A Critical Examination of Matt Simmons’ Claims on the Deepwater Spill
Posted by Robert Rapier on July 29, 2010 - 10:30am
Matt Simmons, author of Twilight in the Desert
However, Simmons has lately been making hyperbolic claims related to the deepwater spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Based on the scenarios Simmons has outlined, he argues for responses such as using a nuclear explosion to seal the well and evacuating 20 million people from the Gulf Coast. Extraordinary responses such as these would impact a great many people, so The Oil Drum staff felt that a critical look at some of Simmons’ claims was in order.
Note: This essay is a compilation of work from multiple Oil Drum staff members, particularly JoulesBurn, aeberman, Euan Mearns, and Robert Rapier.
1. The real leak is seven miles away.
Simmons first suggested this in an interview with MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan on May 26th, 2010. In response to a question about a second leak, Simmons replied that there was reportedly a lot of oil six miles away, and said “I think that’s where the wellhead is.” He also mentioned that he had been telling government officials that. In a later interview on June 7, 2010, Simmons made the following claim:
I would think by the end of the week we will discover that we have an open hole with no casing in it which [inaudible] about seven miles away from where BP had been trying to fix these little tiny leaks in the drilling riser. I bet we'll find the drilling riser is still connected to the rig bore, and so they've done everything wrong.
Source: May 26th on MSNBC, June 7 on MSNBC
Response
Simmons apparently came to this conclusion because the leak from the end of the severed riser seemed to him too small to account for the large and growing oil slick on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. This, coupled with reports that a NOAA ship, the Thomas Jefferson, identified possible oil plumes beneath the waters 5-10 miles away, led him to conclude that this new location was where the real spill, and the original well, lie. That BP and the US Coast Guard continued to maintain that the blowout preventer (BOP) was still intact atop the original wellbore, and then proceeded to stem the flow of oil with a series of efforts, suggested to him a massive coverup.
Although it is difficult to prove that a ruse this elaborate has not been staged on the seafloor, there is clear evidence that the assemblage of ships involved in the spill response has been positioned around the Macondo-252 well location specified in the original well plan submitted to the Minerals Management Service (MMS) by BP. DigitalGlobe, a satellite imagery provider for Google Earth, has made available georeferenced photographs taken on May 24, when oil collection operations were underway. Using data from the above sources, the pictures below can be constructed showing the positions of interest on the BP well plan and the satellite image.
Figure 1. Satellite photograph (DigitalGlobe) showing relief well rigs and oil containment ships operating on May 24, 2010. Location of MC-252 well on photo ascertained using coordinates from DigitalGlobe measurements and the Macondo well plan and drilling authorization submitted to MMS by BP.
Figure 2. Map from BP well plan with ship positions (as per DigitalGlobe measurements) indicated. Well "A" is consistent with the Macondo drilling authorization.
If you go to the MMS Gulf of Mexico Region web site, you can find information showing that the original well and the relief well are in the locations where activity has recently been taking place, by looking up information using 'Fast Facts', 'Application for Permit to Drill' (APD), 'Bottom Lease', and 'G32306'. A reader made this screenshot showing the coordinates of the wells and sidetracks planned. Coordinates for blowout well match well "A" on the initial Macondo well plan.
Finally, it can be shown that the burning rig was located where the MC-252 well plan indicated (and where the relief well rigs, etc. have been operating).
Figure 3. Satellite photo taken while the Transocean Deepwater Horizon was on fire, geo-referenced using Google Earth. MC-252 location from the Macondo well plan. 7 mile horizontal line added (to left of well) for distance reference. (click on image for larger version)
The alleged relocation of the BOP and riser several miles from an explosively uncased well, besides being inconsistent with well documented coordinates for the well, presents several logistical problems. Foremost, the BOP was initially still attached to part of the riser. Thus, this ungainly pair would have to been launched from the well several miles until it lodged in the mud on the Gulf floor, in the correct orientation. If the riser was still attached to the Deepwater Horizon, as Simmons also suggested, this stretches credulity even further.
In short, there is no evidence that the well recently capped by BP is not the original Macondo well, or that the original well is still flowing with no casing.
2. Oil is flowing at 120,000 barrels/day
Simmons has stated on a number of occasions that he estimates that oil from the blowout is flowing into the Gulf of Mexico at a rate of 100,000 to 150,000 barrels per day. From a talk at Camden, Maine on July 15th:
Simmons described the real blowout as an open hole gushing 120,000 barrels of toxic crude every day below the surface of the Gulf six or seven miles away from the riser. And BP is ignoring it, he said.
"What you are seeing on television, what BP is saying about relief wells . . . that's a total ruse," said Simmons.
Source: Simmons' Take on the Oil Spill in the Gulf
Response
This figure appears to be a guess based on an estimated reservoir pressure of 40-50 thousand psi, which itself is a guess based on the intensity of the surface fire before the rig sank.
Oil Drum contributor Arthur Berman (aeberman) has compiled data from the MMS that summarizes all Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) well maximum flow rates. The spreadsheet can be accessed here. The data show that the average well in the OCS had a maximum flow rate of 11,800 barrels per day (bpd) and the maximum flow of any well was 46,500 bpd. Thus, the flow rates Simmons postulates are far beyond any well seen to date in the OCS.
It should be noted, though, that the flow in these wells is typically constrained so as to prevent damage to the wellbore. Indeed, the flow from MC-252 (the one seen on the ROV videos) is likely constrained within the BOP and possibly in the wellbore. Given this, it is possible that an uncased well (if it existed) would support this high flow rate if the reservoir pressure was as high as Simmons suggests. However, Macondo reservoir pressures of 40-50 thousand pounds per square inch are not supported by any data.
Source: June 7 on MSNBC
3. The real spill has caused a lake of oil larger than Washington state.
In the talk at Camden, Maine, Simmons claimed that BP was intentionally misleading the public and the government about the extent of the spill and that it would take a heavy toll in human lives:
That submerged lake of oil has grown larger than the size of Washington state and is approximately 500 feet thick, according to Simmons' estimate.
"It's thick oil, flowing like lava . . . covering a large part of the Gulf of Mexico and taking the oxygen out," said Simmons. When it mixes with the upper layer, the toxicity will be released, and when it comes ashore Simmons predicts it will take a heavy toll in human lives.
Response
The area of Washington state is 71,303 square miles. If the lake is 500 feet thick, this would imply 177 trillion barrels of oil in the lake, vs. 2-4 trillion barrels estimated total reserves plus production to date for the world.
Also, claims of a quantity of oil this large are not consistent with Simmons' claim of 120,000 barrels/day from the "real" well bore. For example, at this flow rate for 90 days, a spill the size of WA would only be 10 microns thick (.01 mm).
Finally, the lake of oil defies the laws of physics by staying on the sea floor and not rising to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, because most of this type of oil is lighter than water, so would be expected to rise.
4. Methane is lethal and toxic.
In an interview on NPR on July 15th, Simmons made the following claims:
It’s this toxic waste and crude and it’s releasing methane gases that are absolutely lethal which is why all the fish and dolphins and sharks and whales are dying. And workers too, which is why so many have gotten sick, or maybe really sick.
“The health problems are so serious,” Simmons said. “When you inhale methane you just die.”
Source: They’re still lying about the oil disaster
Response
There are many natural sources of methane in the environment, including belching cattle and decomposing organic matter. Many of us use natural gas - mostly methane - to heat our homes. All of us inhale methane every day. While methane is clearly flammable and it is a potent greenhouse gas, it is completely non-toxic. Methane, like the nitrogen that makes up 78% of the earth’s atmosphere, is a simple asphyxiant. What that means is that it could kill you by displacing oxygen, but methane itself is non-toxic (unlike carbon monoxide, for example).
In the same interview, Simmons discussed the toxicity of hydrogen sulfide gas, which is often present in petroleum reservoirs (although not significantly in Macondo). He noted that low-level concentrations can be fatal, and that workers are trained to put gas masks on quickly if monitors detect its presence. He then states that methane is more toxic than hydrogen sulfide. As per above, this is completely erroneous; hydrogen sulfide is highly toxic while methane is non-toxic.
Reference: Material Data Safety Sheet for Methane
5. Use of a small bore nuclear device is the “only option” to stop the flow of oil.
In an interview on Bloomberg Television on July 21st, Simmons repeated his accusation that BP was lying about the extent of the disaster, and called it "the biggest environmental cover-up ever." He further stated that "we have killed the Gulf of Mexico", that clean-up costs, if clean-up were even feasible, would top $1 trillion, and that "if they (BP) told the truth, they would all go to jail."
Simmons had stated previously that a small nuclear device was the only option to seal the leak. In this interview, one of the reporters indicated that reports were coming in that the oil was no longer leaking and asked if that gave Simmons hope. Simmons replied:
“No, because that’s not the gusher. That was a little bit of condensation that would have ended anyways. There’s no way to fix the gusher because there’s no casing left in the hole other than doing a small diameter nuclear bomb...It's the only way. With no casing left in the hole, the odds of the relief well working are zero."
Source: July 21, Bloomberg TV
Response
It is certainly surprising that the guy worried about toxic methane clouds isn't worried about a nuclear explosion in the Gulf of Mexico. But Simmons is not only advocating this position as "the only solution", he is telling government officials that this is the course of action that should be pursued.
The basis for his position is built upon his notion that there is a massive open hole spewing oil into the Gulf of Mexico miles from where BP is pulling off a massive scam. Per Point 1 there is no evidence to support the existence of this hole that Simmons believes will take a nuclear explosion to cap.
As previously discussed here at TOD, the Soviets did in fact use nukes successfully for gas well fires. The differences between the situations then and now were 1). The leaks were onshore; 2). The leaks were gas; 3). These were actual leaks that needed to be sealed that had resisted other efforts.
Given that there is no evidence of this massive gusher -- and even if it did exist, the idea of using a nuclear explosion at those depths and under those conditions is fraught with uncertainties -- this is not a reasonable option for dealing with the spill. Further, evidence continues to mount that the leak has been slowed or perhaps stopped.
Conclusion
Those who suggest that Simmons might be right, based on some new information that arises or some misinformation supplied by BP, should identify which parts of his story are right: the gravity-defying lake of oil? Flying BOPs? Methane death clouds?
In addition, for those who ask the question "what if Simmons is right?", the answer would be that all textbooks on basic physics, chemistry, and toxicology would have to be rewritten to handle the discrepancies between what is currently believed vs. what Simmons suggests has occurred.
In conclusion, the claims made by Simmons and documented in this essay are not credible. Some - such as the idea that methane is toxic - are factual errors. Other claims, such as an open gusher that BP is covering up, defy logic. How Simmons will respond if no evidence of his claims emerges remains to be seen.
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.
Thanks Robert for compiling this!
We at The Oil Drum have been watching this story for weeks, and wondering what, it anything, to say. Matt Simmons has brought a great deal to us over the years, in terms of knowledge about peak oil. His reading of scientific articles, and compilation of information for the book Twilight in the Desert was just amazing. He has been a speaker at Association for the Study of Peak Oil-USA meetings, and has spoken to a huge number of business groups about peak oil.
There are many things we cannot understand. People sometimes have temporary health conditions that impair their judgement. We have no way of knowing whether this is the situation for Matt.
Many of us have grown to know and love Matt over the years, so the whole situation is worrying. We hope readers will limit discussion to the facts of the particular situation, since we cannot understand the personal context in which the statements are being made.
This article, sobering and well researched, reminds me of the Woody Allen quote:
Intellectuals are like the mafia; they only kill their own.
Matt Simmons is a central spokesman in the august circle of Peak Oil Peripatetics: he has given so much in the past and for that I am deeply grateful. These most recent statements about the oil spill will not enhance his credibility, I'm afraid.
Kevin Walsh
Chicago Peak Oil
On point 4. I have some uncertainties that you didn't dispel with your argument.
Even Paracelsus in the XVIth centruy knew that:"The dose makes the poison."
That methane is nontoxic for humans is well known, but my question is:
Is methane toxic for that kind of marine environment? To what extent?
Because the area is uninhabited by large human populations is the only question that matters.
High concentrations of dissolved methane have been observed near the wellhead at a depth of 1000-1300 meters. Along with the dispersed oil also in that zone, this methane will be broken down by bacteria, resulting in depletion of dissolved oxygen. These are the cold dark depths where there is not a lot of sealife, but on the other hand they do not mix with surface water, so the recharge of O2 will be very, very slow. Watch NOAA reports forthcoming in future weeks as to whether the O2 depletion becomes critical and over how wide an area. It seems plausible that this deep-sea methane will have an ecological effect, but doubtful that the effect would be as great as the seasonal hypoxic dead zone that has been appearing off the Louisiana coast for decades, the result of excess nutrients pumped in by the Mississippi River.
Unusual concentrations of methane have not been reported in water at or near the surface, not even at Ground Zero.
Thanks Robert for compiling this!
Yes. Thank you.
Is this list exhaustive of Mr. Simmons statements and did he change 'em as more data came up?
(glad you tracked the nuke issue also)
We tried to look at several statements over the last 3 months. He was remarkably consistent, continuing to insist that the flow of oil observed by the ROVs was coming from the riser -- even though a) any small amount of oil within would have long since been depleted and b) the riser had been cut off from the BOP.
I assume that you guys tried to contact Matt for a response. If not, I forwarded a link to him, if he wants to comment. (I assume you know his email address has changed.)
I don't have his e-mail, but multiple TOD staff members have attempted to contact him. One indicated that he was going to let Matt know that this was coming.
Many thanks from me also. I have been thinking about peak oil for forty years. Matt Simmons seemed to bring a calm and authoritative voice to the discussion. A levelling off and decline in oil production is self-evidently inevitable but the timing and modalities of its occurrence raise crucially important questions for all of us. I find Matt Simmons recent performance deeply unsettling in so far as it casts doubt on what I felt was his deep knowledge and balanced appreciation of the fact about Middle East oil reserves. This is a very important discussion.
Gail, what I am posting is not about Matt, it is a personal experience of mine with my father which is eerily similar. Unfortunately I have to live with the kind of fallacious belief construction exposed by the article within my family, every year for several years now.
My father is 70 years old and a similar personality type to Matt Simmons - the type who knows everything and is used to getting his own way. My father is considered successful, although others have achieved more. He used to have great judgment and used to deliver blistering speeches in parliament 30 years ago based on data and facts that nobody could stand up against. Over the years as he grew older, a change took place: he would spend little to no time in researching facts before jumping to conclusions. Typically, starting from a distorted input (such as watching satellite tv news) or an error of logic, he would frequently create a new belief, which would then also be elevated to the status of fact. With more "facts", he builds more houses of cards, in the end reaching conclusions that are completely wrong and also missing the boat on what is really happening - because his fantasy world of "facts" absorbs so much of his conscious thought and crowds out the real facts which contradict his preexisting conclusions.
It is tragic.
Anybody who is well acquainted with the early stages of Alzhiemers from personal or professional experience will not find anything hard to understand about a formerly razor sharp thinker making wildly incoherent remarks about anything at all-or repeating and emebllishing them over time.
I have known half a dozen people so afflicted,including two relatives.It runs in some families.
I suggest that everybody interested in this subject read a few of the many published acccounts available.Most libraries have at least a couple of books on this subject written by medical professionals.
Of course my own personal opinion is that some sort of insider deal worthy of Sherlock Holmes is being foisted off on us and that some way or another there is a buck being made -a legal if perhaps somewhat smelly buck.
Just who is doing the foisting is open to question, but I expect that viewer ratings and ad revenues are integral parts of the scheme.
Are we suggesting Matt Simmon's in afflicted with alzhiemer's? But I've seen this condition before in my grandmother. Scary really, that you may one day potentially forget freinds and family.
Apparently we most assuredly are not suggesting that Simmons is afflicted with Alzhiemers as a comment that actually directly makes that assumption or accusation doesn't seem to stay up very long. ;)
But we apparently can discuss the nature of the disease to our heart's content.
I can testify personally that folks afflicted with this disease are prone to making wildly irrational statements, and becoming obsessed with improbable or impossible ideas.
They tend to create elaborate house of cards evidence to explain thier obsessions, and they are as proof against reason and logic as a ducks back is against water.
And yet thier minds may still be functioning normally in most or all other respects if the disease is in its early stages.
The later stages involve progressive loss of all mental faculties and loss of control of all bodily functions;around the clock intensive nursing care is eventually necessary, and death is the inevitable result.
It usually takes several years for the disease to run its course.
I have been involved in the long term care of two victims of this disease and have read up on it as well as discussing it many times with physicians and nurses;you can take my comments on the subject to the bank.
While I wouldn't rule out the Alzheimer's diagnosis, these characteristics could develop in any event. Most people in my experience have a fair-sized chunk of immovable incoherence within their brains. A factor that may be important is the extent to which a person is content to insulate themselves from critical challenges such as this forum provides. I've never seen Mr Simmons put himself in such a situation. Such reality checks, like learning maths, give a feedback to enable one to avoid getting too far derailed. Being excessively revered is also a problem. Many famous people make themselves uncontactable, again enabling themselves to ride on unchecked waves of delusions boosted by supporters' praises.
Regarding the Russian nukes, Robert is if anything too kind.
No one should ever, ever follow the lead of a ham-fisted Russian emergency response. The sledgehammer approach has often backfired, as when they tried to resolve a school hostage-taking event by feeding knockout gas into the ventilating system, killing many hostages in the process. You can also never trust accounts of what happened, especially in the Soviet era, because the government routinely lied, covered things up, executed officials involved, and faked the history. In my experience as a reporter covering the SALT talks over 30 years ago I found it impossible to trust the defectors either, since they were such masterful liars and conspiracy theorists themselves. Later on, as a science and medicine reporter, I found that Russian medical studies, for instance on EMF radiation, were absolute rubbish. I seem to recall from here on TOD that the Soviets' gas-well kill-by-nuke adventures were also inconclusive. I think in accounts of the last such attempt it wasn't at all clear it had worked. Tales out of Russia are always fascinating but as a basis for action are less than useless.
I think you're conflating two events. The knockout gas incident was in a theatre in Moscow; the school siege was in Beslan, North Ossetia. In the school incident there was nothing so fancy as knockout gas, just an unorganized assault on the school triggered by some explosions that nobody seems to own up to. But I think your point still stands.
You're absolutely, right, Lurk. I did conflate the two inept rescue attempts. My mistake.
No worries, and thanks for not snarking about my complete lack of proof-reading as to what I cut and pasted.
Thank you so much for this thread. I have met Matt Simmons on several occaisions, once at an ASPO conference! and always thought so much of him. His ongoing comments on the Gulf have been confusing and puzzling. I haven't known what to think. This is a much needed discussion. The Oil Drum rules.
I guess the point that I always found baffling was this. Simmons claims that the BOP is no longer over the wellbore. If this is the case, then there is no reason at all for there to have been any oil coming through the riser pipe. Once they removed the riser, there would have been no plume of oil spewing out, and once capped there would have been no pressure.
Unless Simmons can explain how to reconcile his theory of the BOP no longer being over the well and the things that many of us have observed from the ROV videos, I don't see how anyone can take his theory seriously.
We'll be deep into bat-country within an hour.
Never happened.Boy,talk about a boring day.
This morning about 2am, an event was seen on the Ocean Intervention III, ROV-2 sonar camera of a large bloom:
http://yfrog.com/6b201007290259pmq40001sonj
The OI's position was reported an hour earlier to be at a location approximately two (2) miles due west of the well, along with the HOS Iron Horse. Yesterday, this location was apparently scanned by the Pisces and also visited by the OI3.
http://a.imageshack.us/img413/410/pisces.jpg
Coordinates of this location were reported to be: 28.73775˚ / -88.4087
A ROV mission there was briefly on video, but was terminated with a still picture. As far as we know, BP is not obliged to provide feeds for ROV missions not actually at the Macondo well.
My best theory is that they were opening the 18" oil pipeline (which runs NW across the SW corner of the MC252 tract) in order to install a connector for use by the Macondo well. But I do NOT have an exact location of that pipeline.
If the pipeline is not there, then something really unusual occurred.
Ok, I opened the well plan: http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf
And Grabbed this image
Combined it in Google Earth With this map of the pipeline:
Then came up with 2.63 miles due west to the pipeline
That would put the due west
MC252 Pipeline Intersect at
28°44'14.63"N (28.74674056548594)
88°24'33.21"W (-88.36455703058304)
That is about 211.581365 feet from the coordinates you specified (28.73775˚ / -88.4087)
Close enough @ 211 feet. That looks like almost three miles, original report was 2 miles.
FWIW, with my poor old `puter, I have to shut off almost all other apps to run some of those sites (like marinetraffic, google earth) and so tend to rely on others.
Is that an Enbridge/Andanko pipe? As in leak in Michigan Enbridge.
Maybe that was where they dropped this thousand foot pipe they pulled out of a hole on the bottom last night.
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:44287.asx
Note sure about the pipe location, but Ocean Intervention III is currently performing sonar scans over the pipe line and now there are two anomalies.
The pink one referred to above and a blob on the screen
http://lh4.ggpht.com/_KXlLr4Mnvpo/TFGf3xz_jiI/AAAAAAAAETM/_lOjooU_5LY/s9...
You know I wonder if they are planning on turning the relief well into a producing well and using that pipeline to ship it in. This might get them by a 7 year ban on drilling into it to produce.
Or... (the stated plan is) if the well cannot be killed in a timely manner etc., that they intend to flow the oil to a pipeline or an alternative old well/reservoir.
Alex,
RE your earlier post on Rigel;
FYI the coords I've seen for Rigel are slightly different to yours.
The first Rigel well (suspended) was at N 28 43'21.36'' W 088 22'37.092''.
The second (sidetracked into mc296 and completed as a producer) was at
N 28 42'54.036'' W 088 22'59.772''
Worth double checking the mms coordinate data at source?
Either of these wells could be leaking.
Doubtful, QuantumUS.
BTW, that pipe was the riser from the TH-4 cap. I've been told that when they cut it off, it fell straight down into the "pudding" like a dart.
At about 1 a.m. PST the Ent Rov2 was following the lowering of a pipe-type apparatus. The camera caught a long/strong columnar gusher at the lower left of window. It was spewing the same ejecta as observed from the cap for so long, only the column was thinner & longer. The cameraman immediately swung to the right & away from it. He then went back to following the pipe. In about 15 minutes he again displayed the 'gusher' and again jogged to the right. There was then a large white cloud that wafted like cigarette smoke & dispersed & turned everything to clouds. At this point the next screen, Boa 1 (?) began a regular silt storm from ROV which was distracting. Sorry I don't have location, etc., and no time for screen grab. Something is leaking a gusher. Not bubbles, not silt storm, not seep. Truly a gusher.
@impatiens:
Matt Simon's claims would get less attention if BP were more honest about the situation. What I know about fluid flow tells me that there is a significant leak in the well, maybe around 20% +/-10% of the original flow. Yet there is no acknowledgment from BP or the Coast Guard.
They can save those stories about how everything is under control for the masses. Florida put in a request to BP for $25 million for business to advertise about how everything was great at the beach and $10 million for mitigating the physical damage. BP turned them down on the $10 million for damage mitigation. My sister-in-law went to the beach yesterday and came home with tar on her feet. We are on the east coast of Florida. And don't try to tell me that it is common. Nobody is reporting the tar balls because of property value concerns.
Here is something I posted several days ago. I did not capture the video but it sure looked like an oil leak coming from the sea floor
They better get with it and plug that hell hole.
Just what *do* you know about fluid flow? Perhaps you should "consider the source" and ignore what you hear from that particular corner.
If there were a leak that was "20% +/- 10% of the original flow", with no dispersant being sprayed into it, we'd see fresh oil on the surface.
