to re-evaluate my position on this: coal is definitely the larger long-term threat. My preference is always for renewables, but I've dropped my opposition to nuclear.
Re outsourcing: Developed countries outsource hundreds of megatons of carbon emissions
I agree Les, I have read many environmental statements that are concerned about overfishing and killing of species by oil spills and acidification of the oceans, and other manner of hazards for the ocean that was once such a magnificent source of food for humans.
The ocean is much more than a food source tho. 1/2 the oxygen in our atmosphere is said to be produced by phytoplankton. Acidification is hard on phytoplankton. Thus oil spills are part of the whole CO2 problem, not only do they have direct effects but they are part of our trying to extract every bit of fossil fuel we can get so we can burn them and add more CO2 to the atmosphere. I fear that Gail does not understand yet that the most important thing humans need is not an economy, not BAU and all that entails, the most important thing we need is a planet and atmosphere with some similarity to the one we evolved on. This is our home. This planet feeds us and the atmosphere gives us the gases we need to breathe. We who cannot manage our economy are messing around with the source of our life. To trivialize the concerns of all the environmentalists who want to preserve our source of life by implying they just people who don't want a messy beach is beyond an insult, it is to disregard the future of our offspring and our species. We cannot live outside planet earth (it should be clear now that we are NOT going to the stars). I expect these attitudes on Fox News, not here.
I am not free from contradictions in my lifestyle, but I would be glad to see every interstate destroyed, every road turned back to gravel, every plane grounded, localization to take hold and globalization to end.
The planet will over eons establish some new order when we are gone. I am more convinced than ever that we will suicide our own species - obviously the desire to have life change little trumps the desire to save our species. Something in our programing I guess. Too bad for us.
Is there any forum that anyone knows of where I might share/post a possible solution to the problem of shutting down the leak from Deepwater Horizon?
I am going to post this anyway as I see no reason not to. Would it be possible to use a shaped explosive charge to crush the pipe above the lower BOP in order to restrict the flow until a relief well can be drilled? Is that impossible in this situation due to damage sustained during the collapse of the rig? Is there anyone who has some knowledge of the details associated with this problem who is willing to share data?
blano -- I understand your proposition. Though I have doubts it would work it doesn't really matter what I think. The federal gov't has very strict and unyielding requirements for plugging a well in the OCS. And every operator is required to adhere to this process regardless of time or expense. The process absolute guarentees the well will never leak oil again. If it costs BP $1 billion to P&A the well as per regulations they will pay every penny. There are literally 10's of thousands of pages of regulations and engineering standards that must be followed by federal law. Obviously those regs didn't prevent this accident. But the gov't has absolute power in controlling the situation now. BP can't even go to the courts for relief because to get a permit to drill in fedral waters all operators give up this right ipso facto. And if the feds aren't satisfied with BP spill response they can take complete control of the operation. That might not get the spill cleaned up any better but it would certainly run the bill up for bill. Trust me: there no one more upset about this blow out than BP manageement and it shareholders with the obvious exception of the families of the dead.
Rock,
BP is down almost $5 today-it has been down to $52.00. It had been holding pretty well considering all, prior to today. Transocean down over 5 today also, lowest this year.
"The reassessment of the scale of the disaster, which came after a third leak was discovered, sent BP's share price plunging, with more than £13bn knocked off the company's market value since the explosion." Guardian editorial.
Seems to me that BP shareholders should be asking some hard questions to that new CEO. Was shutting down BPSolar a wise move? Dumping their oilsands projects? etc. etc.
May be time for ANOTHER new direction at BP?
I am going to post this anyway as I see no reason not to. Would it be possible to use a shaped explosive charge to crush the pipe above the lower BOP in order to restrict the flow until a relief well can be drilled? Is that impossible in this situation due to damage sustained during the collapse of the rig? Is there anyone who has some knowledge of the details associated with this problem who is willing to share data?
Miami Herald discussion of the oil spill versus the GOM Loop Current:
http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/04/29/1604316/growing-oil-spill-could-ev...
Would the rig have sunk if they had not tried to put out the fire with the fire hoses?
Would there be a oil slick if they had left the rig burn until they managed to shut off the oil?
jal
www.deepwaterhorizonresponse.com
Gulf of Mexico - Transocean Drilling Incident
Unified Command Response site
Haven't noticed this posted on TOD.