No need to be snarky. And I do not know what corner you are talking about but I can think for myself, thank you.
There are other explanations besides all the flow going to the surface. The gradual buildup of pressure at the cap could be the result of restriction along the path of the leak, behind which pressure is building. What is leaking out of the sea bed may not be all of what is leaking out the well in to the sea bed. And it may be leaking out of the sea bed in multiple places.
And how do you know they are not feeding dispersant or skimming? I'll bet they maintain control of who has access to the area and put on the proper shows. I don't suppose they let reporters out there unannounced.
Impatiens told you what they saw on the live feeds and I saw something similar. People know BP is not being honest about the situation but they do not know what to believe. Their lack of transparency about the situation feeds the fear and paranoia.
No, you feed the fear and paranoia. The next thing you know you will be recommending we spread a bunch of Chinese engineered micro-organisms in the Gulf. Oh, wait you already did!!
ronmac,
No, I did not recommend any such thing. As a matter of fact, what I recommend is this product that is on the same EPA registry with Corexit and is alot more environmentally friendly: http://www.obio.com/allprojects.htm
Actually, my report on seeing that gusher has nothing to do with Matt Simmons. It was in response to Levi's report of anomalies on a sonar scan. I saw a columnar gusher, not a silt storm, and quite strong. I have no expertise, but follow these threads to learn. I watch the feeds & wonder what BP is hiding. Either they are hiding something or they are really an incompetent bunch. They have no protocols for a thorough scan or they have chimps working the cameras. OR it is a deliberate deception. (Several times the feed has appeared to be masked & composited to show different ground with set reference points.) If there wasn't a gusher before this pipe, there is now. But, they must have known, why else would they have had all that dispersant at the ready? Hopefully someone will get the tape and look at it.
Impatiens - what you saw was the retrieval of the riser for the TH-4 "cap" by the Discoverer Enterprise. Reliable folks have told me that said riser pipe was cut off and fell straight into the mud like a dart.
Gusher? Nope.
Levi - hope you are correct. But the hanging pipe was some distance in the background, attached to a cap-like device. When he turned camera to left & the "gusher" appeared he immediately turned to the right and moved. About 15 mins later he turned back & it was a maelstrom with a large, enveloping thick white cloud that could have been dispersant.
Then a question I have is "why were they all set up with that volume of dispersant if they were just retrieving a pipe?"
I appreciate your response. Another point, directed elsewhere - not everyone is "paranoid" or a conspiracy buff. BP is suspect in all their actions due to their dishonesty and lack of transparency. They are cruel in their treatment of people who have good cause to worry or fret.
Maybe someone will pull the tape & see exactly what the "gusher" was. Thanx.
impatiens,
"Coordinates of this location were reported to be: 28.73775˚ / -88.4087"
This point plot directly on the escarpment leading to BP's wells. It is unlikely to have a pipeline and escarpment at the same place.
BP's macondo wells were drilled pretty close to the escarpment which is an indication of a vertical geological structure - be it a dyke, salt dome or any vertical intrusive. My guess is a salt dome.
If you want more details check out my article on the shallow hazards zone - gas-saturated weak sub-formation (GWSF) zones hazards. With the cap on, the pressurised gas is going to find new pathways - and that could only mean through the faults and other weaknesses in the Quaternary sediments above the rock formation.
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/30/4781973-why-is-bps-macondo-bl...
Matt Simmons is a very smart guy when it comes to banking and investments.
I would bet he is heavy into oil, gas and gold. Fear and panic are a driving force in the market short term.
All his arm waving and buffoonery can be attributed to the following as far as I can see.
Drive up the market on stuff he is invested in.
Set a doomsday outlook about the blowout that is so far out there that when the truth is known everyone goes oh wow I guess it wasn't really that bad of a spill after all which is good for BP who I imagine he wants to protect.
At the same time all his doomsday forecasts are good for his wind farm investments and potential for more government grants for them.
Matt has his bases covered.
Matt is reported to be extremely wealthy, I suspect his wealth is managed by others and I very, very, very much doubt any of this is motivated by greed.
He was a very smart banker and I have to say that as a banker he did a tremendous job of pulling together a huge amount of technical data in "Twilight" and owing to his wealth / fame attracted much attention to the global energy predicament. At some point though, like all superstars you have to recognise when to let go.
Absolutely right! Simmons motivations were pure.
"How many speedboats can you ski behind?" Bud Fox "Wall Street"
I don't blame Simmons as much as I do the press for running wild. Fact checking seems to be a lost art when it comes to many many reporters, editors and outlets.
I also blame the USCG and BP for much of the confusion. I should add the lawyers and politicians as well. This hush, hush, mush, mush super secret squirrel decoder ring command and control by committee added to the entire Simmons affair.
This entire affair should have been handled very differently as anyone who knows how a real incident command system is suppose to work.
I found the conference calls of which I did in fact monitor as a requirement for my work both very limited and superficial in nature. I also found the questions asked by many in the press just as superficial and lacking any real effective in knowledge and/or research.
Of course BP controlled the presser very well especially with the one question limit.
I actually believe that that as far as command and control and transparency of information was concerned. The entire affair was handled very politically and without regards to the public's right to know.
Of course the fourth estate was have a very bad cranial rectal inversion day as well.
If this is how we are going to handle major natural and industrial disaster in the future. We are all in trouble.
I could not stand Allen's pressers when the press in the audience would ask a question and you could not hear the question.
When I see pressers that do that I always say to my self,"yes I am so and so from blah blah news and I have a question for just you to hear admiral.
When they have that setup you have no idea what is being said or if what the speaker says answers the question. You only get a small part of the info.
I hate it and I see it used all the time.
I am currently taking a class in Crisis Management and it is interesting to see what is taught in the class and compare it with what is happening in the the DWH oil spill. One of the textbooks discusses dealing with the press and gives the advice of _never_ holding press conferences. Instead hold one-on-one interviews with reporters who are willing to advise you in advance on the general topics they want to discuss (this way you can do some quick review/studying of the topic and be able to provide relevant and accurate answers).
The example used in the book was the press conferences for the three mile island accident. The press conferences were chaotic and this created an impression that the situation was chaotic as well. Being able to present information you were able to study beforehand in a calm environment allows you to present your 'best face' to the public.
Just curious if your class include component on "ethics." That is, is the well-being of the public ever something that enters into "Crisis Management"?
Not as such - but the advice (supported by case studies) was to always tell the truth and that it is much better for you to announce 'bad news' than to have somebody else discover it and make the initial announcement. And BP serves as an example of this - they kept trying to give low end estimates of the amount of oil spilled then having to revise upward. If they had given the high estimates first then the 'bad news' is behind them and it is always easier to keep your credibility when you later state that 'things are not as bad as we feared' than when you say "it is worse than I thought."
Additionally, the course teaches that protecting the public should always be the number one priority in a crisis. (However the text rather cynically explains that if you have a fire and your factory burns down - you are a victim in the eyes of the public. If that fire produces fumes that kill residents in the local community - you will be seen a a villain.)
[BP] kept trying to give low end estimates of the amount of oil spilled then having to revise upward.
FWIW, those initial low estimates came from the government, not from BP. BP officials did cite those estimates as coming from the government and appeared to concur with them, but it didn't issue them in the first place. Each of the upward revisions also came from government experts. I don't believe BP has ever publicly made any of its own estimates. You'll see many media reports stating that the low estimates were BP's, but that's just one of those pieces of misinformation that escapes fact checking and gets perpetuated indefinitely.
Who made the comments is not really relevant as the public perception is that BP was the ones downplaying the estimates. Consider how different public perception of BP would be if they had disagreed with the government's estimates and provided a larger number. In this case the 'worst case scenario' is that BP appears to have been over concerned about the severity of the oil spill. And even if BPs estimates later turn out to be low - they get credit for giving the larger numbers.
In public relations, public perception is reality. BP will never be able to change the perception that they tried to hide the extent of the spill.
BP will never be able to change the perception that they tried to hide the extent of the spill.
BP won't be able to change the perception as long as folks keep asserting, as you did, that it "kept trying to give low end estimates of the amount of oil spilled then having to revise upward," that's for sure.
If all you're concerned with is public perception, fine, but when you're discussing it, for the sake of accuracy and fairness, you might want to note that the public perception that BP itself had come up with the estimates isn't accurate. There's also a pretty interesting story as to why it didn't contest the government estimates, which hangs on exactly what it knew when.
BTW - a class on 'Ethics and public policy' is a required class in the program. However the class on 'mass casualty incidents' is supposed to be the one that presents the most ethically challenging scenarios as the student has to choose who to save and who gets left to die.
I'm astounded by this:
Not that the press isn't what they are or that USG/BP should have been far more forthcoming, but to give the snake oil salesman a pass is indefensible unless you have some clear evidence that it was due to illness. In my opinion.
Facts? What about the news has to do with "facts"? Not when there's a big oil company to pummel and some great conspiracy memes to run with and ...
It's about money, man. Advertising revenue. And convincing the advertisers that you have the eyeballs looking at your media to justify the advertising rates being charged.
It's pathetic.
so true... and sad part is that it works! i often wonder what the corresponding *actual* increase in sales is from an ad spot during the comm breaks as a direct result of those 'eyeballs'...
Fact checking? Since when is fact checking required when you report what a guy says? He said it, you quote him. Simple. Blame the press for a lot of things but blaming them for what Matt Simmons says is not one of them.
Actually the press is ENTIRELY in control, because they choose whom to quote. They should have choosen to ignore Simmons. Common knowledge, industry specific knowledge, and common sense (and even some fact checking in advance) is an absolute requirement of good journalism, though journalistic standards in this age of selling commercials on news broadcasts (while Cronkite spins) are simply laughable.
Robert,
Thanks for this side of the story, presented with facts. I respect Matt Simmons' analyses of oil reserves, and do view many of his statements with credibility; but, I'm glad that your post analyzed his concerns in a calm and methodical way.
I will assume that Matt Simmons may have been driven by anxiety out of the concern for others... as we should all be. Many of his concerns are based - I believe - to some degree in the new geosciences findings that have resulted from this awful event.
We need these kinds of discussions - even if they may be detours - in order to fully understand the character of our energy future. I thank both you and Mr. Simmons for adding to my understanding.
Sincerely,
(A little less) Ignorant
Does this critical examination mean Peak Oil isn't a religion after all?
Religions usually involve deities, faiths and belief systems. Peak oil is a widely accepted geological-social-economic problem - describing it as a religion makes you look thick. Fact.
Whaaaaaat? Religion covers any priesthood-lead groupthink attempting to explain a natural phenomenon without using the scientific method. Which can include many systems of economics, healing, even opposition to nuclear power (present your oppositions to nuclear power based on facts and actual risk-aversion comparisons to other comonplace activities and I'll respect the points completely.)
And I STRONGLY support the concept that very many posters on this site approach peak oil as another religion. Just try, for example, proposing a rational system of supporting a suburban mode of life into the long-term future, say for instance supported by a completely realistically possible breakthrough in fusion power generation or cheap 92% efficient solar electric panels based on the principle of the optical rectenna. You'll be called a blasphemer, just as I will be for posting this.
There are several issues:
1. The speed with which we are losing oil (and not a whole lot later, other fossil fuels). Once governments start raising tax rates (because governments can't get along at current tax levels), oil demand will drop back, and I expect that consumption will start dropping. People won't view this as peak oil--they will view it as more recession, leading to dropping oil demand. But peak supply and peak demand are to me pretty much two sides of the same coin. All of this is already pretty much "baked in the cake". The cheap-to-extract oil supply is mostly gone. We are trying to make do with more expensive oil, and it isn't really working, and it is reflecting itself in economic constriction. Even today's prices in the $70 - $80 barrel range are high by historical standards.
2. The length of time it takes to transition from one energy source to another energy source. (Vaclav Smil says 40 years in Energy Transitions: History, Requirements, Prospects). He says a quick transition to anything else is not going to work.
3. The number of products that are made from hydrocarbons. For example, synthetic fabrics, asphalt for roads, roof shingles, fertilizers, herbicides, insecticides, medicines. A source of electricity would not replace these.
4. The length of time it takes to scale up any alternative, including the ones you suggest.
Disagree, because I''m not hearing any science, or fact, about attitudes of the population about AGW due to a well-done information campaign by NON-commercial MSMedia.
Someday, Obama will get enough wiggle room, or be convinced, he just HAS to inform the public that we must accord status to service, not consumption.
There really IS no more bully pulpit than a POTUS who decides to go whole hog, all out, to make a statement, and Obama has already proved to me that should he espouse AGW and energy wisdom, he could make it work.
I also think his chances of living very long would be poor. Really.
Gail,
You prove the point. The ideas that you present are assumptions, not things that have been proven.
1) that falling oil production will necessarily cause economic decline is unproven. There are many counter-examples: US from 1978-1982, world GDP from 2004 to 2008, US GDP from 2005 to today, German GDP from 2004 to today, and more.
2) The length of time it takes to transition from one energy source to another energy source: this obviously can be accelerated, if needed. Smil is unrealistic.
3) The number of products that are made from hydrocarbons: we don't need to replace these things immediately: they account for a small % of hydrocarbon consumption. Most of these can be have substitutes (e.g., asphalt->concrete, fertilizer->hydrogen from electrolysis). Plastics can be recycled, if desired.
4) The length of time it takes to scale up any alternative: most are here, right now. It won't take long to ramp up EVs, for instance.
Nothing personal, please, but, the "if desired" reflects the thinking entrenched (I assume you are in the USA) even in 2010. Plastics ARE recycled pretty much everywhere, e.g. in Switzerland more than 80% long time ago, just not in USA.
While Nick doesn't present a lot of data to support his points, nor is there data presented to refute them.
But it seems obvious to me that plastics can be more widely recylcled than they are today.
I don't know the veracity of all "entrenched thinking", but having investigated abiotic oil theory, evidence, and counter-arguments, I'm not sure that the peak oil hysteria embraced by Matt Simmons doesn't qualify for that same moniker.
Nick has been shown the work for a long time now that demonstrates the link between oil and the economy. A great deal of work has been done assessing the elasticity of oil and GDP and it's not difficult to find with a bit of Googling. That oil is the economy as it's currently configured is widely-accepted — except by him.
Small reductions in oil production cause big economic consequences, whether it's sudden:
Oil Shockwave Simulation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2H2B-EtzyzE
or more gradual:
Estimating the Economic Impacts of Peak Oil
http://www.postpeakliving.com/blog/aangel/estimating-economic-impacts-pe...
Here is something more recent from The status of conventional world oil reserves—Hype or cause for concern?:
Nick just ignores all that work and keeps repeating things like:
As for abiotic oil, please show a single barrel of it, much less millions of barrels. All the boreholes that have been drilled so far have come up empty.
From a comment I made earlier this month:
The paper has been accepted and the link is below:
http://www.tsl.uu.se/uhdsg/Publications/Abiotic_article.pdf
Nick has been shown the work for a long time now that demonstrates the link between oil and the economy.
Actually, I've repeatedly shown you research that doesn't agree with your assessment, and shown you how you've misinterpreted a great deal of other research, some of it shown on your website. You haven't responded. Instead, you've given up on the discussions.
There's no question that there is a reasonably strong link between oil and the economy. But 1) the link isn't anything like the vise-like grip that you're arguing for. In fact, the causal link is mostly from GDP to oil, not from oil to GDP. and 2) there is an enormous difference between a short-term oil shock and a long-term transition away from oil. In other words, there is an enormous difference between short-term elasticity and long-term elasticity.
A great deal of work has been done assessing the elasticity of oil and GDP and it's not difficult to find with a bit of Googling.
Yes, and the good quality work doesn't agree with TEOTWAWKI.
That oil is the economy as it's currently configured is widely-accepted
No, it really isn't. See the work of James Hamilton, or Ayres (on your website).
The idea that an increase in oil prices will cause a long-term economic decline is entirely unsupported by the literature. Here is a good study from your website: http://www.postpeakliving.com/downloads/Sill-MacroeconomicsOfOilShocks.pdf produced by the Philadelphia Fed. It concludes that a 10% decline in oil availability would reduce GDP, on a one-time basis, by about 2%. This means that GDP growth would be 2% lower than otherwise in roughly the year following the oil shock, then go back to it's historical growth rate. Interestingly, it finds no impact on inflation.
A 10% decrease may in fact be absorbable by the economy after some adjustment to a lower level of activity or employment, exactly what's happened after 2007/2008.
Now, what about a 15% decline, then a 20% decline, then a 30% decline and so on? If you think the economy will not contract under those circumstances then, as I've said before, in my view you have an insufficient grasp of the connection between oil and the economy to have a fruitful discussion and I will discontinue the conversation with you once again. There just isn't enough background of knowledge to make the conversation worth it to me. It's nothing against you personally; you seem like a nice person.
You can have that conversation with someone else. There are lots of people on this board. Maybe you can convince them that as oil declines the economy will not contract. From your perspective, you should view me as a lost cause and move to someone else.
In the meantime, I'm going to keep educating people that oil and the economy are directly linked:
and that our likely future looks something like this as fossil fuels, including and especially oil, continue their depletion:
Or, if we get busy and stop deluding ourselves that we can avoid contraction, possibly the green line in Holgrem's model:
Now, what about a 15% decline, then a 20% decline, then a 30% decline and so on?
The US had a 19% decline in oil consumption from 1978 to 1982, with an increase in GDP. The economy then started growing strongly, while oil consumption grew very, very slowly. Oil consumption in the US in 2010 was at the same level as in 1979.
If you think the economy will not contract under those circumstances then, as I've said before, in my view you have an insufficient grasp of the connection between oil and the economy to have a fruitful discussion.
Good lord. I know quite as much as you do - I should think that I've demonstrated that (to tell the truth, I'm confident I know quite a bit more). I know you disagree with me, but knowledge is not the problem. The problem is that you have a very strongly held intuition about this question. An assumption.
You see, there's no evidence for the idea that oil is essential in the long-term. History is quite clear on that. Electric lights replaced oil/kerosene for interior lighting; coal/nuclear replaced oil for electrical generation; nat gas/heat pumps have mostly replaced heating oil; the list goes on.
EVs are obviously here. Rail can replace long-haul trucking. We don't need oil.
Let me say it again: we don't need oil, we really don't. I don't understand why anyone thinks otherwise.
I'm going to keep educating people that oil and the economy are directly linked
Obviously there's a correlation. Most of that is because as GDP changed, oil consumption changed. The direction of causality went in the opposite direction of what you're assuming.
I'm sorry you're not willing to discuss specifics. We can discuss specific studies - for instance, how you misinterpreted Ayres to mean that we're dependent on oil, when he says the opposite. We can talk about Hamilton or the Fed study.
Or, we can talk about history: how history has shown many times that oil can be replaced.
Or, you can continue to show graphs based on pessmistic assumptions with no realistic basis.
Nick
try running a heat pump in Nothern Climes. Lotsaluck!
Rail track is almost impossible to lay in other than rural locations. All the old abandoned local right-of-way is gone.
Railroad Yards are an even bigger problem.
But Truckload Intermodal does have a larger future, just look at JB Hunt.
Less-than-truck Load is the domain of the Common LTL truckers, hard to see that disappearing. And it is the much larger percentage.
Replacing Rubber on pavement with steel-on-steel is an admirable goal.
Sure Radio replaced the telegraph, B&W TV mostly replaced radio, Color TV replaced B&W, and HD TV and satellite or cable is now the norm. But who wants to go backwards?
:>(
try running a heat pump in Nothern Climes.
Have you noticed all of the posts by Paul in Halifax? Ground-based heat pumps are extremely popular in Canada.
Rail track is almost impossible to lay in other than rural locations.
We don't really need a lot more right of way. Mostly we need expansion of existing lines, by double-tracking.
Railroad Yards are an even bigger problem.
Have you seen any info on this you can provide?
Less-than-truck Load is the domain of the Common LTL truckers, hard to see that disappearing. And it is the much larger percentage.
Alan Drake disagrees with you. Heres an article that seems pessimistic: http://www.glgroup.com/News/Big-Wheels-Drive-Asset-LTL-Model-Into-The-Di...
Have you seen info that you can share?
But who wants to go backwards?
Commercial shipping customers want the cheapest solution...
They're pretty useless in Wisconsin.
What are? Ground based heat pumps?
I think you're thinking of air-based heat pumps. Actually, air-based heat pumps have improved a lot recently - I think you'd be surprised by the latest models ability to deal with cold temps.
Nick
air based. I had 3 so far, all of the "NEW" computer based design and touted to be "very" efficient (Brand Names intentionally not revealed). If you knew how the HVAC industry distorted the SEER ratings to make the new look better than the old, then you would know that is PR fluffery. Temperature difference is what makes heat transfer efficiency, not some Laboratory "Bucket Tests" that do not represent the real world.
My geosource heat pump that I installed to replace the air based is costing me $0.60 for each $1 that the air based did. That's with almost two years of "space age" scientific data (an electric watt hour meter installed on the heat pump circuit, a "hobbs" meter on the unit to measure hours, and a weather station for degree days). If you look at the cost when the OAT is below 32F, then the cost is closer to $0.40 vs $1; hot days are not quite as bad but still are definitely in favor of the geosource. I expect a payback in about 6 years if the cost of electricity keeps rising. Would be sooner, but I have a super insulated house, R26 walls, R40+ ceiling, and R4 double-pane Low-E glass with Argon (a low previous cost vs. an even lower current cost divided into the upfront cost takes a while to recover).
The reason for my energy efficiency house was that it is my retirement home. My pensions were not expected to do much except decline in real purchasing power. Nobody can justify such initial costs if they move in the typical couple of years that is the current norm.
So until the alternative answers become reasonably affordable, don' expect them to be an immediate panaces.
Brand Names intentionally not revealed
Heck, tell us the brand names. Then we can begin to figure out what's what.
Sounds like you're doing the right things, with insulation and windows. My windows are quadruple paned: two-pane thermopane, plus 8mm and 12mm laminated glass - no heat until temps fall below freezing.
I agree that ground-source heat pumps have a long payback time with current natural gas pricing. NG will have to get more expensive (perhaps due to recognizing it's external costs) to really accelerate the growth of ground-source heat pumps. OTOH, I'm told ground-source heat pumps have been growing 40% per year in Canada - that's not too shabby.
Nick
Got a ground based heat pump in NW AR; reason is that NG is unavailable in my area. They require Suburban or Rural areas for normal installation. Do you suggest that everybody run out and convert to one? They don't sell very many where there are deep frosts. And some manufacturers actually refuse to sell in those conditions. Anecdotal Halifax examples are Regional. Iceland is a prime regional example.
Railroad Yards. Try Chicago. Chicago is a major yard problem. Them there things require large amount of industrial real estate. Hump yards are necessary to break down trains and re-assemble, that is unless they are through trains such as coal trains.
I notice you did not take my bait on Telegraph to HD TV. This transition was an Evolution, NOT a Revolution. Weaning from oil will take mostly Revolutionary breakthroughs.
They require Suburban or Rural areas for normal installation.
Yes, that's one of the reasons that suburban areas will do better compared to urban areas than many on TOD assume. The densest urban areas will have to do without heat pumps. They'll have to use really deep insulation, much better windows, and eventually I suppose they'll have to switch to resistance electric heating.
They don't sell very many where there are deep frosts.
Really? How deep? A quick google didn't find anything. Could you give me a link to more extensive discussion?
Chicago is a major yard problem.
Again, could you give me a link to more extensive discussion?
Weaning from oil will take mostly Revolutionary breakthroughs.
AFAIK, we have most of the tech we need, right now. Some things will be harder, like aviation, and some petrochemicals, but that's a small % of the total.
Nick
1 ton of geosource requires about 300 feet of pipe buried to a depth such that the temperature does not go below 55F. ~6 foot deep in NW AR, ~5 foot lower than deepest frost line (why Wisconsin and most of Canada is not ideal). Or a water well of about 100+ foot of actual water depth per ton.
Electric Resistance Heating?? Surely you must be kidding! Or not knowledgeable about its costs. It is the most costly of the normal residential heating!
Chicago, there is a big debate (fight?) currently going on about siting a new hump yard in the outskirts. Should not take much for you to find something in the Chicago online press.
LInks, Links, Links. You want others to do what you should be doing. Or you can hope that a link request will shut some people up, and you can smugly claim victory.
Forgive my not recognizing your home: what is NW AR?
why Wisconsin and most of Canada is not ideal
Am I wrong that you're disagreeing with the general consensus about ground-based heat pumps in WI and CA? I know a frequent contributor here, http://www.theoildrum.com/user/hereinhalifax , feels differently.
Electric Resistance Heating?? Surely you must be kidding! Or not knowledgeable about its costs. It is the most costly of the normal residential heating!
Of course. But we're having a bit of a theoretical discussion here: if fossil fuels go away, then we're pretty much left with energy sources that provide electricity. If heat pumps aren't usable due to limited ground space, then solar won't be useful due to limited roof space - electric resistance seems to be what's left. That's why I said that urban HVAC would require extensive insulation and window improvements - resistance heat would then handle the greatly reduced HVAC needs that remained.
LInks, Links, Links. You want others to do what you should be doing. Or you can hope that a link request will shut some people up, and you can smugly claim victory.
Not at all. If you present an argument, I presume you feel that you have more knowledge about it than I do, and therefore it's much more efficient for you to present the info that you have, than it is for me to do random google searches. I asked politely - if you don't happen to have the info, I will continue to be polite, as I think everyone should...
To be at a safe depth in at least half of Wisconsin, to hit 55 degrees, I'd guess you'd have to go 6.5'-7' deep or deeper. Frost lines can easily run down to 5' in bad winters in the northern half of the state. And while I can't say I have direct experience with a ground-based heat pump there, I find it difficult to believe that it would keep up efficiently during periods when the temp doesn't get as high as 10 degrees for two weeks at a time and sinks to 20 below (or worse) at night.
snakehead
as long as you have a good source of heat, i.e. good ground thermal heat conductivity, and good depth to prevent frost induced loss, then the beauty of the ground sourced heat pump really shows up. it doesn't care what the outside temperature is, it still puts out the same BTU's. Of course your house requires more BTU's in extreme cold weather than just cold weather, thus when the BTU's available exceed the BTU's produced you need supplemental heat sources. :>)
now air-based are seldom capable of producing BTU's from outside air much below 15F, and most have shut-off mechanisms because the compressors get mighty unhappy at such low temperatures. :>(
No thanks. As long as you insist that it's open question whether the economy will contract as oil declines, I'm going to continue to pass on your offer. It continues to demonstrate a fundamental misconception or a very narrow understanding of the whole system, in my view. I also find it strange that you press that point, but there you have it.
Here, maybe Chris will express it in a way that you can see:
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6705#comment-690816
Oddly, Chris's article didn't actually make any arguments, or provide any evidence, it just repeated simple assertions that energy was the most important key to understanding the recent recession, and that we face diminishing energy supplies. Neither is true.
As long as you insist that it's open question whether the economy will contract as oil declines, I'm going to continue to pass on your offer.
Very puzzling. I offer you specific evidence, or discussion of specific research papers (some of them on your website), and you refuse to discuss them. I can only conclude that you know that you have no real answer. Certainly, most reading this dialogue will come to that conclusion.
It continues to demonstrate a fundamental misconception or a very narrow understanding of the whole system, in my view.
It demonstrates a wide view. The idea that oil can't be replaced (say, by EVs) demonstrates a very, very traditional point of view. That point of view sounds like a 1950's oilman, or car company salesman.
I also find it strange that you press that point
I can't imagine why. It's a central question. That PO will cause TEOTWAWKI hasn't been proved anywhere, because it's can't be: it's unrealistic. Yet, people continue to assert it, and some on TOD even refer to it as if it's common wisdom. As long as they do so, they'll confuse and frighten some people, and convince others that TOD is not credible.
Hi Nick and aangel,
As a person who is trying to sort out the most likely scenarios for the next couple of decades, give advice to my grandchildren, write letters to my senator, etc - I find the debate between Nick and aangel to be rather painful.
As I've said before, Nick is "the Man" for well researched "solutions" that could very well mitigate the downside of declining FF. IMHO, he does competent research and has solid suggestions.
But, I think that aangel has a very valid view of how the world is changing.
The problem, as Nick often says, is that "if we choose" we can implement this or that practice or technology that will yield significant benefit regarding PO, GW, etc.
What seems to be missing is: given that aangel is most likely correct regarding our dependency on FF, how do we get to a point where significant numbers of ordinary folks along with powerful decision makers actually take Nick seriously and go on the war-footing that is needed to prevent serious consequences for the human race over the next century?
It seems to me that Nick and aangel could have a more productive dialog instead of a debate that ends in a stalemate.
Thank you. I agree.
There are several futures we can think about: perhaps the two most important are 1) what we would forecast as most likely, and 2) what we would prescribe (IOW, what we would do if we were king). Part of #2 is the strategies and tactics we should pursue to get there.
I think Andre is heavily involved in personal and community adaptation to a PO future - I think he makes his living that way in part or whole. Unfortunately, I think he may have become "over-committed" to the vision of the future that entails. It's hard to question a world-view that you've committed yourself to that fully.
As far as what's most likely: we need to remember that the transition away from oil, while obviously too slow at the moment, is actually in progress. As just one example, in just a few months a very affordable EV (the Nissan Leaf at $25K) will be available in the US.
I think that the excessive slowness of the transition away from oil will cause unnecessary economic pain, but that's very far from TEOTWAWKI.
For two and a half years prior to my "discovery" of peak oil in 2007 I was a business sustainability consultant, working with businesses to green their operations. I spoke at conferences up and down the Bay Area, like the Monterey Institute of International Studies, and for companies like Sun and eBay.
It was a fool's errand. I didn't realize at the time all the forces at work, the role of energy and the depth of overshoot we are in, just like you don't know now. I know very well the place you are in because I had conversations much like yours with other people.
You will likely move out of it at some point. You will read something that causes the picture to snap into place, just like it did for me and others on TOD.
Until it does, you will continue to say wildly inaccurate things like, "It's unproven the economy will contract as oil declines" thus preventing people from facing up to the inevitable and, consequently, making the impact much worse because they instead of preparing they will believe that the Nissan Leaf and its minuscule 25,000 cars per year will actually make some sort of difference out of annual car sales of (currently) 11 million.
Honestly, it's tempting for me to label your thinking delusional but I do my best to avoid that sort of thing.
Andre,
For two and a half years prior to my "discovery" of peak oil in 2007 I was a business sustainability consultant
I've been doing similar work for 30 years. It's been much wider in scope (and therefore required a much deeper understanding of how large organizations function and change), but it's included energy.
I didn't realize at the time all the forces at work, the role of energy and the depth of overshoot we are in, just like you don't know now.
I've been thinking about these issues, and how to model them, ever since I first read the Club of Rome's report in the late 70's.
I know very well the place you are in because I had conversations much like yours with other people.
And I said apocalyptic things, similar to what you're saying, when I first encountered this many years ago. Then I undertook a careful analysis of the components of the problem, as well as the whole system, and gradually decided that things were not nearly that dire.
You will likely move out of it at some point. You will read something that causes the picture to snap into place, just like it did for me and others on TOD.
As I said above, I've traced a journey in the other direction. On the other hand, I distrust "aha" moments. They have to be based on a lot of good data and thinking.
wildly inaccurate things like, "It's unproven the economy will contract as oil declines"
Perhaps I need to be more specific: It's both unproven, and unrealistic, to suggest that the economy will decline deeply and persistently.
they will believe that the Nissan Leaf and its minuscule 25,000 cars per year will actually make some sort of difference
The point is that the kind of 20 year preparation that Hirsch talks about has been underway for quite some time. The R&D necessary for all of the major car manufacturers to actually produce EVs has been done, or is being completed. The ramp up from 25k cars per year to 10M will take less than you're suggesting. And, we have more time than you're suggesting: Aleklett, President of ASP, projects that total liquid fuel supplies will decline by only 11% in the next 20 years.
it's tempting for me to label your thinking delusional
I understand you're getting frustrated. And yes, I did speculate about your objectivity. Perhaps that wasn't fair, but when you won't debate details, one has to wonder.
but I do my best to avoid that sort of thing.
It's only fair to say that you didn't succeed in avoiding the temptation here...
Again, you are missing the big picture, like the export land model, the financial bubble and that 11% decline (if that's what he is in fact saying) is only with a working financial system, declining EROEI and more.
Like I said, despite your extensive study, you still manage to miss the big picture.
Not at all.
I've had many debates with Jeffrey Brown (Westexas) about the importance of the ELM. The ELM is useful, but it's importance is in pointing out that oil exporters have partly insulated themselves from market dynamics with domestic subsidies, thus increasing demand and reducing market responses to high prices. Exporters can't insulate themselves from the market forever - Iran and Mexico don't, and even KSA will have to reduce internal subsidies when their exports decline. Similarly, China and India are slowly but surely eliminating subsidies.
Ultimately, it is the world balance of supply and demand that matters.
the financial bubble...that 11% decline (if that's what he is in fact saying) is only with a working financial system
Ultimately it is physics that is important: physics says that we have enough energy. The bubble is important - it makes things more complicated, and less resilient. But, our financial system is much more resilient than you think. Keep in mind that business cycles have always been with us. 1893, 1907, 1917, etc, etc were as bad or worse than our current recession. The 1930's Depression was unusual only for it's length, due to mistakes of economic management in the late 30's, and world dynamics. It's only been the relative financial stability of the post-WWII era that has lulled us into thinking that large swings in the economy are unusual.
declining EROE
We have a liquid fuels problem, not an energy problem. For better or worse (mostly worse) we have plenty of coal. We also have a fair amount of nat gas.
lol, it must be fun living in your world! Nothing is a problem to you.
That's not what I'm trying to convey. I'm trying to convey 2 things:
1) I've looked at oil, energy and the economy from a wide perspective, including all of these elements of the problem. and
2) there's no reasonable basis for TEOTWAWKI. Of course, when I suggest that something isn't a problem, I'm using a bit of hyperbole - some of these things are going to be very painful, from a BAU point of view.
You can't even see where you are inconsistent:
Why would there be any pain if there is no contraction?
You can't even see where you are inconsistent.
Andre, please try to stop using the ad hominem tone. I understand that you're frustrated that I don't agree with you. But, criticizing my thinking, approach or level of knowledge is inappropriate, against the rules of TOD, and, in this case (given my long history of careful analysis of energy issues in general and discussion with you in particular), obviously inaccurate. So...let's keep this on the level of ideas, not personalities.
Why would there be any pain if there is no contraction?
Perhaps this reflects a basic problem in perception on TOD. There are two different Points of View possible here: from that of BAU, and from TEOTWAWKI. From a BAU POV, an extended stagnation such as we saw recently in Japan is an extremely painful thing, something you might even call a disaster. From a TEOTWAWKI POV, that's no big deal, perhaps even a best case.
As I understand it, you're forecasting an economic decline far deeper than the roughly 25% that was seen in the Great Depression - perhaps 75% or more. When I refer to your hypothesis of "economic decline", that's what I'm referring to.
Obviously, we'll sometimes use short hand on TOD to refer to ideas or theories - let's keep that in mind.
Nick
my last reply (a promise)
Modeling. I have over 46 years trying to model complex computer systems.
1st attempt was for the 1st commercial computerized message switching system (the first computer to be able to talk to another computer via the then primitive modems) circa 1963. Quickly learned that there are FEW INDEPENDENT VARIABLES (capitalized for emphasis and not shouting). Yea, a precursor to the internet (But unlike Gore, I did not invent it).
2nd major modeling effort later in the 60's was for the American Airlines SABRE reservation system. Then I came to the realization that if you found an independent variable, get it framed and hang it on the wall! About a million lines of computer code including the support systems (and a guarantee there are many as yet undiscovered bugs!).
Many more since then.
Attempts to understand extremely complex intertwined actions/events and their consequences are out of the reach all but the most brilliant minds, and I am not sure such brilliance exists in today's complex world.
My position is that unless we Plan AND Act on the available options, to avoid Peak Oil problems, is folly. To expect that such actions can either be postponed or progress at a normal pace is only making the potential for disaster greater if it should come to pass.
DWH is a wake-up call. Let's not squander the moment while the general public is at least thinking about the problem. We need their support in the day's ahead, not just in the decades ahead.
:>)
I agree completely. We face large risks, both known and unknown. The most obvious short-term risk: war in the Persian Gulf, that cuts off 20M bpd overnight.
In the long-term, I'm much more worried about AGW than PO, but they're both important.
Oil has large predictable costs, as well: $2T oil wars, trade deficits, multi-$T recessions (of which oil is a significant component), etc, etc.
My take: we don't need oil, and it's time to eliminate it ASAP.
BD,
it's true we could have a more productive conversation but, unfortunately, we have to have some common understanding of the way the world works or we will comes up with poor responses. It's not just that Nick thinks there can be a response and I don't. There is just no way as millions of barrels of oil are removed from the system that we will be able to operate at this level of economic activity — no matter what techno solutions he comes up with.
To me, that Nick thinks it's an open question whether the economy will contract is a show stopper. He selects a few moments in time when the world economy was unencumbered by as much debt as it has now, chooses some papers that are close but not thorough in their understanding of the connection between energy and the size of the economy and thinks it's enough evidence to assert that declining oil production won't contract the economy.
In my worldview, it's a little like saying "stop lights are black" when they are clearly red.
Now, if he said, "The economy is going to contract as oil production declines and cause a whole bunch of problems. We can't stop this but we can mitigate to some degree. With the remaining energy and capital we should immediately do x, y and z" then we could have a productive conversation.
But until he can see how vital oil is to the world economy and stops asserting that we can keep the same level of economic activity as it declines, I believe he has a grossly inaccurate view of how the world works and it's just not worth my time to engage in further conversation.
You are free to help him see this link, however. I have attempted to and have been thus far unsuccessful. Some people would say he is in denial or bargaining but I don't know that because I'm not in his head. It's just as likely he has not connected the dots sufficiently. Most people haven't so it's not like his is a unique situation.
Ah, now we're beginning to make a bit of progress. We've got some specific arguments to deal with.
I'll answer arguments as I find time.
Don't bother, Nick, unless you suddenly see that we are headed for contraction. Until you and I are working from the context of contraction, I'm just not interested in the conversation.
I'm just not interested in the conversation.
That's too bad. It doesn't seem consistent with the philosophy of TOD.
If you are going to argue on TOD for the likelihood of sustained and deep economic contraction due to energy problems, shouldn't you provide some analysis or evidence for it?
Are there any politicians, anywhere where elections are held, and where there is a genuine opposition party - ever going to go into their election campaign saying "We are going to raise taxes because Government needs more money!"? I think not - even policies advocating tiny tax increases are usually leapt on by other candidates, right-wing (that is to say, nearly all mainstream) media, and a long queue of special interest groups who demand to be exempted, otherwise they will be doomed.
Raising taxes would seem most unlikely - tax "relief" is this generation's constant theme.
Gail I think the MS rebuttal was warranted.
subject: oil prices and what are actual numbers
Prices at the NY Merc represent future prices yet the press likes to quote them. It has been stated that very little of any oil was delivered at the $140 price; some speculator(s) must have paid for their "gamble".
Is there somewhere where the delivered price can be obtained?
Annual: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=r0000____3&f=a
Monthly: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=pet&s=r0000____3&f=m
The peak: 127.32
Thanks for the links
Your welcome.
"many" posters....yup....sounds about right.....
Religion is all about the word of gOD handed down from above. This happens to be RGR2's preferred approach because he has never cited one of his own works or offered any detail in his arguments.
It's all dead sea scrolls from your end as far as I can tell.
Yup. And Lord Hubbert said PEAK and handed down the bellshaped curve, that all may know the power of his word.
No point in reinventing the wheel. I have referenced this work before.
http://aapgbull.geoscienceworld.org/cgi/content/abstract/82/11/2110
That article shows absolutely no critical thinking or original insight.
Here is a PDF of the article. Nice try if you were trying to get me to go to the library to check it out :)
http://www.colorado.edu/Economics/vjcourses/resource/cornucopia.pdf
Thanks for the link. Recognizing that you often mistake "original insight" for some dispersive function applied to a new thing, like the stovetop manufacturing of grilled cheese sandwiches, as far as your "critical thinking" comment I'd say ol' Dr. McCabe has anything you've ever written on your blog beaten about six ways from Sunday. He's got the issue framed out better than most anything else written since then, admittedly IMHO.
Interestingly, does your PDF link contain the response by Campbell, Laherrere or Duncan, or is it just the original work? Needless to say, you weren't the only one disturbed by someone operating outside the groupthink of peak oil.
I get a kick rubbing your supposed complexity in your face. Not much else to add.
I understand. Certainly I enjoy your unified field theory demonstrations in the same light.
Blasphemer? No. Silly & pointless? Definitely!
What is the point of proposing something based on a "possible breakthrough"? I could propose "supporting a suburban mode of life into the long-term future" based on energy from alien spaceships that come to our planet. Hey . . . it is 'possible'. Not likely but possible. Nor is a fusion energy or cheap 92% efficient solar panels likely in the near-term future. The typical solar panels used today on homes (which are not 'cheap') are only 20% efficient . . . and we've known about solar cells for some 130 years now. There are no estimates of when fusion will be possible . . . just guesses of "50 years from now". (I heard the same guess 30 years ago.)
You can't plan on major breakthroughs occurring. It doesn't work that way.
You can't plan on major breakthroughs occurring. It doesn't work that way.
True. Unfortunately, the previous post took a bad approach to describing the situation. For better or worse, suburbia is viable with existing technology.
If you'll note, I did not say it WILL happen, I said "its a possibility unaccepted by the religious ones here". You are more guilty of claiming an intuitive foreknowledge of the future by declaring it cannot happen, when a logical analysis would place the odds of a forseen or unforseen gamechanging technology closer to 50-50 either way, if that low.
Len,
I think you'd be better served by talking about existing tech, rather than possible tech. We have all the tech we need (not that better tech wouldn't be great).
No! It is no where near 50-50! Yes, sometimes miraculous breakthroughs happen. But they are few and far between. Engineers and scientists are actually pretty good at predicting where technology will go in the future. They certainly don't know what will be popular or many details. But I can dig up a letter where Arthur C. Clarke basically predicts satellite television, communication satellites, cellular smartphones, and GPS in 1956!
We've been using oil for some 150 years now . . . if there were some cheap & easy substitute, we would have found it long ago and been using it. But we are more addicted to oil now than ever. We will be dragged away from it kicking & screaming. Yes, there will be substitutes. Today we can and do build windmills, solar panels, batteries, electric cars, etc. And they will be incrementally improved. But nothing can match the pure magic of drilling a hole in the earth and pulling up an amazingly energy dense fuel for nothing more than costs of drilling the hole!
I agree that there are unreasonable doomers among the peakists that predict food riots, survivalism, etc. But the fundamental problem is true . . . humanity will no longer have an every growing production nearly free energy. That is a game-changer which is 100% certain. Fusion or a magical solar cell are possible but there is no reputable scientist that will say they will certainly happen in the near future.
We certainly do have the technology today to build a good oil-free world. And we will still have oil for centuries . . . it just won't grow any more. But the transition is going to be difficult, wrenching, expensive, and involve sacrifice. And basically we haven't had to sacrifice at all since WW2 . . . a time that only exists in the memories of our elders.
if there were some cheap & easy substitute, we would have found it long ago and been using it.
No, you're confusing competitiveness with feasibility. Wind power is only slightly more expensive than coal and NG, and cheaper than coal when all costs are included.
The nature of competitive markets is all or nothing. If something is slightly cheaper, it will get all of the market.
I hear this in all kind of situations. Aparently people tend to use the definition religion == false. That simply is not true. If we ask belivers - such as myself - what they put into their faith, we can conclude the folowing definitions.
Science == "What we know".
Faith == "What we trust".
Religion == "Organized spiritual faith".
Since we can put our trust in just about anything that apears reliable to us, religion has to be restricted to organisation of spiritual faith. Example: Science tells me the ice on the lake is one meter thick, therefore I chose to trust the ice with my life, by walking over it.
Any defintion of faith, religion etc as "things we belive but smart people know is not true" is a strawman definition used in propaganda purpuses.
Now, regarding the original statment, is Peak Oil religion? Well, it is faith if you chose it, and to a part organized (IE ASPO, etc), but it is a faith in science. So no, it has never been a religion.
Discussions of basis for or against spiritual faith at the forum over there --->> please.
Does this critical examination mean Peak Oil isn't a religion after all?
There will always be those - both inside and outside - who treat it as such. Outside it takes the form of "all peak oilers are nutters." Inside it can take the form of "regardless of the evidence, I still trust that Matt knows what he is talking about." I imagine you will see some of the latter in this thread. But the whole purpose of writing the essay was to keep the arguments based on facts, and always remember that unless this is a religion, there are no sacred cows.
Even science, unfortunately, has its sacred cows: p-values.
The p-value of 0.05 is so deeply ingrained in science education that the actual meaning conveyed by that number is lost. Instead, the chorus goes "0.05 is 'significant' and 0.01 is 'very significant'." Any suggestion to the contrary is silenced. This is, of course, group think at its worst. Fischer chose the value 0.05 arbitrarily.
Thus, even the definition of proof (in the empirical sense) is subject to faith. The beauty of statistics is that we can precisely define what faith implies and the probability that our faith will be tested by future observations.
PO is an inevitable fact. Only uncertainties are timing and consequences - which are admitedly quite significant unceratinties.
I agree regarding the future availability of oil. HOWEVER, regarding the consequences therefore, largely religion.
Often the consequences are not stated clearly, nor are the assumptions behind those consequences stated clearly. For example, the assumption of bad outcomes from peak oil are related to (a) the general consensus that homo sapiens is in population overshoot, only supported by the fossil fuels we use, and (b) that no other energy source emerges as a replacement for fossil fuels.
The first assumption is widely agreed upon amongst biologists and the impact on biodiversity and ecosystems confirms this. But population could be brought under control and eventually reduced in slower ways other than famine and disease. It hasn't yet though.
The second assumption is more difficult to justify. Certainly the way we live now might have to significantly change if we changed energy sources.
However, many of us have always mentioned that we believe certain problems are technically solvable but appear to be far harder and maybe impossible to solve politically. So it does not matter if there is an engineering solution to problem X if the political situation does not allow that solution to be adopted. The collapses of prior cultures is proof of this. In many of those collapses we can see what happened and can postulate at least one and often several possible solutions. Yet those solutions did not get adopted. Personally I do not believe we are necessarily more clever than our ancestors so I concede the point that they too would have thought of some of these solutions. Therefore the only reason I can see for their collapse is most probably political, not technical.
We are in the same position today, with our hands on numerous technologies that might allow us to solve the problems around us. But look at the problem of population growth - the subject is mostly taboo, even on sites like TOD.
I do agree that those who see collapse as 100% inevitable are acting in a faith based way. But others who think that collapse is highly probable may not be "religious" at all in the sense that you assert. Rather, they may have rational reasons about why they expect applicable solutions to probably not be adopted in time to prevent a collapse.
"I do agree that those who see collapse as 100% inevitable are acting in a faith based way."