Jal -- good timing on your question. One of my engineers was just telling me about the comments of a self proclaimed Canadian oil fire fighting expert who claimed they sunk the rig by hosing it with water. So stupid…can’t be anymore polite than that. This one of the problems with situations like this: “experts" come out with seemingly logical opinions that lead folks to some absolutely stupid conclusions. First, a semi-submersible rig floats because it sits on top of huge pontoons. His claim that they sunk the rig by spraying water on it would be like claiming you sunk a submarine by spraying water on it. Obviously this guy knows nothing about the design of a semi. At one point they said the rig was listing at 70 degrees. More stupidity. Rigs don’t list at 70 degrees…they fall over long before that. Apparently the pontoon on that side was punctured and filled up with water. The rig was floating on its side.
There was zero possibility of controlling the well from the rig after the explosion/fire. All the controls systems on the rig were completely destroyed within minutes of the initial blast. When a rig blows like it did the only possibility of killing the well flow is with the BOP sitting below the rig at a depth of 5,000’. And obviously it didn’t work.
Excuse me if I’m starting to sound a little rough. I have no problem with folks that don’t understand the tech issues. But I am starting to get irritated with the “experts” who really aren’t experts or who haven't gotten enough facts yet to begin drawing conclusions.
Rockman,
When you drill into the well to kill it, how do you get the mud to not just flow out along with the oil? Also, isn't well control even more complicated doing this than in normal drilling?
AN -- It's called "bull heading". There's no way to use any mechanical device at the end of drill pipe that's only 5.5 inches in diameter. So very heaving drilling mud is pumped down under very high pressure. Not very clean and neat but it works. Might take several attempts.
Axelrod: No new drilling until answers on accident
As I have previously noted, when BP tested the seafloor manifold system at Thunder Horse, it leaked like a sieve, due to unanticipated metallurgical failure. Here is post from 2008 by Oilrig Medic that offers an explanation:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4164#comment-363209
Oilrig medic on June 17, 2008 - 3:52pm     
Here is the key quote, "The subsea equipment was almost all made by one company and the welds all had microscopic bubbles. The bubbles all at one atmosphere caused stress fractures when sent to the bottom."
As previously noted, it's pure speculation on my part, but I wonder if something similar happened with the Transocean seafloor equipment.
The Thunder Horse problems were with FMC welds. The DWH BOP was made by Cameron. Let's see how these companies have performed on the NYSE over the last few days.
FMC Blue line, Cameron Red line.
Maybe WT if it was new equipment. But I suspect it's been used many times before. Time will tell but as you probably also suspect it was likely human error.
BP seems to have a consistant problem with mechanical integrety: eroded N Slope pipeline, refinery explosions, bad welds at TH. Maybe they are cursed. Or maybe they don't focus too hard on quality control. I'm sure you know the old oil patch saying too well: save a buck now...spend a $100 later.
Regarding Transocean, probably a combination of factors, involving both mechanical problems & human error.
I agree that BP has certainly been involved in a series of incidents that suggests a problem with quality control and safety standards--from the ongoing oil spill to the Texas City refinery explosion.
I agree with the concern on BP standards, but I think that perhaps the area of concern may be focussed more on the old Amoco operations and not the BP operations from before their merger. Texas City was an Amoco refinery before the merger. Additionally, the GoM and refinery operting units roll up under different organizations, reporting to the CEO.
I think BP got overly obsessed with controlling costs without worrying overly about the consequences. Their managers got non-negotiable directions to reduce costs, and anybody at risk of their jobs might get those reductions by cutting a lot of corners.
The thing about the Alaska operations is that they know those North Slope fields are not going to be producing for much longer, and those Texas refineries are not going to have a source of domestic oil for much longer, so their future is clouded.
If they know all the equipment is ultimately going to be shipped to China to be melted down for refrigerators, there's not a lot of incentive to keep it looking shiny and new.
Now the optimists might point to new discoveries and new policies to save US domestic production, but I don't think BP managers are among the optimists. They are just trying to make it to retirement, and most of them are close.
That's a good point: in Alaska BP and Conoco were night and day in their approach to investment and renewal in some areas of the business, Conoco were much more willing to put money into their asset that I saw.
The BP refinery's in Texas and Louisiana I think are all old Amoco refineries (not like the 'newest' - 30 years old - refinery in the states at Alliance, which was BP refinery way back when).
tow -- Understandable PR from the gov't. But totally ineffective IMHO. The safety procedures, though obviously not fool proof, have been developed over decades. They might stop issuing drilling permits for a while, which will cost many thousands of jobs, lost income for companies and delayed royalty to the gov't. But it's all show and no substance. But the gov't and oil industry will proudly claim, in due course, they've greatly improved the safety issues: "It's OK folks...your gov't has fixed the problem and will let the companies go back to drilling and this will never happen again". Total BS. The equipment is as good as it ever will be. And we'll still have to use human beings to run the process. And given that human error is typically the cause of most such problems, that risk can't be eliminated.