Even if we were to solve the energy problem by developing and scaling up cold fussion to offset our loses we still need to look at the bigger environmental picture. Eventualy another resource constraint would arrive, fresh water for example, or we would overload one of our many crucial environmental sinks. Even if you accept the Wakernagel eco footprint model which many find conservative then humanity is already in 30% overshoot of its environment. This pretty much assures us of a collapse.
Adaptation to less per capita energy will be very different to adaptation to more per capita energy.
Anyone disagree?
Yes, because that assumes less per capita energy.
If the US goes from 100 quads of primary energy to 50 quads of wind/solar/nuclear electricity, it will have more net energy per capita.
But that wasn't my question. You're assuming you will have more net energy in future and so will be on the same adaptational path to more energy.
The US, with rising population, and declining FF production - on decade time scale - faces a mighty task increasing per capita net energy consumption.
Of course adaptation to less net energy will drive energy efficiency ... but you chose to disagree.
Well, I was disagreeing with the assumptions implicit in the question. The framing, if you will.
The classic example of an implicit assumption: "Have you stopped beating your wife?".
On the 2nd question: no, I don't think that the task is that hard. Wind turbines are cheap; the grid adapatations needed are in the normal scale of grid investment; replacing ice vehicles with EREV/EVs won't cost significantly more; moving from trucking to rail is not that big a deal; etc.
The real difficulty here is resistance to change from legacy industries. The actual work of the transition is not that big a deal. Given the level of underutilized manufacturing and construction capability in the US and around the world, such a project would only be to the good.
Well I never beat my wife at anything apart from strip poker - and even then we weren't sure who'd won - and that was a hundred and 3 years ago:-)
Discussion of techno wonderland versus Dark Ages will need to wait until another day I'm afraid - off to bed.
We can and will adapt where possible to lower per capita energy and material inputs but there are biophysical limits which must be met.
the general consensus that homo sapiens is in population overshoot, only supported by the fossil fuels we use
There is not a consensus on this. I, for one, think it's highly unrealistic: food production potential could fall by 2/3, and we'd still have enough food (on average, of course).
The first assumption is widely agreed upon amongst biologists
Do you have evidence for this?
It's a time-scale question. The scale of change required, as Gail points out above, is problematic. We on the decline side don't see the adoption of electric or hybrid cars happening quickly, or people limiting their pleasure travel. We do not see Fusion Reactors being built on a commercial scale, or any of the other sci-fi solutions that people expect to save them.
Our past experience with the tools at hand (current technology and human nature, particularly around politics) tells us that we can't solve the problem (and all of you who yell "World War II!", remember that WW II was won on Texas oil.)
It seems to me that the faith-based side of this argument involves magical changes in human nature, unnaturally rapid adoption of preventive technologies (ie solar, wind, hybrids, etc.) and scientific advances for which there is no evidence.
It is the responsibility of those espousing the novel, the untested, and especially the as yet uninvented solution, to provide reasons why it is more likely than the answer that depends on current technology and human behaviour. Just because the most likely outcome is unthinkable doesn't make it any less likely. Seems to me it makes it more likely.
Calling Peak Oil a religion is, as Ryder implied, a slight. And in my opinion, name calling meant to distract people from the fact that those doing the name calling are, if not a religion, at the very least operating on faith and denying evidence at hand.
Perhaps members of the Church of BAU?
Lloyd
We don't need new tech: wind power, rail and EREV/EVs are here now.
The only question is when will we get off our duff and start aggressively transitioning away from oil. The obvious answer is that it will happen when the problems get so large that they can no longer be hidden by propaganda by the legacy industries who will be hurt by the transition.
Yes, WWII was won on Texas oil - those Texans don't mess around. The transition away from FF will be powered in substantial part by Texas wind, built by Texans who aren't intimidated by the sight of energy infrastructure.
No, the obvious answer is that the public will deny the problems until it is too late to solve them. We live in a culture of mammoth homes, mammoth cars, and mammoth egos. If we had started 35 years ago, and people were on side, no problem. Oh, wait. We tried that. And Carter was voted out of office.
They've got an installed wind nameplate capacity of 9,410 MWG, which the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) counts at 8.7% of nameplate capacity, or about 820 MWG(as of 2008). Their total current requirement for electricity alone is 77,673 MWG. So we need (once you make the nameplate discount Texas utilities use) about 80 times more wind (or distributed renewables and the associated transfer mechanisms to deal with intermitancy)just to replace the electricity use already in place. That's without replacing gasoline in cars or electrifying rail or doing something about air travel or global shipping. And they project electricity requirements to increase. So...big talk. My point was that Texas was able to open the valves in 1942 and produce as much oil as was required almost immediately. That is not the case with Texas wind power. It's a slow build-out, and they've barely started.
I know..Texans should live in smaller homes, use less air conditioning, and dry their poop to burn in rocket stoves to lessen the electricity demand at dinner time.
Perhaps you could go door to door in Dallas suggesting it.
I'll provide the bulletproof vest, if you're willing to post the video.
the public will deny the problems until it is too late to solve them.
It will never be too late to solve PO (unlike AGW). It's a social problem. If we have to carpool for a while during a transition, we'll survive.
Wind provides about 5% of total kWhs in Texas, per http://www.nytimes.com/cwire/2010/04/08/08climatewire-is-texas-writing-t...
Replacing cars would add about 17% to total electrical demand.
Yes, building out wind will take a while. For better or worse, we have plenty of natural gas and coal in the meantime.
This is so classic Nick. Verbiage in the service of obfuscation. None of the points he makes do anything to further the argument, and he tries for that "well, of course, but that's not important when you look at these figures I have here that show that my numbers are off by only a factor of 2 and not a factor of four. I'm only a little wrong, but hey, that's not important! We can fix this thing!" tone. All while wandering farther and farther away from the original line of discussion.
How so? You got some figures on that? It seems to me that after 1 or 2 billion people are dead it would be too late...especially for the one or 2 billion dead. It also seems to me that ...oh...collapse would solve peak oil. Define your terms.
So I'm right, just not as right as using my figures (which are more useful when considering the requirements of a renewables build out. Stating that 5% of Texas power is provided by renewables does not address the question of intermitancy, which the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) would have to do.) Even using your figures, replacing fossil fuels in the Texas Electric grid would still require 20 times more wind generating capacity than currently exist. An effective argument would point to a plan to build out renewables that would replace fossil fuels and show a time frame. It would discuss how the political will would be mustered. I believe that Alan from Big Easy is working on plans like this...and even he thinks the odds are long. And I respect his judgment a whole lot more than yours.
There are 49 more states. What about their cars? (Not that a 17% increase isn't enough to make your point look frivolous.) This goes to your point about Texas wind being a major part of replacing Texas Fossil fuels(and 1945 era fossil fuel production at that.) I don't think so.
So I win! I said it was a time scale problem.
You got some figures on that? How long is "the meantime', in this particular instance?
And no, this is not an invitation to further the discussion about my illustration of how we don't have as much North American easy oil (particularly in Texas) as we did during WWII, which I believe I have successfully defended(as if it needed defense.) I will return to my original points:
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs. If you have some way of making people change before we run into Malthusian collapse, bring 'em on! Nothing would please me more than to be proved wrong, for people "to get off their duffs" and all these problems to go away.
I know that we could change to renewables, and we could reduce the population. That is, academically. In an "anything is possible" kind of way". I don't see how, politically. (That's in a "boots on the ground, workable plan, making people move before a crisis," kind of way.) You believe that a precipitating crisis will galvanize the public into action; I believe that waiting for a precipitating crisis will be too late. And I have reasons. The usual ones Gail mentions. You disagree, but present no reasons, beyond magical American can-do enthusiasm.
I don't usually see you write about the intractability of the American political and social system, and you don't seem to have any ideas there (or at least, none beyond "getting people off their duffs".) If you tell me how you would get them "off their duffs", outside of waiting for a near Malthusian catastrophe, I might listen (or reply.) But even working with your thesis: "when the problems get so large that they can no longer be hidden by propaganda" there's lots to define and defend. Knock yourself out!
Which problems will become so large they cannot be hidden, and why will this make Americans act?
On what time scale?
How can we be sure such a thing will happen before a collapse?
What industry propaganda is stopping the adoption of renewables, and if it exists, why will it stop being effective?
And more broadly: How, politically, can we speed the adoption of renewabes and conservation, and reduce world population, in years rather than decades?
This kind of answer would be responsive to my points. Answers that say my read on the body politic is wrong, and that people don't act the way I've seen them act for the last 50 years.
So, unless you want to address the meat of my argument, stop wasting my time.
My goodness. What a lot to answer.
I'll try to give a good response a little later....
My goodness. Not only is it a lot of answer, it's apparently such a good answer you don't have a reply.
No. Frankly, it was so hostile that it didn't seem like a high priority. In my experience, people who write that agressively tend not to really be interested in the answer. But what the heck, I'll give it a shot...
Here's an answer to one detail: why correct the Texas wind production stat? Because there's a real difference between 1.25% and 5%. In the context of wind's historical production and growth levels, 1.25% isn't especially different from other states, but 5% is quite impressive.
Here's a more general answer, which should address some of your questions.
Can we really transition from oil fast enough to deal with Peak Oil?
Sure. We need to be clear: we have two separate problems: climate change, and liquid fuels, not a general problem of peak energy. If wind and natural gas are inadequate, we have more than enough coal to keep the lights (and whatever else we want to power with electricity) on during a transition (for better or worse). See Are we running out of coal? and Are we running out of coal? - part 2
You might ask:
During a transition to what?
Wind would be the biggest, with (in rough descending order) nuclear, solar, hydro and others.
how long it would take?
However long we choose - we could do it in 20 years if we want, or we could do it in 50. 50 years would be no more expensive than BAU, but terrible for AGW mitigation.
What would be the cost of both producing those renewables
For wind: about $7/average watt capex, giving about $.07/KWH wholesale cost, or about $.12/KWH retail. That's a little more expensive than old, dirty coal plants, but it's competitive with any form of new generation (including new coal, even without sequestration). We can see in Germany and Japan that $.12/KWH is more than cheap enough to support a strong economy.
What would be the cost of converting everything that now uses oil to use those renewables?
Very little, if we did it through attrition. An EREV like the Chevy Volt will cost about the same as the average new US vehicle, with large volume production, and reduce liquid fuel consumption by 90% (that's the range that biofuels can scale to - ethanol production is about 10% of gasoline volume right now).
Don't you have to add in the cost of all those batteries and inverters?
Like the Prego commercial, "that's in there". In other words, wind power costs include inverters and transmission, and EREV costs include batteries.
The wind doesn't blow all the time
Actually, it does, somewhere. It just takes some geographic diversity to take advantage of that fact, and a moderate amount of long-distance transmission.
the sun shines only in the daytime.
Isn't it convenient that's when we use the most?
The transition target has to be vastly scalable
Which wind is.
but cost less than existing energy sources, else the effort to switch alone will cause significant disruption.
Not if the transition is long enough. We could transition over 30 years, and that's more than enough time to amortize the capex of existing generation. Personal vehicles, of course, last a much shorter time: we can replace about 10% of VMT per year with no pain at all.
How could we replace about 10% of VMT per year - wouldn't that require new car sales of 25M per year (50% more than the all time record)?
The thing you have to keep in mind is that some vehicles travel many more miles than other: Commercial vehicles like taxis drive much more, and newer personal vehicles drive more. Vehicles less than 1 year old account for roughly 10% of US Vehicle Miles travelled.
An aggressive transition to electric would accelerate that tendency, both in terms of sales and in terms of preferential usage of new vehicles. After all, what difference is there between current new vehicles and those from 50 years ago, when automatic transmissions were introduced? Sure, electronic stability control and ABS are nice, but 95% of new vehicle sales come from a desire for the latest fashion - that's part of why people can so easily defer purchases during times of uncertainly, like the last 2 years.
Any transition to more expensive energy, which is the only reasonable expectation, will cause significantly greater pain.
A little, but we see in Japan and Germany that electricity twice as expensive as that in the US can easily support a strong economy.
Can renewables really make up the difference?
There's at least 5x as much easily usable wind resource as we need, and 1,000x as much solar.
And there is more elemental hydrogen in the universe than any other element, but this does not make the hydrogen economy any closer.
This doesn't really relate. I was answering a question about scalability, and wind does scale.
But a great acceleration would be necessary.
That's the thing - it wouldn't. First, wind is already "here" - it provided 42% of new generation in the US last year. 2nd, we have enough coal to cover any transition (unless, of course, we want to do something about climate change, as we should - but that's a different problem).
can we afford wind?
An investment of about $2.6k in wind power per vehicle could provide all the "fuel" needed for personal transportation (13k miles per year/4miles per KWH/8760 hours per year x $7 per watt = $2,597). For 100k miles, that's about $.03/mile, much less than gas or diesel. It will be easy and cheap to power EREV/EVs (either bicycles or Volts). As this article stresses, that's the big kahuna.
That assumes $2 per nameplate watt, at 30% capacity factor. The US has more than enough of that, at that price, to supply 200% of our current electricity consumption. Heck, either N. Dakota or Texas alone could provide 30-50%.
What role do you see conservation, efficiency and simple doing without playing in your future scenario?
Really, we haven't converted to a renewable electricity economy already because it would hurt the careers and investments of too many people. When we get to the "tipping point" where the overall society demands solutions to AGW and PO, we'll move very quickly to EREV/EVs and wind power - there will be some temporary personal conservation on the way, but that won't be the primary thing.
Heck, why do without when you can just buy an EREV/EV?
if we put all our energy into producing enough solar and wind energy to power a world of Prius cars and don't have enough resources to upgrade the grid or supply charging stations we have wasted our remaining fossil fuel resources.
So manufacturing wind/solar might use so much resources that we wouldn't have enough to upgrade the grid or supply charging stations? The answer: we have more than enough energy to do both. First, manufacturing (of solar panels, wind turbines, grid equipment or charging stations) mainly uses electricity, and we have plenty of that from coal (see how useful it is to deal with things one at a time?), if needed. 2nd, wind has a very high E-ROI, meaning that it will pay for itself. 3rd, HEVs don't need grid upgrades or charging, and the grid is just fine as it is for a pretty large buildup of EREV/EVs.
Isn't the statistic that matters how much of our current FF fired electrical generation has been replaced by wind or any other source?
No, it really doesn't. Nobody's retiring generation at the moment, unless it's seriously functionally obsolete. People often get confused by that point, but it's a red herring.
There is a difference between having enough power, and decarbonizing our power. We should decarbonize our power, but that's very different from the premise of the Original Post, which is that we're running out of energy.
We are at least as dependent upon FF for for energy today as we were 5 years ago. And possibley more so. Isn't that the big issue?
That's the issue for decarbonizing. But it's not the issue for our economy running out of power We have plenty of coal - enough to bake the planet. Will we do so? I'm afraid we probably will...but we won't run out of electricity.
But isn't our economy going to grind to a halt because of oil scarcity?
No. The food-and-goods freight transport network of the modern world uses about 25% of oil consumption in the US. Light vehicles overall account for 45% of oil consumption: their utilization could be doubled with carpooling in a matter of months, freeing up whatever fuel was needed by the freight network.
What about historical examples of societies that didn't recover well from economic transitions, like the US South after the Civil War?
I don't think the South is a very useful model for most of the world. It might be a good model for oil exporters.
First, it needs to be said that the South had just lost the first modern war of total destruction. 30% of all white males aged 18-40 were killed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Civil_War) - there are usually more injuries than deaths. Very likely only 20% of the white adult males were left healthy at the end of the war. Both ex-masters and ex-slaves were left without financial, industrial or technological capital with which to rebuild. Transportation, industry and even agriculture were laid waste - think of Sherman's march to the sea: everything was systematically destroyed.
The impact on human capital may have been the worst: slavery left a cultural heritage of passivity and violent authoritarianism (classism, racism, sexism, domestic violence, etc, etc) for both ex-masters and ex-slaves that cannot be underestimated (as discussed above regarding West Point traditions). To work (expecially with your hands) was dishonorable for ex-masters, and to think and take responsibility for oneself was terrifying for people who had been publically tortured and killed for centuries, and who now faced a similar lynching campaign. The lack of more practical human capital can't be underestimated: ex-slaves didn't know how to read and write, how to run their lives (handling money, land titles, etc), how to raise their children or relate to spouses, etc, etc.
2nd, the South was a commodity exporter, like Russia and Saudi Arabia today. It was devastated by the "resource curse". "During the time of the Civil War, there was a dramatic slowdown in British cotton demand. As the textile industry matured, its rapid replacement of traditional methods naturally slowed. While the industry was still growing, its rate of growth slowed to match the relatively natural growth of population and incomes. The drop in demand growth, coupled with the tremendous cotton supply coming from the Southeastern states, led to falling prices. As poor conditions persisted for South Carolina’s cotton producers, no viable alternative crop could be found. The now relatively stagnant cotton economy remained until the end of the 19th century, as industrialization reached the state."
http://www.strom.clemson.edu/teams/ced/lgp-reports/Economy.PDF
All in all, the South had a uniquely frozen culture, due to the violence, abuse and misinformation required to maintain a slave society, and the "resource curse" created by it's dependence on a single export commodity (cotton) in a single industry (agriculture). Despite the availability of capital from the North, the South was in a uniquely unfavorable position for adaptation to a new world. It may be a model for oil exporters like Russia and KSA, but not for dynamic, educated countries in the OECD.
Wouldn't rich oil suckers used to a consumerist lifestyle have comparable problems to face new realities?
This is oddly judgmental, and unrealistic. OECD economies show a much greater ability to change. Look at Japan post 1870. Look at Germany and Japan post-WWII. Look at the US post-WWII. Look at the world car industry, which is gearing up to produce EVs, something which they found anathema only 5-15 years ago.
----------
Didn't it take a couple of generation for horse transportation to be replaced by street cars and ICE vehicles?
Yes, and difficulty of the transition contributed at least a bit to the Depression. The difference: hybrids, EREVs and EVs are being built by the same companies that built ICE vehicles, operate the same way, cost the same over their life-cycle, and need very little new infrastructure (90% of US vehicle owners have access to off-street parking, and more than 50% have private garages). The difficulty of the transition is orders of magnitude smaller.
--
Doesn't an energy transition require heavy investment which is not easily forthcoming under crisis conditions?
On the one hand, that's assuming the premise that Peak Oil will cause economic crisis. On the other, it's precisely under crisis conditions when investment is easiest - look at WWII: the US Depression ended because the war provided a good excuse for massive governmental spending and investment.
---------------------
The most important element of a transition from oil is the electrification of transportation. Surprisingly, the first part of the EV revolution has been here for years, in the form of the Prius. The Prius cuts fuel consumption by 50% (50MPG vs the US fleet average of 22MPG), in the US hybrids are 3% of new sales, and there are more than 1,000,000 on the road.
And now, the Leaf and the Volt are coming out, and it is really clear that we have all the technology we need, we just need to use it.
First, some housekeeping:
Uh, Nick, you know who I am. This comment was no more hostile than any of the others I have made in this chain. I do not respond to your stuff when I can avoid it. If you do not want me to write in response to you, don't leave throwaway responses as a provocation. I will defend my turf, and I will try to make you look small, narrow-visioned and unrealistic. It's not hard...just time consuming.
From your post:
You did not correct my stat.
I wrote:
Do you want to correct this?
You chose a different stat, which I believe would be less useful from a load-planning perspective, which is the context I put it in. You tried to change the context, instead of responding to my point. You also continue to confuse the figures for nameplate and discounted nameplate generation capability.
And:
Earlier in this thread I wrote:
(The emphasis is in my original post.)
I realize that there are a lot of people that disagree with you, and it must be hard to keep them all straight, but it would help if you didn't re-iterate the very point of disagreement that you used as a wedge to get into the discussion.
____
Enough housekeeping. Moving on:
You did not reply to a single one of the points I said would be relevant, and instead made up your own. Not a word on how to make these things happen politically. I don't care about the civil war, transitions from horse to car etc., did not raise the points, and certainly don't wish to argue them on a six day old thread.
I wrote:
So all 2000 words about how technically possible wind is are unresponsive. They are, as I said, classic Nick. Verbiage in service of obfuscation.
I particularly object to your having a discussion with yourself about unrelated topics and using questions that are put in italics to suggest that this is the kind of thing I might ask. Especially when you ask yourself a question and then chastise yourself for faulty logic.
I did not ask them. I do not ask them.
You can have these little fantasy conversations with yourself where you out-argue me, but...oh yeah... it's a fantasy.
These are the points I made:
I see endless political, not technical, problems. I know the technical side can be solved. I see the political problems becoming larger everyday.
Do you have any ideas on how to make these things happen politically, that would challenge my belief that they are politically unfeasible?
That is what I was talking about: not your fatuous attempts to make it look like I misunderstand renewables and that you will deign to teach me. Indeed, the last line of your post makes it clear you haven't got a clue here:
"we just need to use it."?
As always, how are you going to do this politically?
So, as before,
It would probably take less time just to say you don't want to discuss it, or that you don't have any ideas on the topic, than to write these lengthy, non-responsive efforts at wish-fulfillment.
Responsive comments would also probably result in me being less hostile.
you know who I am
I haven't been been tracking your posts, so I didn't have any idea that you disliked having people disagree with you so strongly.
This comment was no more hostile than any of the others I have made in this chain...I will try to make you look small, narrow-visioned and unrealistic.
What can I say? This kind of hostility is obviously inconsistent with TOD rules of conduct. It doesn't convince anyone. It's either venting of one's personal feelings, or an attempt at intimidation. Neither is what we want in TOD.
It's not hard...just time consuming.
It doesn't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. In addition, it makes you look terrible.
If you do not want me to write in response to you, don't leave throwaway responses as a provocation.
FWIW, I thought the individual pieces of information would be helpful new data for you to think about. They certainly weren't intended as a provocation.
I will defend my turf.
This isn't your turf, or mine, for that matter. We're actually supposed to be learning from each other, teaching each other, and providing useful information for others.
I didn't make those points. I particularly object to your having a discussion with yourself about unrelated topics and using questions that are put in italics to suggest that this is the kind of thing I might ask. Especially when you ask yourself a question and then chastise yourself for faulty logic.
Yes, you're right. I didn't have much time, so I copied some material from elsewhere. I hoped it would be informative. For instance, the Civil War discussion goes to the question of social change - the US South was a central example of social resistance to change on a recent TOD post.
OTOH, I agree, I should remove the phrasing that suggests disrespect for the question - it made a bit more sense in the original context, but it's not good.
I hope we can continue the discussion with a better tone.
--------------------------------
You chose a different stat, which I believe would be less useful from a load-planning perspective.
Yes, we disagree. The US has plenty of peak capacity, and plenty of coal and gas, for that matter. Wind is most important for reducing kWhs produced from high-CO2 emitting sources of generation.
As far as WWII goes, I'm really not sure what your point is. Yes, the US had lots of oil during WWII, immediately available. Yes, wind will take several years to ramp up - why is that a reason not to try to accelerate it's implementation?
-------------------------
I'm glad we're in agreement that our obstacles are social, not technical. Many on TOD have trouble believing that.
-------------------------
As far as overcoming social resistance goes, again I'm not really sure what your point is. I believe this discussion started with a question of whether our society was going to collapse because it couldn't adapt quickly enough to PO.
We need to break this down. First, could we simply have insufficient oil to run our freight transportation system?
Not really. Our freight transportation system uses only a small % of overall oil consumption (trucking uses about 12% of oil in the US). If liquid fuel supplies dropped by 11% (Aleklett's projection for 2030 for all liquids), prices would rise, freight would out-bid personal transportation (which uses almost 50% of oil in the US), rail would accelerate it's ongoing replacement of trucking, and rail would electrify.
Another place to start to analyze the hypothesis that an increase in oil prices will cause a long-term economic decline is to do a search of the economics literature.
I've looked at what I could find, and found little support for this hypothesis.
Here is a good study from the website of a PO pessimist: http://www.postpeakliving.com/downloads/Sill-MacroeconomicsOfOilShocks.pdf produced by the Philadelphia Fed. It looks at historical experience in the US, and concludes that a 10% decline in oil availability would reduce GDP, on a one-time basis, by about 2%. This means that GDP growth would be 2% lower than otherwise in roughly the year following the oil shock, then go back to it's historical growth rate. Interestingly, it finds no impact on inflation.
This is a long and complicated discussion, and it probably will be simpler if we take smaller bites on each response, so I'll stop here.
Lots of people disagree with me. Few are as persistant as you in trying to convince me that unrelated information cribbed from another post on another topic is being responsive. Forgive me for being annoyed.
This is a metaphor. I have made a point, and part of this forum is defending your ideas. And from someone who goes to the lengths you do to get your ideas across, this comment is a little disingenuous.
This is presumptuous. Part of the process may, in fact, be learning to tell useful information from dreck, and on-topic, responsive points from obfuscation presented by people who may disagree but aren't able to explain why.
I am not actually in discussion with you, judging from your responses. I do not wish to discuss the technical side of Texas Power Generation or renewables. This is not what my post was about. It was about the political unpalatability of changes to allow us to deal with peak oil.
No. You said I made a mistake in fact, when I had not, and that you were "correcting" me. The thing to do here, if one has any honour at all, is apologize. Not bring in more unrelated information.
We 're not in agreement. I have said the problem is political. This is not the same as social. You can look up the definitions yourself.
If I was right, why did you do it again? This is another of your fantasy discussions totally unrelated to the original point, probably cribbed from somewhere else. Stop putting words in my mouth. If you have nothing to add to the original points, just say so.
From Ryder's original post, which my post was supporting:
Note his main point: "certain problems are technically solvable but appear to be far harder and maybe impossible to solve politically"
That is what this discussion is about. Not if adapting fast enough is technically possible. Whether the political will could be mustered to solve the problem.
But at least now I know why you've been writing these off-topic, unrelated cribbed posts:
You've forgotten the original point. If indeed you understood it the first time through.
Let me remind you for the third time:
So please...spare me 3000 words cribbed from a post on the importance of whale blubber to the 17th century economy.
Tell me why I am wrong and that the political- not social, not economic, not technical problems- can be easily overcome.
So, as always, unless you want to address the meat of my argument, stop wasting my time.
Forgive me for being annoyed...this comment is a little disingenuous.
You're taking things personally. You shouldn't. It doesn't convince anyone, and just hurts your credibility. That's the beauty of written communication: you can stop, take a breath, and go back and write more clearly.
I do not wish to discuss the technical side of Texas Power Generation or renewables.
I was just responding to what you said.
You said I made a mistake in fact, when I had not
You said that wind power provided only 1/80th of demand ("So we need (once you make the nameplate discount Texas utilities use) about 80 times more wind (or distributed renewables and the associated transfer mechanisms to deal with intermitancy)just to replace the electricity use already in place.). That's 1.25%, not 5%.
I have said the problem is political. This is not the same as social.
You've said you'd like me to address the meat of your argument. IOW, don't nitpick by arguing about words that have similar meanings, like social vs political.
1500 words of unrelated boilerplate frequently in the form of dialogue...
I'm baffled. I did address your point, very directly and specifically. I gave you a clear discussion of what would likely happen if we had another oil price rise, and why freight transportation would continue. I also showed you research which looked at historical experience, which includes political responses.
I agree that the elimination of our dependency on oil has been fought by political resistance. On the other hand, that political resistance has not been completely effective.
The fact is that the transition to oil has been going on for 30 years: in 1979 we got 20% of our electricity from oil, now it's less than 1%. Most home-heating oil has been replaced by other things. The automotive CAFE is rising reasonably strongly, forcing further hybridization of cars. Every car maker is coming out with EVs and hybrids. Ethanol is growing. Trucking is being replaced by rail. We have the Leaf and the Volt; and we have wind and solar power growing strongly.
Can I prove that political resistance won't suddenly freeze all transition away from oil? No, it's hard to prove a negative. But, I can point to history: the US reduced oil consumption by 19% after the last big oil shock in 1979, despite political resistance. Changes in oil usage mean that the US grew by 150% since 1979 (including a 50% increase in domestic manufacturing), while using no more oil at all. It reduced oil consumption by 10% in our very recent oil shock, and US oil production is growing: the combination means that imports have dropped sharply.
So, when oil becomes overpriced compared to substitutes, as it has, markets still work despite political resistance.
There's nothing wrong with my credibility; you're the one who goes off thread and is non-responsive. The clarity of my writing is just fine. That you don't like what I have to say, or being forced back to a point you don't wish to answer (even though it was the central point you challenged,) is your problem.
You write:
From your first post in this thread:
You were not "just responding to me." You were the first to mention Texas wind. Note the straw man about "Texans who aren't intimidated by the sight of energy infrastructure."
You write:
My original post:
You brought up this 5% figure later, and tried to recontextualize. The fact remains that the Texas utilities only count wind (in 2008) as 820 MWG.
That is what I said. I did not say how much was generated: I said how much they thought they had for load-planning purposes.
I did not make an error in fact. You did. I'm still waiting for an apology.
They do not have similar meanings. I'm not nitpicking. If you can't tell the difference, I don't have time to explain it. Seems to me that it's usually covered in grade school.
I didn't ask about that, and have not mentioned it. It's also primarily an economic answer: to what question, I don't know. Certainly none I asked, and none of relevance to this thread.
You write:
Then why did you bring it up? I didn't ask about it, and it is in fact, not responsive to my points. It may be political, but it has no relevance to modern day American political reality. I stand by my comment.
I believe you meant "from", not "to", and will proceed accordingly.
I found this handy graph:
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=wb-wdi&met=eg_use_pcap_kg_oe&idim=co...
It shows Primary energy use (before transformation to other end-use fuels) in kilograms of oil equivalent, per capita.
It shows a peak of 8,438 kg in 1978, a low of 7,199 kg in 1983, and a current usage of 7,799 kg.
With a population of 234 million people in 1983, that puts total energy usage at 1,684,800,000,000 kg equivalent.
With 309 million people in 2009, that puts total energy usage at 2,409,891,000,000 kg equivalent.
We don't seem to be transitioning away from energy use at all. By my calculation, you're about a third over 1983, and a quarter over the per capita peak in 1978.
I would suggest that the US has been transitioning to natural gas. A fossil fuel. With resource limits. Very similar to oil in that regard. Seems to me we talk about it here all the time.
In my original post, I wrote
I do not consider Natural gas a preventive technology, being as it is a fossil fuel with resource limits.
There has been no political resistance to a transition from oil to natural gas, because outside of the people here, nobody thinks about it. (I know you were trying to suggest that we were changing away from fossil fuels, but surprise! we're just moving to a different one.)
Finally! You're on point! A victory for both of us.
And my response: They voted out Carter and brought in Regan. And they took the solar panels off the White house and started 3 decades of increasing gross national energy consumption(see above.) This is obviously an example to emulate. And it goes to support my central thesis:
Got any more political thoughts that support my thesis? You don't seem to have any to disprove it, and darn few that are even relevant (just this last one, by my count.)
I started to write about the other minor details, like wind and argument styles, but I think that's just a distraction.
I found this handy graph...It shows Primary energy use
That's a great chart. This chart is dealing with fossil fuels in general. OTOH, the argument on this post, that you and I responded to (and the primary argument I see on TOD) is that Peak Oil will cause economic collapse. On the 3rd hand, why does that matter? We can argue about whatever we think is the crux of the matter. So, let's see if we clarify the scope of what we're talking about.
I would argue that there is very little reason to expect shortages of electricity in the US any time in the next 50 years, that the only area where the US is seeing a resource shortage is in oil (I would make a similar argument for the world, but I think that may be too large a topic to make any headway on). Therefore, I think the most interesting and important place to focus is on oil.
Would you agree?
No, no, no, no, no.
If you wanted to argue the thrust of the original post, you should have posted there. (It's still open! If you're sincere, your next post should be there.)
You're arguing with me, about my post.
From Ryder's post, which I replied to in support:
From my original post:
This is a specific point.
To elaborate slightly, current technology with the political will to institute massive changes quickly might work. Or new, advanced technology (unknown at this time, but sufficiently powerful to remove resource restrictions and AGW) with current political motivations might work. I'm not going to speak to the second (this would be the changes in human nature, unnaturally rapid adoption, and technologies not in evidence. As I said, the burden is on those who propose such things.)
I do not think the first one will work because the current political climate works against it, and I do not see how the political will to change can be instituted.
If you want to speak to that point, I'll be glad to reply.
No we can't. If you want to do that, start a new thread.
You can argue that somewhere else, too. I didn't bring it up, and it's not relevant to my post.
I'm down the rabbit hole on this, Nick. This has taken hours for very little benefit. I am not here to find common cause with you. I'm not here to let you go home to your happy place all warm and fuzzy. I'm here to defend my post.
So stick to the point.
There are plenty of places here to discuss ideas unrelated to my post. You will may find a warmer reception there.
Here's Ryder's original comment: "Does this critical examination mean Peak Oil isn't a religion after all?" http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6789/689969
He's talking about Peak Oil, not all fossil fuels.
I'm just trying to come to some kind of agreement about what the heck we're arguing about. The proposition in quotes below is what we're debating, right?
"PO will cause TEOTWAWKI because political resistance will prevent solution of the problem."
I don't know. Why don't you ask him?
Is that quote in my post? No. So if you want to discuss it, go up to Ryder's post, and stop bothering me.
I have been very clear about what I am willing to discuss. Yet you come at me like some kind of anti-doomer missionary. I don't have to redefine terms of engagement for the seventh time. If you are incapable of understanding what I have written, this is not my problem. I'm done, Nick. Unless you post something on point, I will merely put it in a block quote and note that it is off point.
Eventually, the thread will close, and I can go back to not acknowledging you.
I have been very clear about what I am willing to discuss.
No, you really haven't. Are you talking about the problems associated with Peak Oil (which Ryder was talking about), or are you talking about the problems associated with running out of coal, natural gas and other fossil fuels? It's a straightforward question.
But it doesn't actually threaten my post. So I'll let you stew in your confusion.
You said earlier that you wanted to get the "meat" of the discussion. If you don't really want to, well then heck, that's up to you.
Matt Simmons did go a bit mental about this....
HOWEVER:
I can remember several incidences when products (including Coca Cola and a well known olive oil brand) were recalled due to tiny traces of benzene. Now I'd love someone to correct me but haven't a lot of the workers and people around the coast been exposed to a lot more than this, for almost 3 months? Was an evacuation call really that crazy?
Yes, REAL CRAZY
Thank you for the lead article. I also appreciate the posters who choose to believe the best of his motives.
One thing I have wondered about is his sources. It has been said, that due to the huge amount of investing in this industry done by his Houston firm, that he has insider contacts whose first choice in leaking information would be to Simmons.
So can we assume that he has been told quite a bit that may be false, but did come from actual credible sources who themselves may be misinformed (or correct in some points).?
Hi,Lynn,
Your question is impossible to decipher. Has Simmons been tutoring you?
Go on explain further; if a large population is in danger of benzene poisoning then why is it crazy to demand an evacuation?
Simmons attributed the need for gas masks and the necessity to evacuate to methane.
I'd definitley recommend that you do not drink GOM seawater for the rest of your life.
There will be absolutley no doubt that toxins from Macondo (and dispersants) will enter the food chain. I'd imagine these will be barely above background levels - our food is full of toxins. Prety sure US authorities will monitor this closely.
Where do you think the benzene from 85 million barrels per day production ends up?
Benzene evaporates into the atmosphere and is oxidised over time into carbon dioxide and water.
As for drinking GOM seawater there are reasons other than trace toxins from the Macondo oil leak, the leaks from other oil production facilities and the natural seabed oil seeps to avoid doing that.
Last time I read about benzene, it was a quite stable molecule that don't break down easily, and also very posionos. Off course it will oxidize over time. As a health and enviornmental issue, I say this melecule is no joke.
Benzene has a boiling point of 80 deg C so it will evaporate quite quickly from the sea surface especially in the conditions of a Gulf summer. It tends to float as like oil it's less dense than seawater and it is not very water-soluble. Benzene in vapour form is denser than air though which means it tends to collect.
It's a nasty chemical, certainly, probably the worst biologically speaking of the assorted hydrocarbons released in the Macondo incident. I understand that benzene makes up about 0.5% to 1% of most light crude oils so at a rough estimate there has been a release of about 27,000 barrels of benzene or about a million gallons during the ongoing escape of oil from the wellhead since the sinking of the DW Horizon. How much of that might end up in the food chain or be deposited ashore I don't know. I suspect not a lot and not in any high concentrations as by now I'd expect most of it to have evaporated. Tropical Storm Bonnie probably did for most of it.
Just to verify, you are saying that the boiling point 80 deg C (or 176 deg F) is temperature that the surface water in the gulf will commonly reach. I'm doubtful about that assertion.
That's not what they're asserting.
Remember that the boiling point of water is 100 degrees Celsius - yet even so huge amounts of water evaporate off the ocean surface. At the risk of sounding patronising, this is how clouds form. The temperature of a puddle in the road is unlikely to reach 100 degrees, yet it still evaporates after a day or two.
Evaporation simply requires that individual molecules at, or near, the surface acquire enough energy. The amount of energy required is linked to the boiling point for that particular molecule.
In the case of benzine, we know that its boiling point is less than that of water. We know that water in the gulf evaporates, therefore we know that the benzine in the gulf will also evaporate.
Hopefully, that makes a bit more sense to you.
Regards,
~MonChrMe
"Benzene", MonChrMe. Minus ten. Go to the back.
Whoops... that's embarrassing.
Correction graciously accepted. :)
Liquids evaporate at any temperature. Boiling point is just temperature, where the liquid evaporates with its whole volume (as opposed to surface-only evaporation).
Liquids with lower boiling points evaporate quicker than liquids with higher boiling points -- I'm generalising here, there are other factors involved such as specific heat but benzene on the water surface will evaporate quite quickly. Conditions in the Gulf in summer mean lots of sunlight and warm surface water, both of which improve evaporation rates of volatile oils.
Benzene in solution in seawater will take longer to go away; some of it will come out of solution and reach the surface over a period of time. There are probably degradation factors I don't know about that would deal with dissolved benzene. Deep cold water with low dissolved oxygen levels near the seabottom is likely to be the sort of place where detectable levels of dissolved benzene will stay high for the longest period.
Does anyone know if there are biological concentration pathways for benzene that might result in significant levels appearing in, say, seafood caught for human or animal-feed consumption?
I'd definitely recommend that you do not drink seawater for the rest of your life.
"seawater is around 3.5% dissolved salts by weight. That's about three times as salty as human blood. That's way more salt than we can safely metabolize. - The Straight Dope
So drinking ordinary seawater is just as safe as drinking GOM seawater? - you gotta be kidding me:-)
Point is that there may be some eco niches where toxins from Macondo (and dispersants) end up. But we "consume" 85 million barrels per day of this HC cockail which ends up in our air, water, land and food and we never think about it... well some of us do.
I worry more about EDCs myself. (and dying in a car wreck).
So drinking ordinary seawater is just as safe as drinking GOM seawater?
Sure, because drinking ordinary seawater is very bad for you. If GOM seawater is somewhat worse, it doesn't make much difference.
Matt Simmons' days as a peak oil prophet were over after he predicted $200-300 oil in 2008 which was soon followed by oil prices tanking. If that wasn't enough, he made another prediction that "rust" in oil infrastructure would cause another superspike in less than two years. It didn't. Then he latches onto the BP disaster. Three strikes and you're out. Simmons has about as much relevance as Mel Gibson.
Interesting comparison. High achievers. And you've done what so far?
I think Simmons is being misquoted and misunderstood. Let's see what happens in August. If they succeed in killing the well and withdraw the fleet of ships and semisub platforms, if the undersea plumes disperse, then Mr Simmons was mistakenly alarmed and/or misinformed. BP will emerge from the crisis with its reputation tarnished but not destroyed.
Now then, about the pipeline mystery. Assuming Shell gave BP permission (!) to pierce it and tie-in Macondo, then I am completely baffled about announced plan to kill, cement, and permanently abandon Macondo. Either-or, not both.
about the pipeline mystery. Assuming Shell gave BP permission (!) to pierce it and tie-in Macondo, then I am completely baffled about announced plan to kill, cement, and permanently abandon Macondo.
They have a backup plan, if the current one fails, to contain the oil by piping it to nearby depleted wells. From Allen's briefing yesterday, in response to a question about whether he was sure the top/bottom kill would work:
http://app.restorethegulf.gov/go/doc/2931/832131
Affirm, Swift Loris.
"Well, in the event that there's a low probability/high consequence outcome, we have the second well drilled. And there are backup plans to actually use a piping system to take the product and actually push it over to wells that have been depleted."
A Quandry; Many implicit items, little explicit answers.
1. high consequence yet the possibility that such a backup plan could be used. IMHO almost an oxymoron!
2. depleted wells versus pipelines. Suggests that a nearby pipeline is only connected to depleted wells. Could there be pipelines within pipelines so that this might be possible?
3. isn't there a time limit whereby a well must be shut in if it is not producing (depleted)?
4. is he suggesting that if the WW is not shut in, that the RW be used to deplete the reservoir? and if so why dispose of it in a depleted well?
I bet there are others that might want to reply to the depleted well backup plan.
:>(
If one is looking for a pipeline that has available, uncommitted capacity, then it is smart to look to the pipelines that serve wells that are in decline. The wells that are in early stage full production still have the possibility of some treatment that would increase their flow rate. The owner of the well and pipeline (are they ever owned by different companies?) would be fools to contract some fraction of the pipeline capacity to help BP.
Having never worked in the oil fields I can't say too much about rust and crude oil;but all those thousands and tens of thousands of miles of pipe are going to rust away from the outside in , and it's not going to take forever, especially in wet or damp environments.I understand that crude can be pretty corrosive too, in it's own right.
Simmons is probably right in this respect but off on his timing.Just like Malthus.
Does anybody know how many drilling rigs are scrapped due to extensive corrosion?
Rust is the final straw that breaks the backs of ocean going ships in most cases if I am not mistaken.
There is a difference between sales hyperbole and outright foolishness;and he crossed the line in respect to the blowout.
I gave him the benefit of the doubt early on because I assumed he had good inside information.Obviously this is not the case.
Yes, corrosion is the main reason that many ocean going ships get sent to the scrapyard. Painting does postpone the inevitable, but you really can't get the paint into certain areas, and eventually it rusts from the inside out.
With all the damage caused by corrosion, it still amazes me that the Soviet Union graduated more metallugists & metallurgical engineers from just one university than the total number of graduates in the same fields in all the U.S.. (I would be curious to know what the numbers in the FSU are today if anyone has the figures.)
ignorant
There are actually steels that have been developed that once they get a "coat of rust" it acts like a protectant. It has been used on outside of buildings; the drawback seems to be an asthetic one, rust is not particularly beautiful. I have a windchime made out of such steel; I suspect it was used as a selling point in such an application.
I would sure hope that longevity of the pipe was considered in its design requirements.
Ignorant, I am also ignorant (as I believe others are); it is fortunate that we are ignorant in different subjects! It does help to have a subject where one is not ignorant; with modern complexities it is possible to be both knowledgable and ignorant in the same subject!
;>)
The steel formulation is Cor-ten.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weathering_steel
I wonder what fraction of existing pipelines are made from this product. It is real, but hardly realistic.
ignorant
my first paragraph was only intended to show that not ALL rust is bad.
my second paragraph, which you seem to have overlooked, is that pipeline designers would know about factors that effect longevity and design accordingly.
:>(
Here's a major building made with it: http://www.thedaleycenter.com/sub_history.asp
Just like Malthus.
Malthus was also wrong. He argued that populatio growth could (and should) only be stopped by running out of food, and in the majority of the world fertility rates are below replacement.
Depends on how you define "major".
In economic terms, perhaps. Most of the developed world is below replacement rate, as far as I know with the notable exception of the US and France on the borderline.
In population terms, certainly not, which is why we are still projected to reach a population of 9 billion in 2050 (plus/minus 1-1.5 billion (!)). See for instance:http://www.npg.org/facts/world_pop_year.htm
As for Malthus being wrong.. maybe. Incidentally, one of the key preoccupations of my current course on water resources management is how to feed such a large population without unduly taxing the globe's water and land resources. Interestingly, a large part of the green revolution in the 60s and 70s required far more use of (mostly petroleum and NG based) fertilisers.
Elsewhere in the news, I read about various plant diseases/pests becoming resistant to whatever (often petroleum-based) chemicals we spray them with.
So there is a lot of work to be done to prove Malthus wrong.
Your reference is looking at overall growth, not fertility. I believe it's estimate for the US fertility rate is a bit high: I looked around the Census website - here's the latest.
http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/summarytables.html
Take a look at this: http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf
We see that the overall fertility rate is 1.9 (page 1). That means that growth is due to immigration, and declining death rates. Interestingly, they project growth even without immigration, which says death rates are declining pretty fast. Of course, that can't last forever...
---------------------------------
N. America and Europe are at or below replacement fertility, the rest of the world without Africa ( Oceania, Asia, Latin America/Caribbean) is very close. The key point, which many on TOD don't understand: most of humanity has taken conscious control of it's fertility and population growth. That makes us very, very different from any Malthus-type animal model of growth, overshoot and collapse.
See especially Figure 3, page 6: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300fin...
Yes, but somewhere there's a whole bunch of the population that hasn't got the message of "accidents cause people"...
My understanding is that the majority of the world does not have fertility rates below replacement level. What is true is that the direction of fertility rates is headed in that direction but fertility rates are not there right now. Actual regions below replacement levels are most of the OECD countries, excepting a few like the US which is still just barely above replacement levels, and China. This is offset by the rest of the world which remains far enough above replacement fertility levels to maintain continued population growth for several more decades. The basis for the assumption that world population will peak in another 40-50 years (two more reproductive generations) is the observation of direction of fertility rates and the simple extrapolation of those rates going forward. Yet a simple perusal of past fertility rates will demonstrate that simplistic extrapolations of fertility, if done in various decades of the 20th century, would have ended up being wrong.
In short, to the best of my knowledge, the trend is down but the actual rate is not yet there globally. If you have data that actually supports your position right now and not 50 years from now based on an extrapolation of existing trends, I would like to see it.
As I said above:
N. America and Europe are at or below replacement fertility (as I noted above, the latest figure for US fertility appears to be 1.9), the rest of the world without Africa (Oceania, Asia, Latin America/Caribbean) is very close. The key point, which many on TOD don't understand: most of humanity has taken conscious control of it's fertility and population growth. That makes us very, very different from any Malthus-type animal model of growth, overshoot and collapse.
See especially Figure 3, page 6: http://www.un.org/esa/population/publications/longrange2/WorldPop2300fin...
a simple perusal of past fertility rates will demonstrate that simplistic extrapolations of fertility, if done in various decades of the 20th century, would have ended up being wrong.
The trend since 1960 seems pretty clear. See the UN document, figure 20, page 25. They project the rest of the world (except Africa, of course) to reach replacement fertility levels by 2010 or 2015.
Your own source states:
Further, Figure 3 on page 6 clearly shows that as of the year 2010, only Europe is below replacement levels. North America will not reach replacement levels until after 2020. Latin America, Oceania, and Asia do not reach replacement levels until about 2035. And Africa does not reach replacement levels until far after 2050.
Even further, Table 2 on page 21 clearly shows population growth not going negative in a global sense until well after 2050 with only Europe being negative prior to that time.