Such a spill will happen again. Maybe next year...maybe 20 years down the road. Just like the big earth quake that will flatten L.A. Loaded 737's will still fall from the sky. As a society we need to accept that fact and decide if the benefit is worth the risk. I have no doubt that regardless of who controls the White House, when PO starts causing real pain the public will push whoever is in charge to "Drill, baby, drill". As the oil hits the shore we'll be flooded with truly sad pics of injured wildlife. Great public displays of empathy. Some quit earnest...most crocodile tears IMHO. We've sacrificed thousands of our troops and tens of thousands of innocent civilians securing oil regions in the ME. The American public, as a whole, doesn't have much of a problem with that. So what about some dead birds?
Murphy's Law: Anything that can go wrong, will.
I am not the first to say it, but will just repeat it here: Murphy was an optimist.
A few implications:
While oil and water don't mix, if you try to move quantities of oil through masses of water, then somehow or another, sooner or later, you'll see oil floating on top of the water.
If you enrich and concentrate quantities of radioactive materials and place them in locations where people live and work, then somehow or another, sooner or later, you'll see people get irradiated.
If you concentrate large quantities of highly inflamable gasses or liquids, then somehow or another, sooner or later, you are going to get a big fire or explosion.
If you build enough big hydroelectric dams, then somehow or another, sooner or later, one of them is going to bust open and flood the valley below.
If you build a big and complex enough energy distribution system, then somehow or another, sooner or later, it is going to crash and disrupt energy supplies to end users.
While I highly respect the work of engineers who have labored greatly to minimize these risks, perhaps it would be wise to just assume that these types of things WILL happen no matter how hard we try to prevent them, and to adjust our planning accordingly.
Many of those things happen often enough that people in immediately adjoining industries already do take them into account.
You don't think that telecom data centers are required to have 72 hours of backup power available just for grins, do you?
It's the end users, the people who don't deal with it on a day-to-day basis, that don't have contingency plans and are likely to be in the biggest trouble WTSHTF.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uscgd8/4563035602/
In looking at this diagram, why couldn't they send down a tool attached to a ROV to crimp the riser (or drill pipe) to either stem or stop the oil from flowing out?
If the well casing is operating anywhere near its design pressure, the the only shape in which it could withstand the internal pressure would be in the shape of a circular cylinder, eg. a pipe. Distort that shape and it will simply split. No idea how the blowout preventers are designed, but if I were doing it i'd have the well casing enter a heavy (strong) steel chamber from below through a sealing clamp, then exit the top through a valve which could be closed after the casing is removed. A pair of shears, one inside the chamber and one outside above the valve, would cut off the section of pipe which passes through the valve, allowing the unit to close the valve and seal off the casing. Only trickey parts are making sure that when the top shear cuts the pipe the end of it doesn't fall back into the valve, jamming it, and that the entire unit doesn't get blown off the top of the cutoff pipe after the valve closes. Difficult to test those, i'd guess.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870387190457521638216062349...
Experts: Oil May Be Leaking at Rate of 25,000 Barrels a Day in Gulf
Didn't an environmental group estimate the leak at 20,000 bpd?
As posted over in Drumbeat just so it's in this thread for completeness.
http://blog.al.com/live/2010/04/deepwater_horizon_secret_memo.html
Maybe tow but there's another limiting factor: how much oil can flow out of the rock itself. Certainly thousands or even 10s of thousands bopd is possible. But such a flow rate can also cause the casing to collapse. It's called point loading and happens even under normal production rates. At such high flow rates even the rock itself can be sucked into the casing and kill the flow. That's called "bridging over". Right now BP is praying for either to happen. I've seen more than one blow out kill itself naturally while the relief well was being drilled.
Because, of course, fossil fuel powered fishing boats have been used through the ages.
I'm pretty sure that a conversion to sail could be done in this industry, and the old maritime skillsets to make the best use of sail powered fishing boats employed and improved.
Some efficiency would be lost, true, but the Maritime trades worked quite well before Robert Fulton's invention.
Sara Palin made years ago, drill baby drill! The press is referring to the comment and having it back in reference to President Barack Obama's authorization to drill further into the Atlantic Ocean and Alaska. The President has since asserted all expansion plans are put on hold until the cause of the oil rigs explosion could be identified. If we're great at something in America, it's utilizing a upsetting catastrophe to capitalize on completely unrelated things.
The oilmass grows like a joyous cancer full of many new kinds of life. Welcome to happy motoring.
It's time to drive to a slicker, browner future: put your keys in the ignition because Big Oil needs your dollars to make more oily art - gorgeous rainbow-coloured sheens to embarrass the likes of Van Gogh and Matisse.
For those who have already contributed, thank you for your kind support!