All of these points are taken directly from your own source document. Please read your own source document with more care.
North America will not reach replacement levels until after 2020.
Replacement is about 2.1 or higher, depending on child death rates. I think you must be using 2.0. N. America is already below a NRR of 1: the US is there or a bit below, Canada is well below, and Mexico is only slightly above.
Latin America, Oceania, and Asia do not reach replacement levels until about 2035.
Again, I think you must be using a value for replacement fertility that is too low. Further, we don't have to estimate from a small analog chart: we have exact figures in Figure 20, page 25. We see that N. America reached a Net Reproduction Rate of 1 in 1970, and they project Latin America, Oceania, and Asia to reach replacement fertility levels by 2010 or 2015.
Even further, Table 2 on page 21 clearly shows population growth not going negative in a global sense until well after 2050 with only Europe being negative prior to that time.
True, but the issue here is: was Malthus right that Humanity couldn't restrain it's reproduction? The answer, clearly, is no. Now, you may argue that we've done so too late. I'd disagree, but that's probably another discussion. As far as Malthus goes, he was clearly wrong.
Excellent! Agree fully, it's time we retire Malthus' theories to the wasteheap of speculation where they belong, and get busy fostering the conditions which enable population stability worldwide in every location, specifically a) economic security for all including those too old to earn their livlihood, b) gender equality, c) no slavery including by marriage, and d) universal access to all means of family planning.
That's a great summary. I'd finetune and expand item A to:
a) economic security for all including those disabled by age-related conditions, illness, mental health, and substance abuse.
This clarifies that 1) many of the aged can still work, and 2) while it's particularly clear that those disabled by age-related conditions generally require care by children, all of these conditions require family care which is often provided by children.
Nick,
I think you are wrong about Malthus. Read the biography of him offered in Wikipedia. It is very brief, but presents a much more complex process than simply running out of food. He was a very influential thinker of his time. One of the first to identify resource limitations as a general problem for human society. Prior thinkers had addressed individual resources in individual situations, or at least their contemporaries were able to ignore and suppress whatever they might have said that was just too inconvenient. So I would say he was to first to get it right enough for the idea has outlive him by close to two centuries until now in a time of general cultural decline, it is being suppressed and lost.
Just my $.02
I don't find Malthus admirable. He thought misery was the inevitable human condition, in part because he thought contraception was morally wrong.
Rust in steel is a case of oxidation. At the sorts of depth the seabed piping in the area of the Macondo well is located there just isn't a lot of oxygen dissolved in the seawater which can act on exposed steel. See the wreck of the Titanic for an example, where after being submerged for nearly a hundred years at a great depth most of the hull plating is intact. Most rusting on a ship or sea-going vessel occurs at the waterline or above it as that gets exposed to air as well as salt water.
There is also corrosion which can occur due to chemical and electrochemical reactions not involving oxygen; low temperatures inhibit these reactions. The seabed temps in the Macondo area are about 1 to 2 deg C which would tend to limit such effects. How corrosive crude oil is I don't know; I'd imagine high-sulfur crude would be more of a problem than sweet crude. Simple hydrocarbons per se are not likely to attack regular steel and cause it to corrode to the point of penetration.
There is a lot on the web about a possible illness ... but no denial as far as I can see.
If people were publicly denouncing your mental health wouldn't you or your family issue a denial - if appropriate?
Matt Simmons has an outstanding bet for $200 average oil price in 2010. (in 2005 dollars)
He will lose the bet. But I suggest his timing is off by a year
The issue is not whether Matt Simmons is playing with a full deck. It is clear enough that with Simmons, the lights are on but nobody's home.
The issue is the credibility of his past statements about peak oil. Those of you who know me know that I don't have concerns about whether the peak oil view is correct--it is. The only problem now is the timing of oil shocks, decline rates versus new developments, discoveries, etc. In the grand scheme of things over time, these will become minor issues.
That said, Simmons became Mr. Peak Oil in the media. Oil story? Let's call crazy Matt and get some quotes. That should make for some lively airtime! CNBC (i.e. the Gambling Channel) did this all the time, but so did the print media, including the Times, the Post, the Telegraph, the FT, the Independent, etc.
This was a constant embarrassment to me all the time I wrote for ASPO-USA, who were informed of my views. I cringed every time I saw Matt's "deer in the headlights" look on TV as the oil price ran up to $140+ in 2007-2008. He started predicting $200+ oil but did not take fundamental economics into account--when the price gets unaffordable, demand falls and recessions occur.
So that's the real problem--you've got a guy who has lost his marbles cast in the role of being the main spokesman for a legitimate concern.
Generally speaking, I wish people weren't so self-defeating, but I learned long ago that there's nothing I can do about it.
I enjoy reading your articles.
Your points are well taken.
If Matt were some crank off the street with no track record, he would not be getting the air time that he is. Mr. Simmons is being used for entertainment value: they are not testing his claims or considering the merits of his views in opposition to the other sources of data, which they would have to do if he were an unknown quantity. He is being used to fill time in the 24/7 news cycle.
Ironically, Mr. Simmon's credibility is the very thing that will end up destroying his credibility.
Lloyd
Hi Dave, you've been doing this kind of commentary for a long time - you never know what influence you may be having.
As for ASPO USA? I've been to 3 of the last 4 US conferences, but nothing on this Earth will drag me to ASPO USA Washington this year. The worrying thing is that ASPO USA a couple of years back was a beakon - what happened to Randy and Steve?
ASPO Europe is orgainsing a big conference in Bruxelles next year - Rembrandt at the helm - hard analysis will be the order of the day.
Not seen you post any wacky pictures for a while..... I'll be back
€
Credit for image goes to Joulesburn - we've done much soul searching about how to respond and JB has a very sharp sense of satire - which is the British way of defusing very tricky situations with comedy (even though he is a yankee) .. I should really post his text aswell .. which was hilarious. The theme is the source of methane....
Do post the text. Love the image.
"There are thousands of them down there", said one anonymous source. BP downplayed the discovery while stressing that they clearly brand all of their herd. The USDA could not be reached for comment. The Sierra Club voiced concern, claiming that one cow was clearly suffering from Corexit ingestion, and also suggesting that seafloor overgrazing could further exacerbate oxygen depletion near the mouth of the Mississippi river.
Live cattle futures were sharply lower in afternoon trading at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange.
once advanced but now rudimentary organic geochemistry analysis will allow identification of the source of various organic polutants in the GOM.
I wonder if companies may be liable for damages from oil seeps on thier acreage?
I'm not sure how reliable this would be. You can measure the carbon isotopic ratio, but that gives a single number. Most other measurements would be affected by changes due to evaporation and biometabolism differences over time (not all oil molecules get eaten at the same rate). Unless you find a "seeping" gun, it would be hard to prove liability.
Yeh, I was thinking bio-markers - but ur right, in sea surface environment and with so much mixing everyhting would be fractionated and mixed.
I'd point out, for BP, that for its many failings, geochemistry is not one of them.
Disclaimer - I've not traded BP shares for many years, but was involved in very many geochemistry projects with BP in period 1988 to 2004.
Methane will kill. It displaces Oxygen. Look at what happened at Lake Nyos with Carbon Dioxide.
Then you have Simmons squarely in the "methane tsunami" camp. I don't think he ever used that exact phrase but he scared the hell out of lots of vulnerable people, told them to but gas masks, told them they would die unless they left. I understand the affection he has here, but this time out the man created turmoil and harm. Based on *what*? He's given credit for being at least semi-brilliant when it comes to Peak Oil but he's being given a pass as someone who blindly believes completely implausible assertions? Doesn't fit. If he's not ill and he's not a hair-on-fire scientifically ignorant alarmist by nature, then what is he now?
I don't know, I've never met the man.
I think that he's just part of the "human condition."
I've quit trying to analyze the "why" in Life.
Methane will kill. It displaces Oxygen. Look at what happened at Lake Nyos with Carbon Dioxide.
That is explicitly noted in the article. For that matter, water can kill you in many different ways, including by drinking too much of it. But water isn't toxic.
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/savageplanet/01volcano/01/indexmid.html
Any gas or liquid or solid that displaces sufficient O2 from your lungs can kill you, even a noble gas.
Depending on how far you want to take the argument, breathing molecular oxygen (O2) at elevated partial pressures can you kill too due to oxygen toxicity (ask any diver)!
However, that would be a lot of methane to reach that level from a source so far away as the DWH is.
http://www.neatorama.com/2007/05/21/the-strangest-disaster-of-the-20th-c...
Not exactly sure why you think this is analogous to methane in the GOM. BTW, the Nyos event is well known and studied.
The fatalities resulted from not just the CO2 itself but as a result the terrain that kept the gas concentrated.
CO2 is heavier than air and it will sink and hung the ground. When the gas spilled from the lake, the topology around the lake confined concentrations of the gas into the natural "troughs" in the valleys bounded by the surrounding hills. This kept the concentrations of C02 high; a "river" of higher concentrations of Co2.
Those villagers who had the opportunity to get above the concentrated low layer or could get to higher ground saved themselves. Some lived simply because they stood up from their sleeping position close to the ground.
I don't see how this correlates to the GOM where you have a flat surface and the DWH location is at least 48 miles from the source of methane at the DWH.
No “hills and valleys” on the GOM to add the second element to the Nyos tragedy (topology). Plus, methane is lighter than air. With only flat surface, surface winds and distance, I simply don't see how you could ever produce concentrations that would displace enough O2 from your lungs to kill. Not by many order of magnitude. Big volume of air so the methane would be greatly diluted.
In Nyos, it was CO2 from the lake. When I first heard of Matt Simmons' concern, the events of Lake Nyos was the first thought that came to mind. Instead of gases from a lake, it could have been methane from the Gulf. I'm old enough to remember the Lake Nyos disaster; it was scary... even from another continent.
The Toxicity issue was inaccurate, but the lethality was a legitimate concern... in my opinion.
BUT methane, a low-MW gas, rises in air whereas CO2, higher-MW than air, drops in air and pools in low areas like volcanic lake basins. To kill citizens in Alabama with methane from mid-Gulf, you would need to release enough methane to exclude access to oxygen (from the top down, no less!) round the entire earth. If Simmons didn't know that, then he's technically unworthy of further attention. I assume he did know. So what does that mean?
It's really strange the qualifications it requires to become stinking rich in this society, eh?
Never ceases to amaze me. I've come to believe it may be an asset in certain quarters.
Also, the better-to-be-lucky-than-smart component helps out a lot too. I know several people who "failed upward" throughout their life in serial failures who become really stinking rich.
Knowing the difference between asphyxiation and poisoning is a very elementary scientific / medical issue.
CO2 with molecular weight of 44 is heavier than air (N2 = 28 and O2 = 32) and will flow down a slope. Methane with molecular weight of 16 is lighter than air and will rise (not vertically but it will rise) but will not flow up a slope along the ground to asphyxiate folks in Louisiana. Methane quickly oxidises to CO2 in the air.
As Robert points out in the lead article, CO (carbon monoxide) and H2S (hydrogen sulphide) are toxic – you inhale these gases in sufficient trace quantity and u die.
Simmons resignation has been mentioned on TOD already, however, reading the sources below and considering the sequence of events filled in some of the picture for me. I can't say there are conclusions to be drawn from this material that I would want to post publicly, but a lot of data is suggestive though inconclusive.
This quote is from the "History" page at Simmons & Company International.
The following two items are from the "News" page of the Simmons & Company International website.
The June 14 item links to clarifying statement. The June 16 item links to a press release. I found these items a worthwhile read. This is a quote from the clarifying statement.
Also, I found many references claiming that Simmons was an energy adviser to President George W. Bush. The more I looked, it seemed like this was a pr claim that got repeated in the media echo chamber. My investigation was not exhaustive. The most specific mention I saw was that Simmons advised Bush during the first Presidential campaign (I lost the link). Does anyone know the extent to which Simmons was an adviser to the President?
About 2,900 results google search cheney "energy task force" simmons
cheney seemed to be aware of peak oil in 1999
Interestinger and Interestinger.
"Interestinger and Interestinger."
it's pretty boring, actually, if you've been working on this stuff for nine or ten years.
boring and frustrating... the most frustrating part is the concerted effort to suppress knowledge --facts-- that would allow people to make sense of pretty much everything.
but that's how it works in decaying empires.
but it's not likely the historians will have much trouble figuring out what happened.
The most telling thing about these statements is that the people with an actual monetary interest in what Simmons has to say have publicly distanced themselves from him.
We should also consider that "Twilight in the Desert" was actually financial research. Simmons undoubtedly used the research arm of Simmons International when analyzing all those articles; while I accept that the central thesis could have been, and likely was, developed by Mr. Simmons, there was, at the very least, a certain amount of fact checking going on: Engineers and analysts reading the material and offering opinions.
If he were a politician, his party (or former party) would exercise their influence to stop the reporting of a pol's delusional ramblings (or at least those that were not actual party policy.)
Simmons doesn't have minders with enough influence to stop the reporting (if he actually has any minders at all.) His speaking schedule and the rise of niche media (that's us!) probably hasn't helped either.
Lloyd
Trashing Matt Simmons is simply futile. He has spoken, so be it. Compare that to all the lies we have been told by the Government and especially BP. Phony information, along with phony pictures.
I think this information on the link below is worth your time.
http://worldvisionportal.org/wvpforum/viewtopic.php?f=52&t=931
Moonbeam:
I just don't know how it helps all of us to believe that you can justify the totally implausible and factually/scientifically eroneous statements from Simmons because the government and BP, according to you, have told so many "lies".
That kind of generalization and exagerration would have us believe that because the government has so called told us "lies", that somehow the alternative to their explanations MUST be true?
There seems no logic to your comment. None. The paranoia also that it reveals is painful and totally unhelpful. In your logic, we can never I guess, believe anything that the government or BP provide, so therefore what?
Elie,
Well, if you take Simmons out of the equation and just read the information in the link, you may see where Moonbeam was going.
Elie,
Did you take the time to read the information I sent on the link from the NOAA?
As for trusting someone who perpetrates in fraud, be it our Goverment or BP, why would I choose to believe them? They broke my trust. They continue to lie and deceive.
As for Matt Simmons, the NOAA backs up his claims.
As for Matt Simmons, the NOAA backs up his claims.
Really? Which ones? Can you link to a NOAA source backing up these claims?
Yes, I can.
http://www.noaa.gov/sciencemissions/PDFs/tj_deepwaterhorizon_responsemis...
Can you please indicate which claims of Simmons this backs up, and excerpt from the report the portion that backs him up?
No, you can't. "Thick, black oil" that's 500' thick is not plumes with highly dispersed oil that's not even visible. Simmons' oft-repeated claim that his info came from NOAA is at best a massively mistaken extrapolation based on nothing.
Funny...I don't recall him claiming
From the end of the post:
What has NOAA "confirmed"? Actually, NOAA hasn't commented at all on Simmons's claims.
(Hint: Simmons isn't claiming just oil plumes)
The writer of this blog article stays away from mentioning the volume of oil that's "leaking" - not "seeping" - from Biloxi Dome. Using MS's estimate, as noted above, results in a multiple of the world's known oil reserves.
I'm unconvinced that oil + Corexit sinks in seawater and stays put, whether it's in "enormous undersea lakes" or not.
Judging from the above, many of those "government lies", probably including the ones which sucked you into invading Iraq (to access their oil to aleviate the rapidly approaching peak crisis), likely came from Simmons.
dont know if simmons lied about iraq's wmds, which is what they finally settled on as the main justification for attacking iraq.
i've always had this niggling little suspicion that simmons was allowed to talk about peak oil because that would appeal to the "might makes right" crowd who figure we're entitled to that oil because we're mighty enough to grab it.
but that whole "benevolent global hegemony" business is so loony...
sure, there are probably true believers, but it seems more likely that the smart guys went along with the project because it would give them such brilliant opportunities to loot.
There are legitimate concerns associated with the Deepwater Horizon blowout but Matt Simmons seems nowhere near these. The most pressing of these concerns that I have seen raised by EPA personnel are (a) potential exposure to high doses of benzene and other such hydrocarbons which are know to be high carcinogenic, and (b) the potential for hydrocarbons to be carried inland by a hurricane possibly contaminating surface water sources. The latter is especially of concern in the Gulf states because for most of these states surface water is the primary source of drinking water because attempts to use subsurface aquifers usually causes subsidence. Given that the Gulf states, especially near the coast, lie fairly close to sea level, subsidence represents a special problem to be avoided if possible. For example, Houston years ago shifted almost fully away from subsurface aquifers precisely because of this subsidence issue.
From what I have seen, there are divided opinions at the EPA itself over the risks from each of these two issues, with EPA scientists on both sides of the problem, some saying there is and will be no problem at all, and others concerned that certain communities, particularly in eastern Louisiana and Mississippi, may have experienced either or both of these problems already.
These potential problems are very real and if they come to pass, we may see higher rates of cancers as well as of birth defects in such affected communities. Simmons claims draw attention away from these very real issues which are the ones we should be concerned about right now.
Why does nobody ever sit down and question Matt about these statements?
It doesn't have to be M. King Hubbert himself just to point out some problems with Matt's craziest assertions to his face. Matt is not a prophet from centuries ago whose words are just now ringing true for a new generation. He's not dead. He's not held hostage behind the Iron Curtain in the cold war. He's walking around today and making these statements to living breathing reporters.
I don't expect the dumbass mainstream media reporters to know enough to say anything. But reporters aren't the only people that can talk to Matt. Most people in his position making these kinds of claims are only too eager to elaborate and debate them with others.
If one of the acknowledged big figures in astronomy starts yelling "The sky is falling!" then you'd expect the rest of the scientific community to ask him to elaborate on that point a little more.
Second.
could it be the guy really really wants to see a nuke go off and is willing to make up any nonsense to get his wish?
methane quote is pure nonsense
the 500ft thick lake of oil could have been meant as layer of water, contaminated with oil
at that depht and pressure some of the oil actually mixes with seawater i think(read it somewhere) and only part of the oil actually reaches sea surface
ofc numbers seem to err to the worst side
at any case, the simmons claims do not seem all that logical nor plausible
I've thought the same, that Matt Simmon's a crackpot who wants to see a nuke go bang. So, what happens to all the oil and methane when the nuke pops? A tsunami that'll roll all the way to Kentucky?
I thought that was one of his theories he proposed? I initially had feared this scenario ever since I've read about it in May but since joining the oil drum, people here seem to be saying that scenario is just a crackpot theory.
I'll put my money on the oil drum because at least these scientist aren't anyomonous.
I haven't read Simmons book but I was intrigued by a quote attributed to him "Data always beats theories".
http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/11/2/165220/570
This was one of those statements that confirmed in my mind that empiricism runs rampant among analysts.
Hmm? There's quite a bit of data here that does not fit his theories suggesting he may have abandoned his empirical past in favour of a theoretical future?
He is a banker and on the financial speculation side of things and all that is data-driven with lots of insider information thrown in. I don't consider pseudo-theories like Elliot waves of any foundational value.
My point is what made his previous predictions so fundamentally sound that set him apagt from any other financial speculator?
Take note of this Deepwater cam; there have been large white and brown plumes for a while.
Probably silt, but wanted to direct people's attention to it.
As I post here there's not much activity; there was a different camera angle and a lot of billowing earlier.
http://mfile.akamai.com/97892/live/reflector:31499.asx
Most unprofessional in that a web forum is no place to attack someone's sanity. He must have hit a nerve to deserve this. I believe an open debate would be more appropriate.
Whether due to insanity or evil, these ravings have terrified already despairing people, likely causing some to give up hope and even end it.
They require vigorous debunking and ridicule. Concern for the feelings of the perpetrator should in no way limit aid to the victims.
Nothing in the lead article that is personal, only questioning what has been said. Many attempts were made to reach Matt in past weeks to draw attention to the errors in his comments.
Posters are allowed to speculate within reason.
what we really need to know is: where did simmons get his "information"?
was he set up to self-destruct, or has he simply gone haywire?
As pointed out, MS's story has been consistent. Assuming he's not witless, it's extremely implausible to think a financial whiz would passively accept rotten info, never bother to check it out, and concoct further wild claims based on it without knowing he was hawking malarkey or what kind of effects he might be having.
well, the hallmark of these operations is: having a fallback, and killing lots of birds with one stone.
given simmons' apparent neocon connections, given the hardcore neocons' denial of peak oil, given exxon's association with the AEI...
simmons' performance doesnt make much sense, unless exxon and neocons want to take over BP... so simmons badmouths BP, because there's some handle sticking out of him that can be used to pry him into making these statements.
the worst that can happen, if the BP takeover fails, is that simmons, one of the most prominent peak oil guys, destroys himself.
or maybe simmons is just losing it.
who knows?
Wrong person in the wrong place at the wrong time. He is a retired banker, not a scientist.
Not all speculation needs to be wrong.
Thus, some of Matt's speculation may turn out to be true. As may some of the speculation on this thread.
When you speculate enough you will inevitably get some correct outcomes. I once won at blackjack.
"When you speculate enough you will inevitably get some correct outcomes."
if simmons wont reveal the sources of his information, i guess we're doomed to speculate about his sources and his agenda.
over time, after this shotgun approach, we should be able to winnow out some of the speculation and come to the most likely answers.
for instance, if simmons, in a few more years, winds up as an alzheimers patient, well, there you go.
on the other hand, if exxon winds up buying BP at firesale prices, that's something else.
After the US tax credit/cut, BP will PROFIT off the spill, courtesy of US taxpayers. Crazy.
How does BP "profit" off of the spill. (Note the lack of a question mark). They're going to take a multi-BILLION dollar hit because of this event. A few million dollars in tax credits is not going to be able to erase that.
No. It is CRAZY to believe that BP will profit from the spill.
BP will have some monsterously large expenses.
Those expenses will reduce the company's income.
The reduction in net income will reduce the tax payments.
Just as in any business, if there is no profit, US Taxpayers don't get their third.
OF course, to the extent BP incurs higher costs, those costs are being paid out in salaries to cleanup and plugging workers. and the payments for lost income will then become income for those people, to be taxed. there will certainly be a net tax loss from the spill event. But BP will not profit from it.
How about the nerves of the families living on the GOM coastline who were too gullible and naive to fact check or think critically...I know of 4 families that either lost or quit their job and moved because they are worried about toxic clouds, methane tsunamis etc. It has been really sad to see the mass hysteria crowds feed upon each other's fear/stress until they are so depressed and anxious they literally become sick?
Beachmommy
How did these folks lose their jobs because they were worried about methane tsunamis etc.? Just trying to wrap my mind around those circumstances. Thanks
They quit because they were worried about the toxic clouds of oil/corexit OR they were fired for "True Reporting" from the Gulf....One couple has a small daughter and are convinced they methane tsunami is going to wipe out 200 million ppl or they will die froom toxic clouds. Sorry, I should have worded that better and there is no way to wrap your head around their mindset because they really do buy that load of BS. Others lost jobs due to lack of tourism, water closed to fishing etc. I'm just laying out what I witness and see everyday due to the Matt Simmons doom and gloom theorist all over the net making money of from their followers.
Most unprofessional in that a web forum is no place to attack someone's sanity.
The key post questions neither his sanity nor his motives. It simply examines his claims.
He must have hit a nerve to deserve this.
He has definitely hit a nerve with those of us who would have peak oil treated as a serious and sober topic.
Oh bravo and damn straight.
I fear that only poetry is adequate for task Simmons
Dude is twisted, crazy, poop shoobie, flip city
"Now I heard little children
Were supposed to sleep tight
That's why I got into the vodka one night
My parents got frantic
Didn't know what to do
But I saw some crazy scenes
Before I came to
Now do you think I was crazy
I may have been only three
But I was swinging
They all laugh at angry young men
They all laugh at Edison
And also at Einstein
So why should I feel sorry
If they just couldn't understand
The idiomatic logic
That went on in my head
I had a brain
It was insane
Oh they used to laugh at me
When I refused to ride
On all those double decker buses
All because there was no driver on the top
My analyst told me
That I was right out of my head
But I said dear doctor
I think that it's you instead
Because I have got a thing
That's unique and new
To prove it I'll have
The last laugh on you
'Cause instead of one head
I got two
And you know two heads are better than one."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fuISB2ksnMM&a=GxdCwVVULXcypp_J73YcxAf11fZ...
So, since nobody seemed to answer my question above about insider leaks to Simmons.....
.....am I the only person here who thinks he isn't just making this up out of degenerating brain cells? Doesn't anybody else think the guy has all kinds of contacts at top levels of government and the oil industry? He may be wrong, he may be repeating all kinds of misleading or false information, but where is it coming from? You think all it is delusion? The guy must have as much inside information as anybody outside BP and the govt can possibly have.
I do appreciate the main article and the comments, and certainly do not know if MS is right or wrong, but I don't see anybody adressing the subject of his vast network of contacts who know the real truth, whatever that is. And as Matt said, they tend to all have NDAs, so only a few like the former Shell Pres are speaking up publically to say the relief wells might not work. The rest would have to leak info secretly. So, isn't he hearing from people who are leaking bad news? You think they are lying or playing a joke, or what? It doesn't really make sense to just dismiss him, in light of his contacts. How do you deal with his wide network of insiders?
Do you seriously consider this claim to be remotely plausible?
lynnie
I don't see why high level contacts in the oil industry and/or the government would want to feed apocalyptic information to Matt Simmons. What would be the purpose of that? How would they benefit? I might be missing something obvious (not the first time) - if so please fill me in.
The former Shell Prez believed this story about a massive spill in Saudi Arabia. VP Cheney (with a few contacts of his own) believed (and still believes) Iran had WMDs. Just because someone claims to have inside information a) doesn't mean they do, and b) if he does, doesn't mean it is true.
Hire them as writers for Saturday Night Live?
Cheney (with a few contacts of his own) believed (and still believes) Iran had WMDs.
He says that he believes it, but I don't believe him. ;)
I don't believe you.
(and yeah, I meant Iraq...)
But Lynnie we also hear disparagement of the government as any reliable, truthful source of information. Which one is it? They have key contacts "in government" (presumably therefore credible and having truthful Insider information)or are they the truth tellers to a lying government that cannot be relied on for any truth..
Please,please, please.... open your eyes and your brains.... Up is not down and down is not up to satisfy political or emotional needs.. More and more the Simmons advocates are left on an island of "belief" -- of dogma seated in emotional paranoia or willful ignorance... the ends justify the means.. But what are the "ends" that you seek? Ask yourself that. That this person advocates hysteria, willful encitement to flee from unverified threats and misrepresentations of fundamental laws of science. Why why why?
Please.
Fact is I'm a bit more PO'd at his attempt to introduce the use of a nuclear weapon as a legitimate industrial tool. An idea like that needs to be pounded on repeatedly until neither it or its proponents have any breath left.
Lynn,
What contacts? Can you name even one? If not, they're dust in the wind as far as we're concerned - not worth consideration. We don't know where they're coming from with the 60K pressure any more that we know where MS is coming from.
I have to ask: do you personally, after due consideration and after all you've read on TOD, reall believe that the reservoir is at 60K psi? If so, why, besides tha MS said it?
lynnie,
I don't believe Simmons is listening to secret leakers or contacts, but that's really not relevant. I also don't care whether he is or is not, and there's really no point in discussing that question on this forum.
Consider (a) the statements Simmons makes, and (b) the notion that "his vast network of contacts" must be telling him something that we should pay attention to. His claims can be listened to, rebutted (as was nicely done above), and finally scoffed at if (in this case, when) they prove to be not only wrong but farcically indefensible. But nobody can argue against a tenuous network of contacts so in the end there's no point to try.
As someone else asked: Do you still believe Simmons, or not. If you're not sure, take a look at the claims, and decide if you believe Simmons or the rebuttal for each.
Corexit... It causes internal bleeding? It's broken down the oil so it doesn't show up on the surface? There's a cover up?
I wouldn't believe it if Simmons were saying it but when I hear it coming from a current EPA ombudsman my ears pipe up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT3v5dFVAxk
Ok. There are many supplements in our diet that can cause internal bleeding -- fish oil is one if taken in high enough doses. Wine has anticoagulant effects as well...
It (Coexit) was used to indeed keep the oil from the surface and from onto the marine life that is on the surface. The thought was to break it down underneath and allow bacteria to better access the droplets rather than the thick viscous patches of unbroken down oil...
According to NOAA and Mississippi U and Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium there are oil plumes (oil lakes) in GOM:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/16/us/16oil.html?_r=1&scp=1&sq=underwater...
I do not like NY Times much but ..... got from Global Research link:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=19250
I think a Nuke is nuts !!!! Maybe thermite?
The Great Plumes?
Stop it.
LOL.
Reminds me of the big fat Michigan Formation sand under Lake Huron.
According to NOAA and Mississippi U and Louisiana Universities Marine Consortium there are oil plumes (oil lakes) in GOM
I think this is precisely the mistake Simmons made. Plumes are not lakes. I think he heard about these underwater plumes and mistakenly translated the information. Then later on some tried to suggest the NOAA study backed him up - when it was actually a big part of the source of his claim.
We established many time he's a banker not an engineer. Though his conclusion were in fact many people's. A plume as you said is a stream of pressure, it doesn't always refer to a large uncontrolable leak sqirting out of the earth.
I like your links to disprove this :)
Bring in something newer than May 15th, and maybe someone will post a newer link. If not, go back through the old TOD archives and you'll find tons of links, including to the actual scientific reports, which will show you the concentrations in the plumes that have been detected. Provided you can understand the concept of "parts per million" you'll see that these are not "lakes".
I haven't read any comments yet, but I'm wondering.
It could be just human frailty. Fear and insufficient data.
It could also mean being payed to spout nonsense.
Seeing as the easiest way to discredit an idea is to connect it with people who believe in dragons or witches or unicorns or some such foolishness, it would be reasonable to use such a tactic, if one didn't want people to worry too much about certain predicaments that face us.
Make up your own mind.
lukitas
Let's lay out the options
Mr. Simmons is wrong, but he doesn't know that.
Mr. Simmons is wrong, and he knows he is.
Mr. Simmons is right, but the catastrophy is outside the scope of his imagination.
Mr. Simmons is right in all particulars.
Nr. 4 is unlikely, but I would be hard-pressed to estimate probabilities on the other three.
(edit) personally, I find nr. 1 hard to believe. but then again, nr. 3, just as number 1, points to lack of information.
If he has information he's a liar, if he hasn't he's a gambler.
Go ahead and think it out. I'm suspending judgment, but I might make a small bet on number two.
lukitas
My links to disprove was to JoulesBurn. Basically there is oil that has not gone to the surface of the GOM - how much will probably be determined by adding energy to GOM (cat 3+ hurricane?) The problem with making up your own mind is all of the info./disinfo. out there now. I do not believe anything a big Corp. says anymore and our Gov. lies all the time!!!
Disprove what? I accept that there was evidence of oil that exists subsurface (i.e. plumes). What I am questioning is that this oil lies in a giant lake on the seafloor -- and the amount, of course.
Speaking of the Great Lakes, the total volume of water contained in them is 144 trillion barrels -- just a bit shy of what has been estimated for the oil on the GOM bottom.
http://www.epa.gov/greatlakes/factsheet.html
From point 3:
Finally, the lake of oil defies the laws of physics by staying on the sea floor and not rising to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, because most of this type of oil is lighter than water, so would be expected to rise.
There are things MS says that sound crazy and everyone here is debunking him, and you all may be 100% right. But I keep going back to the man's contacts.....there is no way he is coming up with this and sticking to his story, Ratigan show after show, all by his little lonely demented self. No way. Maybe the truth is in the middle somewhere, and he has misinterpreted insider messages to him, but he has earned my patience if nothing else. When and if the relief wells fix the leak real soon and this is all over, I'll be HAPPY to agree that he has mental problems. Until then, I'll say with the casing blowout and the uncementable wellbore. Maybe not all the rest, but at the very least those two things.
Read this (old) bio. You can't tell me that he does not have inside contacts leaking bad news. Maybe they are wrong, but I don't think he has come up with this out of his own delusions.
http://www.boemre.gov/mmab/archives/policy-committee-archives/Meetings/S...
MATTHEW R. SIMMONS
BIOGRAPHY
May 2000
Mr. Simmons is President of Simmons & Company International, a specialized energy investment banking firm. The firm has guided its broad client base to complete over 400 investment banking projects at a combined dollar value of approximately $35 billion.
....
Mr. Simmons founded Simmons & Company International in 1974. Over the past 25 years, the firm has played a leading role in assisting its energy client companies in executing a wide range of financial transactions from mergers and acquisitions to private and public funding.
In 1993 the firm expanded into providing sales/trading and research on the energy industry to institutional investors. The firm now has a ten-person research team providing cutting edge analysis on the energy industry. Its institutional clients include the 200 key owners of the energy industry. In August 1999, the firm opened an Aberdeen, Scotland office to serve its energy clientele in the Eastern Hemisphere.
Today the firm has approximately 90 employees and enjoys a leading role as one of the largest energy investment banking groups in the world.
......
Mr. Simmons’ papers and presentations are regularly published in a variety of journals and publications including World Oil, Oil and Gas Journal, Petroleum Engineers, Offshore and Oil & Gas Investors.
Actually, the GOM has asphalt volcanos that produce thick heavy tarry asphalt deposits on the sea floor. Easy to google. It is being said that this well may have hit such an asphalt rich reservoir and the main thing propeling it up is the pressure differential, and all that dissolved methane. With plenty of dispersant mixed in, no reason for it to float up.
I don't think anybody says that it is a lake of solid oil....it was enough to coat the lights of a submersible though....
I'm not sure about this asphalt volcano scenario, is it potentially another doomsday type event for me to despair?
ha. Don't worry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_volcano
Well it isn't exactly the end of times. That wiki article does say that it causes dead zones when they erupt and they aren't exactly what we need right now.
But I'll continue with my, everthing is going along pretty well mantra.
HOS~I live on the coast and at first was worried sick that we were going to be ankle deep in sludge all over our white beaches, but I came over here and started asking questions and debunking the BS the doom and gloomers are spreading, so far so good other than 2 days when we were hit, now it's random tarballs every now and then. The crabs, baitfish, rays, dolphins, and flounders have been plentiful lately while I have been snorkeling so I am going with all is pretty well too.
I was being a bit bitter and sarcastic I'm really optimistic about this whole thing but I tend to get a little down with all the doom and gloom floating around, it seems like the asphalt voclano is the new theory to post around, since most people aren't really talking about sixty foot tsunami's anymore.
But I'm glad for you, tar balls while annyoing are more managable. Which is what we need right now.
Agreed about the tarballs and atm they are usually found at the west end of the Island, I haven't seen hardly any in 3 weeks.
I tend to be optimistic also and see no need to make it worse than it really is as reality is bad enough for LA, MS than here in FL. The tsunami and volcano and toxic clouds are still competing for attn here since the warrior (LOLOL) of the GOM is exposing the truth . It's just disheartening to see so many scared chitless and sending $$. Last tally was about $4500.00 in a few weeks and that was only exposed after a blogger found it on the GLP site and posted it for everyone to see, then he moved off his "I only rec'd $300.00" spot and had to fess up to the truth.
The only thing I have to figure out right now is why these guys are advertising these scenarios, what do they have to gain from spreading them? I understand that those who feel the need to share this bit of news are really people who are genuinely concerned but whoever started these theories are what concern me.
But I guess some men do enjoy watching the world burn, that's the only reason why I can see someone starting these doomsday theories.
Yes!!! Run for the hills!
...or, you could just read about them
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_volcano
No need to mock me or anything I told aleady I was being sarcastic and the guy above me already linked to me the same article without the attitude.
Sorry, I wasn't mocking you. I knew you were being sarcastic. It was directed more at the apocalypse mindset that latches onto anything sounding scary.
ok, googling for asphalt volcanoes ....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asphalt_volcano
http://www.marum.de/en/Asphalt_volcanoes_discovered.html
http://geology.about.com/cs/volcanology/a/aa051604a.htm
http://news.discovery.com/earth/asphalt-volcanoes-oil-spill.html
Found in the GoM and also off the southern California coast. Interesting, but I'm not seeing any incipient Krakatoa or Tambora events here. Nor does there seem to be any connection to what we saw coming out of the Macondo well for several weeks. And what does dispersant have to do with it? The solid asphalt is on the ocean floor; it's not going anywhere.
The point is that when you drill an oil well, oils differ. Some are Texas tea and some are full of sulphur and some have a lot of asphalt, at least that is what I read, but I am no expert at all. And if Macondo did hit the thick tarry asphalt instead of light crude, it could account for a lot of deep plumes instead of salad dressing up top. If you believe in the plumes. Or lakes. Whatever. I certainly do not believe BP at this point at all.
So it's a heavy oil reservoir now? What's the API (roughly speaking) to give a density bigger than water? Would that flow 50K/dayfrom a single hole? Sorry - 120K/day?
I could be wrong and probably shouldn't speculate, but since I have seen it I doubt it's asphalt because it appears as light sheen mile offshore.......I wouldn't think it would go from tar to sheen but can see the reverse sheen to weathered tar balls that we get every now and then.
Also IF MS was right, who would be involved in the coverup? It would be NOAA, USGC, BP, MMS, the administration, Halliburton, Transocean, all independent VOO operators, (I could go on but won't)........that's literally 1,000's of people working near the site. I just don't believe everyone is involved in some mass coverup on an unprecedented scale to save BP's ass.
I am not saying i disagree with points on this story (besides the oil to the surface) ... but does anybody here really think this BP's "cap" is going to last?
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060911-earthquake.html
They drilled into a canyon:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-06/bp-s-deepwater-horizon-rig-disa...
what caused the deepwater horizon to burn and sink? it seems it had a strong underwater structure and then steel above the water, what burned?
Simmons is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, who know where his loyalty lies..........maybe Peak Oil is another one of his bad ideas.
CFR are self -preserving pieces of crap :) But I believe cheap oil is done in 2-3 years ... if not sooner:
http://www.glgroup.com/News/IEA-reports-China-has-surpassed-the-USA-as-t...
What burned was the oil and gas that was shooting uncontrollably out of the riser.
Isn't it amazing that you had to provide that answer? The whole point and value of discovering O&G is that it does burn. Honest to goodness, that is about the same as having to explain to an adult that storks don't deliver babies.
so the the underwater superstructure caught on fire?
Peak Oil was first proposed by M. King Hubbert in 1956. Simmons graduated from the University of Utah in 1965.
What a sorry state of affairs.
And a rush to judgement.
(I don't buy the snap 'proofs' offered here--I'll wait for the full government report on Macondo before I take the guesswork of a self-appointed 'truth squad').
Matt Simmons has been a major figure of the Peak Oil movement putting his time, effort and probably money behind many ASPO conferences, among other things.
He deserves better.
Not as long as he promotes the industrial use of nuclear weapons.
Really? Are you suggesting that because of his past status as a Prophet Of Peak, his recent statements should just be pooh poohed, even considering that they appear to lead to exactly the WRONG impression about people worrying about or studying resource depletion?
Don't mind Majorian. He is pre-programmed to disagree with everything I say. If the article had suggested that Matt Simmons' claims were credible, Majorian would be arguing that this is preposterous.
(I don't buy the snap 'proofs' offered here--I'll wait for the full government report on Macondo before I take the guesswork of a self-appointed 'truth squad').
Or instead of offering a vacuous response, you could actually take on one of the debunked claims and tell us why you think it might be true.
There are no sacred cows here. Enough evidence has accumulated to show beyond any reasonable doubt that Matt Simmons' claims that are documented here are not credible. If you disagree, it is up to you to pick a claim out and defend it.
It is a pretty consistent response from his defenders, isn't it? Its like an ad hominem in reverse.
Ad hominem is attack the person rather than the message, to distract from the message. Reverse ad hominem might be to use the past priestly good acts of the person to distract from the message (random ASPO support seems a pretty low hurdle however). Lets face it, you guys shone a pretty bright light into this particular dark corner and even some of his staunchest defenders at "those other sites" are going to have a tough time with how one of the their hero's came apart like a vampire under a UV lamp (sorry, the wife won't let me forget analogies from those stupid teeny bopper movies).
RGR2,
You seem to be enjoying this takedown of Simmons in 'the name of truth' and have created a new previously unknown sin for me, the 'reverse ad hom'.
All I did is point out the service he has done and that we don't know all the facts which hopefully will emerge with a government report.
Why the rush to judgement?
The energy biz is rife with collusion and hard-ball 'Swift Boat' treatment for outsiders like Simmons.
Remember the 'chicken-littles of ASPO'.
I'm sure there are ways of looking at Simmons statements in a light that are less damning.
For example, perhaps he was making a point on methane---think about people sticking their heads in the ovens---nukes have put out gas wells in Russia and this oil well was putting out 40% gas and I have yet to see an report on the sea bed--as to a lake of oil settling at the bottom of GOM, what evidence other than the assumed density of oil coming out that there aren't accummulations and why would anybody think that Simmons meant 100% oil?
He may have made hyperbolic statements but that's what got Peak Oil attention and Simmons was the media go-to-guy on Peak Oil.
As far as R^2 goes, I don't attack him for everything he ever said.
I actually agree with a few things he has said.
It suits him to paint me as a disgruntled critic to his many adoring fans.
In that case, I am fact checking R^2 though without his
special brand of venom which I can't match.
You can tell yourself that he didn't mean that. But a "lake" that size, of any appreciable concentration of oil, will still contain more oil than all known reserves, not to mention more than could have flowed from his 120,000 bpd well.
If the oil coming out is heavier than water, why would it a) form a reservoir in a geologic trap, and b) come out of the ground under 50,000 psi pressure?
You can spin his other claims as you want, but you do agree that he thinks the real well is 7 miles away, no? And yet you await a report by a government that is either in cahoots with BP on a massive scam or is being duped by it.
I dunno. Maybe this is why I'd think he meant 100% oil:
That's why I thought he was talking about oil. I don't recall that he ever talked about a specific volume of the methane monster that he said was heading up and out, rolling towards the coast.
It suits him to paint me as a disgruntled critic to his many adoring fans.
OK, let's test your motives here. Show me a history in which you defended Simmons against someone suggesting that he doesn't know what he is talking about (or is crazy, which many suggested). Show me any history of defending Simmons and I might conclude that there is more there than your knee-jerk anti-RR behavior.
In that case, I am fact checking R^2 though without his special brand of venom which I can't match.
Fact-checking? You didn't fact-check anything. You called it a sorry state of affairs, a rush to judgment, and declared those looking at his claims to be a "self-appointed 'truth squad'". What is that, if not venom directed at those of us who are trying to make sure that these issues are about the data? But which facts did you check? None.
The truth is, we treat this just as we treat other claims: We look at the data. If this was an issue where Saudi was making certain hyperbolic claims, we would treat it the same way. That's what it means to be objective, but I have seen enough of your posts to know that you don't know much about objectivity.
When have we ever needed a 3rd party report to tell us what we should think? We are capable of evaluating data; that's what this site is all about. That's what we did. Simmons made certain claims, and we have the ability to evaluate them because we do have data. Claiming things like "methane is more toxic than hydrogen sulfide" are not things that require an independent report before we can say "Hmm, guess Matt got that wrong."
R^2,
I'm not Matt Simmons friend, though I met him once.
He's got some interesting things to say, which I for one want to hear, so, no, I have no history of attacking or defending Matt Simmons.
I didn't check your 'facts' because you offered a lot of conjectures on what Simmons might have meant.
Should I put you thru the kind gauntlet you set for Simmons?
Maybe but IMO such exercises are a waste of time as I don't believe that anyone, even you, are infallible .
I have no history of attacking or defending Matt Simmons.
So then your answer is, the first time you decided to defend Simmons was in response to an essay that I spear-headed. This, despite the fact that we are debunking claims and yet there have been some personal attacks dating back at least a month that you chose not to defend.
That supports my contention that you simply acted in a knee-jerk anti-RR manner that is pretty consistent for you. Maybe given your answer to the question, some self-reflection on your part is in order.
I didn't check your 'facts' because you offered a lot of conjectures on what Simmons might have meant.
But you just said you fact-checked. Further, what is conjecture? Do you believe that any evidence supports a real well 7 miles from where BP is pulling off a huge scam? Do you believe that methane is more toxic than hydrogen sulfide? Come on, man. You want to discuss conjecture, here is your big chance. Where have we been guilty of conjecture relative to the claims we addressed? And are you going to maintain that we do not have enough information to refute the claims Simmons made above?
Should I put you thru the kind gauntlet you set for Simmons?
If you ever see me on CNBC scaring people by making factually incorrect claims and hyperbolic statements, I would expect the same treatment. My claims are also subject to cross-checking with the data. As I said, there are no sacred cows.
But I do find it ironic that this is all coming from the person who recently insisted that I am a climate change denier. There is just no consistency from you (except in that you are consistently anti-RR). Let's treat Matt Simmons with a reverence that ignores some really bizarre statements that are refutable with known facts, and on the other hand let's brand RR a climate change denier even though he isn't. Bend over backwards to defend Simmons (if it presents an opportunity to take a swipe at me), but then apply a different standard and go to great lengths to misrepresent my position on climate change in order to attack me.
I just don't have much more patience for your BS. Your double-standards disgust me.
Enjoying? I've been a detractor of Simmons technical credentials ever since he wrote his book and misrepresented the fundamentals of water handling in the oilfield, this recent meltdown is something else altogether. And I didn't create a new sin for you, I just noted that using prior good acts to distract from the message is an interesting way to avoid talking about the lakes of oil or the BOP which lies miles away. No sin on your part, I think Robert caught the gist of what Simmons' supporters are trying.
MAY have made? The transcripts are listed above, can you please reference the one's that the authors transcribed and lied about?
If you wait on the full gov't report, you may end up disappointed. This just in: Nancy Pelosi removed from bill the ability to appoint an independent team to study the disaster. This sucks. By the way, so does this entire bill ( H.R. 3534). Check out the Clear Act which allows the government to have $900 million a year for the next 30 years to buy up American land.
http://www.humanevents.com/article.
php?id=38284
Sorry, the link I just left was cut off. Here it is again if anyone wants to read it.From the article:
'House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) stripped out authorization for an independent investigation into the Gulf disaster.'
http://tinyurl.com/2den7lq
I followed this thread just to remind myself of why I don't follow these threads.
Matt either lost his f'ing mind or he's cashing in big time.
Ghung -- You're such a loser and you just admitted it by following this thread. Oh crap...I just did too. LOL.
(....hangs head in shame...)
I just wasted 2 hours replying to comments in this thread.
(...cries into beer...)
Oh yeah? Just look at my time stamps and see who's the idiot!!!
(..takes another slug of Jack..)
Ghung I do not think MS needs to cash in ... not saying he is not being pressured.
So.... he's lost his f'ing mind....
I think rational people on this list should propose wildly speculative conspiracy theories in a competition to see who can produce the most off the wall story. (Think Mary Shelley and Frankenstein.)
From the Washington Post we know there is a vast secret establishment of spies funded by the federal government. That secret establishment has been infiltrated by operatives of the Saudi Ministry of Dis-information (KSAMDI) who are busily changing the public record that is available on the web. They, the Saudi moles, have doctored all the maps and MMS filings to show the Macando well having been approved for the place where the BP ships are not congregating. Only off-line records that were downloaded before the blowout might show the true, original well location.
The KSAMDI also kidnapped Matt Simmons and brainwashed him into believing the crazy story that he is telling. This is a devious cover story. It is intended to be ridiculous and thereby discouraging our few loyal spies from investigating what is really going on and finding the TRUTH. Be afraid. Be very afraid. ;-)
funny you mention 'off the wall story' because i've been wondering if MS isn't just doing *research* for his next book, i.e. re human behavioral aspects inherent to the attention he's received : )
They already have tin hat theories:
http://moreminimal.com/2010/05/hoax-deepwater-horizon-north-korean-mini-...
Bring in something newer than May 15th, and maybe someone will post a newer link. If not, go back through the old TOD archives and you'll find tons of links, including to the actual scientific reports, which will show you the concentrations in the plumes that have been detected. Provided you can understand the concept of "parts per million" you'll see that these are not "lakes".
I or my links NEVER EVER said anything about amounts !!! I was pointing to the conclusions that there was oil beneath the GOM and point 3 said this was not possible.
My understandings of specific gravity are:
Lower density (mass/volume) is on top.
Medium Density = middle
Heavy Density = bottom
So how come we have PLUMES if they "plugged" this well?
Should not the Heavy (sour/sulfur crude) be last to come out?
I ask again - can we use thermite to "fuse" this well. I am not a petro/hydro Geologist. What say you?
I was pointing to the conclusions that there was oil beneath the GOM and point 3 said this was not possible.
That's not what Point 3 said. It is impossible that there is a lake of oil there, as it would be unstable. Nobody doubts that plumes of oil are rising toward the surface, and since the oil has been dispersed into small droplets it will rise slowly. Trying to associate underwater plumes - which nobody disputes - with the possibility of underwater lakes of oil is quite a stretch.
Thanks for this article. I have to confess what Matt Simmons was saying was scaring the crap out of me.
I just hoped that the relief wells and plugging the wells work.
It doesn't let BP off the hook and it's nice to know the oceans won't be destroyed.
This time.
From point 3:
Finally, the lake of oil defies the laws of physics by staying on the sea floor and not rising to the surface of the Gulf of Mexico, because most of this type of oil is lighter than water, so would be expected to rise.
I kinda got some static for this? I never said lake except for (oil lake).
I kinda got some static for this? I never said lake except for (oil lake).
But again, that isn't what Point 3 said. Of course oil can be beneath the surface. It has to rise from the ocean floor to the surface. If it is dispersed it will rise very slowly, which can cause a plume. What Point 3 said was that it wasn't possible for a lake of oil to be on the ocean floor, not that plumes are impossible.
Basically there is oil that has not gone to the surface of the GOM - how much will probably be determined by adding energy to GOM (cat 3+ hurricane?)
I am not trying to discredit TOD - I read you guys allot - but how much of DWH oil is "trapped" in the Deep Water of the GOM in "PLUMES". I think is a good question!
As per previous comments by authors saying this is not to worry about, this should not be asked?
I would like to just sit Matt down and ask him one thing -
"The BOP itself weighs 350+ tons, which is about as much as two 747 airliners. How, exactly, did ANY UNDERWATER EVENT KNOWN TO MANKIND succeed in hurtling that object 6+ miles away from its original location?"
That is what makes this so crazy! Who do believe?
and you perhaps need to add, " and landing intact, almost perfectly upright, and with significant intact Riser connected!!"
Yes it has to (somehow) rotate in flight.
Clearly, anyone who could claim that, knows not even rudimentary Physics.
Even the largest guns ever developed, fired 2% of that weight, through Air, (not thru the ~800x denser water). - and they used kilotonnes of steel, to direct the charge, not soft mud, and
special high energy density explosives, not simple pressure.
add to that, the water displaced as it moves (somewhere over 10,000 tonnes), going up...
All up, Laughably busted.
One more: Given Simmons' estimated flow rate of 120,000 bbl/day, it had taken roughly 4038 years to fill it to its claimed size of 177T bbl. I wish we'd get an updated estimate of size so we'd know how many years it's been flowing as of now.
That's not what Point 3 said. It is impossible that there is a lake of oil there, as it would be unstable. Nobody doubts that plumes of oil are rising toward the surface, and since the oil has been dispersed into small droplets it will rise slowly. Trying to associate underwater plumes - which nobody disputes - with the possibility of underwater lakes of oil is quite a stretch.
I did not say anything about these "PLUMES" were rising? (except hurricane) I used (oil lake) in parentheses as there is X amount of oil under GOM. My links or I said nothing about the amount ..... my question stands! Will this BS short term fix WORK? As for the end of point 3 ... I saw physics???? Oil should "float"
I wish bp would re-instate the Skandi Neptune feeds, would be interesting to see how the BOP is holding up now that the pressure is somewhat higher than when the BOP monitoring feeds ceased.
OK all you oil drum guys. Here's your problem. You actually know a thing or two about geology, petroleum engineering and the way an oil rig works....
The alternative being....the crackpottery at other sites?
If you must ask, yes.
I'm no oil industry pro, but have just a bit of knowlege derived from having had low level oil field jobs and from overhearing my father and my brothers, several of which are geologists. I may not know what a lot of you would, but some of the stuff Simmons came up with red-lined even my bullshit meter to the point of breaking the goddamned thing.
I argued the points piece by piece at the LAOTC to the point that it was affecting me negatively.
There's no one blinder than he that refuses to see.
Simmons is spouting absolute bull shit. Looney tunes bull shit. Motherfucking lowest floor hand on a single lay down rig would know better. Obviously he's the product of an instituition of higher learning without any grease on his hands.
He may have done more damage to those trying to advance the notion of Peak Oil than any of its enemies could have.
And what difference does this make when you consider all the speculators on Wall Street get away with spouting similar nonsense.
So Matt Simmmons has become a Jim Cramer, big deal and perhaps the best bet is to ignore him.
Here's what I was going to post: Cramer is a huckster, agreed. But if Cramer told people to buy gas masks and evacuate because they were going to be killed by methane, even ratings wouldn't save him.
But then I remembered that it was Ratigan who gave Simmons repeated air time, and he's still there.
Thou Shalt Not Deny Groupthink.
Heretics must be cast out. Questioning the Great and Powerful Oz (dba Matt Simmons in this case), you are lucky they didn't ban you, erase all your posts and give you a nice new avatar calling you a name as retribution for daring to think for yourself.
I was actually invited to participate there, back in the day when it was an oil place rather than what it has become. Needless to say, as it transitioned into its modern congregation, relics like me advocating ojective examination of the issue were discarded early. Can't be disturbing the faithful consumers buying from Amazon affiliates.
A great disservice is done to "Matt Simmonize" the topic of subsurface methane without including a reference to methane and microbial oxidation, hypoxia etc. and the threat that poses to the ecosystem.
The lead article makes passing reference to methane as an asphyxiant in the context of displacing oxygen similar to the effect of a person inhaling CO2. The article compares the methane released from the well to the methane from a cow belching.
Long before it reaches the surface (methane a mile below the surface behaves differently than methane released from a cow grazing in a pasture) the methane will be consumed by microbes and that process reduces oxygen levels not by displacement but by consumption, it's called microbial oxidation. Due to the high concentrations and quantities of methane released from the BP well, the result could be large sub surface zones of water with reduced levels of dissolved oxygen. Indirectly, methane can be quite lethal to lifeforms that require oxygen beyond concentrations of 2ml/L. Researchers, based on data collected in May and June, have identified areas in the gulf where there is evidence of large subsurface areas of reduced DO2.
A great disservice is done to "Matt Simmonize" the topic of subsurface methane without including a reference to methane and microbial oxidation, hypoxia etc. and the threat that poses to the ecosystem.
We are dealing with Matt Simmons' claims here. In these claims he said that if you inhale methane you die, that it is more toxic than hydrogen sulfide, and that it threatened to erupt from the gulf in a toxic cloud and kill millions of people. Those are false claims, and those false claims are addressed.
and those false claims were addressed (agreed)
but in addressing those false claims you compared the nature of the methane flowing from the BP well to a cow belching in a pasture, and you know that is not the case. A one or two sentence clarification would have addressed this, to not include it is a disservice.
you compared the nature of the methane flowing from the BP well to a cow belching in a pasture, and you know that is not the case.
No, I didn't. I am speaking to the non-toxicity of methane. The fact that cows generate a lot of methane is meant to convey that methane exists in our environment; that we in fact breathe it all the time. (I decided to go with cow's belching instead of human flatulence - probably the most common source of methane that we breathe).
You are mistaken in your assumption of what is being addressed; if you read the point clearly you will see that it is the issue of toxicity in humans (Simmons claim "if you inhale it you die") - not whether methane bubbling through seawater is completely innocuous.
The impact on the Gulf of Mexico from methane being injected on the seafloor will be studied for quite some time. Little hard data exists on its fate, but there are limits on the solubility of methane in seawater. As seen in the ROV videos, bubbles do form, and these do rise to the surface. It is not precisely known what fraction remains in the water, or when dissolved at depth, how far it disperses. Methane-eating bacteria require other nutrients besides methane and oxygen, and levels of these will also determine the extent of oxygen depletion.
Oxygen levels vary by depth, location, time of year, etc. It is well know that dead zones near the Mississippi delta have been increasing in size. Unfortunately, this is where the spill is. Separating the effect from the spill from the varying background will be a challenge. And the fact that bacteria will also eat the dispersed oil will not help matters. Some of the scientists studying this have done a disservice with claims of "a million times background levels" without saying what those background levels are. Measuring just the oxygen is problematic, since a measured dearth cannot be attributed to methane digestion with certainty. Perhaps isotopic (C12 vs C13) studies of total carbon would be possible, since the produced CO2 (and critters which have consumed methane) should reflect the difference for methane vs. atmospheric carbon.
Finally, Robert's point is most important. The issue addressed above was acute toxicity of methane to humans, and claims of such are baseless.
I think you will find that methane from these depths is oxidized long before it can reach the surface. Seasonal hypoxia typically occurs in shallow depths. Agree that much more research is required, the following is a reference to modeling that predicts the behavior of deep water oil and gas.
p 106 - 110
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=9bHZm_9ZtgkC&lpg=PR9&dq=.&pg=PA106#v=...
Thanks. There is also these:
http://www.iahr.org/publications/assets/jhr41-4/2397-i.pdf
http://www.iahr.org/publications/assets/jhr41-4/2397-ii.pdf
One can surmise what happens, and generate models, but definitive measurements have not been made -- neither of the immediate fate of the gas nor whether it gets eaten before it escapes into the atmosphere. It is not an easy experiment to do and repeat, to say the least.
But it was not the intention of the post to survey the damage to the ecosystem. One intention was addressing the false claim of acute toxicity from methane and the impending doom from this. It certainly wasn't defending the release of said methane, or saying it was a good thing.
thanks for the links
I think I'll leave it at that as I appear to have struck a sensitive nerve with the author. Too bad this wasn't published 8 weeks ago as it does dispatch Simmons' outlandish theories in an informed manner.
I think I'll leave it at that as I appear to have struck a sensitive nerve with the author.
If you are referring to me, you haven't struck a sensitive nerve you are just making an improper inference. The point is clearly about Simmons' claim of acute toxicity to humans. You appear to be upset that we didn't delve into what can happen to methane in the ocean, but that wasn't the substance of his comments. Simple as that.
Thanks for finally posting some sort of synopsis regarding Mr. Simmons' views. A lot of us have been waiting for something like this.
One thing that you left out was the fact that BP and the Coast Guard spent over a month lying about the flow rate and that left a vacuum for the kinds of extreme opinions such as the ones offered up by Mr. Simmons to proliferate.
Mr. Simmons was closer to the order of magnitude of the real flow rate from very early in this process than BP PLC and the Coast Guard was (at least in their public comments), which allowed his comments to gain credibility as the disaster wore on. Yes, I think he has been over the top in some cases, but his views never could have gained so much credence if BP PLC and the US Coast Guard had been totally transparent with technical data from day one.
Thanks again for at least finally acknowledging Mr. Simmons and his comments in a TOD post.
Finally?
BP's Deepwater Oil Spill - Matt Simmons on Dylan Ratigan Today, Closing the Relief Ports, and Open Thread 2
Posted by Prof. Goose on June 7, 2010 - 7:44pm
http://siliconinvestor.advfn.com/readmsg.aspx?msgid=26598599
Beg pardon Wharf Rat - thanks to TOD for addressing this as a more complete synopsis of the many different claims by Mr. Simmons' with information known to date. This one seemed tied together better than the earlier postings. Should've worded it better.
But Simmons was talking about the gusher that gushes heavier-than-water oil, 5 or 6 or 7 or 10 miles off. That's not credibility; that's wishful thinking by disaster hounds and agitprop by conspiracy pushers. Or maybe he was talking about Macondo at least at first. Or maybe not.
OT:
He's in Biloxi (which seemingly Reuters can't spell), with new hire James Lee Witt in tow.
Nice Critique of Simmons Claims. The evidence points against Simmons. The Truth is the Truth.
One thing though....what about the cut off RISER showing 2 pieces of Drill pipe in it.
Times-Pic:
A drilling rig working on the relief well is currently clearing the debris, which was deposited by Tropical Storm Bonnie.
Geez, reporters. That is not what Allen said... he said that during TS Bonnie about 40 ft at the bottom of the uncased section of the well fell in on itself. That is the rubble they need to clean out before they can run the casing.
Thanks for the clarification, rainy. That first version had me all "WTF?!"
Thanks from me to rainy. About spit my afternoon tea out when I read that. But I do find it very interesting that they lost part of the hole while only being out of it for a short time. But I'm not sure if they really had hole collapse. It's not uncommon to have "fill" accumulate when you POOH. Cuttings in the mud will sink to the bottom if they aren't completely circulated out. You can also know edges off the hole when you're POOH. The 24 hour time frame isn't very much...just 5 or 6 bottoms circulated up.
I keep seeing the statement by Simmons that he shorted 8000 shares of BP. I didn't see the trade ticket, so I don't know. That's chicken feed to some big time wheeler dealer like Simmons. He could also be long 50,000 shares, no one knows except him and his broker.
This used to happen on a show called Wall Street Week all the time, guests would come on urging people to buy/go long on a stock that they were in fact, selling. It's also very common to be both long and short at the same time; lots of traders do that.
If you give someone TV time, they can say anything they want, and then go home and do the opposite of what they told everyone else to do. This is not a crime, but should be.
Hello all...I'm new here. I've been following Matt Simmons on the mainstream media and was also having a hard time following his logic, yet was never skeptical to his earnest intentions.
My question to all the so-called "experts" on here is this: According to the initial exploration plan laid out for the Mississippi Canyon block 252, there were to be two seperate wells drilled, A & B. A was to have started drilling on April 15th, 2009 with an ending date of July 24th, 2009, while B was to have started drilling on April 15th, 2010 with an ending date of July 24th, 2010. So why have we not been told about the two separate wells? Which well are we looking at on TV? And furthermore, were both wells drilled, and which one blew out on April 20th? Because by looking at the coordinates of the ROV's shown by BP's website, they are all situated around well A, which is the one that has been shown on worldwide television for over 100 days.
Could someone please answer me these questions? I'll be the first to admit that I'm quite ignorant when it comes to deepsea oil exploration and all activities involved, but I feel like I pose a good question, unless I'm missing something.
Here's that exploration plan...straight from the MMS website...it's funny what you can find out through public information!
http://www.gomr.mms.gov/PI/PDFImages/PLANS/29/29977.pdf
Welcome aboard dog. POE's are often written a year or two before the first well is drilled. Notice the date on the POE: March 10, 2009. And the operative word is "Plan". The POE describes what they intend to do...not what they've done. But you've done good to post the POE for the Block. It could be useful if folks took the time to review it. Might make some aspects easier to understand.
BP drilled one well, officially Well #1. Not two, unless you count the second attempt at Well #1. The API number is 60-817-41169. The second attempt has the same API number but is known as Bypass #01. http://www.gomr.mms.gov/homepg/fastfacts/war/war.asp?-150975
Ok...so there were two wells drilled...so which one are we seeing on tv? Isn't that still a valid question? And I understand that it was simply a plan of action, and not set in stone. However, does anyone know if they stayed on course? And if so, how close to being on course were they? It's just that no one in the mainstream media has talked about this...for all we know, BP could have been sticking pipes in the ground all over Mississippi canyon block 252...but we do know that they proposed two separate wells, one which should have been completed a year ago (which shares the same coordinates as what has been appearing on all the rov cameras), and one which may have been the one which exploded on April 20th. Isn't it possible that when the blowout occurred it blew out both wells? And isn't it also possible that the old well is the one we are seeing on tv, and that it is less damaged than the newer well they were drilling when the blowout occurred?
There was one well drilled by Transocean Mariana and they quit because of damage to the rig caused by a hurricane. They restarted drilling the same well with Deepwater Horizon, hence the "01" API designation. There are not now and never have been two wells. All this stuff is on the web, for example http://www.scribd.com/doc/33936462/Macondo-History-Before-the-Blowout
A well can't be drilled without a permit. The permits show the precise location. There are no permits issued to BP that show a different location in MC 252.
[last edit, I promise]
So could that casing pulled up the other nite, be part of the first aborted well?
The one drilled is "A" in the plan; at least, the coordinates found in the drilling permit here match those for well "A" here.
I'm not too familar with the history of Simmons.
But based on what I have seen regarding the Macondo oiil spill, I would regard his understanding of the oilshore oil industry as completely flawed, i.e. he has zero understanding.
Also the fact that he feels qualified to go on TV and represent an authoritive viewpoint on something he clearly has absolutely no mental handle on is a rather disturbing.
The guy is a nut. He is a screaming drama queen. He is a sensationalist.
A prudent way to treat noise from this guy in future would be to take anything he states and divide it by a factor of 100.
I laughed my head off the first time someone provided a link to his first interview. What a complete joke. I hope nobody makes any invetment choices based on his opinions?
With full respect to Robert and co-authors, why have we been stuck here for two looooong days? We been bad? TOD posters on strike? We're on the M.T.A.?
You can log out anytime you like, but you can never leave.
Geezers
Their fate is still unknown?
I'm still not fully convinced...there could be unreleased documents...but until they are released I will still tend to be skeptical about everything I'm told by either BP or our government...if they were having problems with the well as early as February I can't help but feel like something fishy is going on...we'll probably never know the real story
This might not be the best analogy, but look at the way BP ran the show from the very get go down there after the blowout...who's to say that they haven't been doing what they damn well please ever since they acquired the lease to Mississippi canyon block 252. I understand that they need a new drilling permit for every well they drill, but hasn't it already been alluded to within even the mainstream media that the MMS was quite possibly in bed with BP? Since when did people start taking the word of oil men seriously? Wasn't it a known fact that they were behind schedule anyway? That also makes me suspicious...
Are you suggesting that, although the well was drilled 7 miles away, the flying BOP speared the earth at the exact coordinates specified in the well plan?
Bullseye, Mr. Spock!
No...I never said I believed in everything Matt Simmons has been stating, as it doesn't make much sense. However, some of the things that he has stated seem, at the very most, probable (i.e. as much oil that has spilled couldn't have come from that size of a pipe, that there is a larger spill somewhere other than what we are being shown on tv, and that bp is lying about this whole disaster) I'm not saying that this hypothetical spill which may have not been revealed to the general public is 7 miles away and that the bop was blown there, that's obviously coming from left field and I have no clue as to what evidence he is basing that statement on. What is 7 miles away however, which has been shown by a link further upthread, is a series of leaks emanating from what is thought to be an underwater volcano...this information was discovered by the thomas jefferson research vessel. Those may or may not be the basis for Simmons' outlandish remarks, but either way, I'd still like to know why BP stated in their exploration plan that both wells A & B would be drilled in roughly 100 days, yet after starting the first one in May of last year they were still working on the same one. I know, I know, the other rig was damaged in the hurricane, but still, a full year later they were still working on the same one? I'm just not so sure that I buy that...
Furthermore...doesn't anyone on this forum find it just a tad bit suspicious how the mainstream media has all of a sudden started to push this idea that, "the spill was exaggerated," "we can't seem to find any oil," "it's not as bad as we once thought,"?????? So to that I pose this question. Did BP ever stop using corexit dispersant after the EPA told them to stop? Does anyone really think that such a large quantity of oil was just naturally taken care of within a matter of a couple weeks time?
If it's not on the surface than it's obviously below the surface...has anybody heard much in the mainstream media about these large plumes that were talked about early on in the game? I sure haven't? Did those plumes just magically, or should I say naturally, disappear?
I'm sure I'm probably just annoying everybody hear with my pesky (or possibly misguided) questions, but I'm just trying to get some rationally, and from what I gather, professionally minded individuals' opinions on what is actually going on down there. It's not exactly the easiest task to get straight, cold-hard facts from the mainstream media because they don't ask the kinds of questions that most people would ask if they had the chance...
I would honestly love for someone on here to go on a rant and put me in my place...no seriously...please do, I want to be schooled here...that's why I came on here with all these questions...but I'm not sure that anybody REALLY knows what has happened and what is currently going on down there because so much information has been withheld. For all we know, this whole process of capping, static kill, bottom kill with the relief well is just a ploy to keep us preoccupied until they can seal an out-of-control well with an explosive...just like Simmons' has been stating...maybe not a nuke, but a conventional device...who knows??? Anybody?
Regarding the media, I think it's just a natural (typical?) progression. After 3 months, people are tired of the bad news, and the media senses that and will look for a positive angle -- very similar to upbeat stories about the economy and Wall Street's myopia. Both BP and the USCG are also doing damage control, trying to make people think things are under control. This is understandable as well, given their respective roles. There is always the desire to "wrap things up and move on", even before it's warranted.
That said, any time someone starts a sentence with "For all we know", it's a sure sign that the utterer is not really considering all that we know. For example, whether or not there is still oil out there, on the surface or in plumes floating around, it is clear from satellite photos that there is less oil since the thing was capped. Does that mean anything?
Less oil? So it's capped for two weeks and all of a sudden we have a considerably less amount of oil than we did while it was still flowing. Just because the oil doesn't show up as a large sheen on a satellite photo doesn't mean it's been "naturally" taken care of in a matter of two weeks. I'm not claiming to be any sort of expert, but common sense tells me that the oil is still there...and I'm pretty sure a goddamn satellite photo doesn't constitute "all that we know" about how much oil is out there...
Rightly so. But that doesn't give anyone leeway to believe in a universe where 120k bbl/day flow creates a lake of heavier-than-water oil in a mere 90ish days that's 500' thick and larger than Washington State stem to stern. Or in supertoxic methane. Or in ~350 ton stacks being jetted a mile upwards through saltwater and then another ~6 miles in the air when it's still visible at the Macondo site.
And your spot on snake...but as with Simmons, (and I'm sure people are sick of me coming up with all of these hypotheses') couldn't it be possible that he was fed information that was 75% true, but had a small amount of batshitinsane misinformation that would make it more than possible to discredit everything that he had been proclaiming? It seems to me that this ploy has been used before over the years to discredit whistleblowers...or maybe it was more like 25% factual information loaded with 75% bullshit...LOL...
Assume that that's the case. Would you expect Matt Simmons to blindly accept everything he's told despite its laughable impossibility?
Also snake...I'm not trying to validate any of those outlandish theories proclaimed by Simmons...(i.e. the giant 500' thick oil lake, supertoxic methane, or flying BOP's LOL)...however, none of those issues has any relevance to the directly pointed questions I've been asking on here...in contrast, what I felt to be Simmons' honest concern with an out-of-control situation is what got me started asking questions in the first place...and some of the things he has stated have started to become part of the official story, such as the fact that the well casing may have been compromised during the blowout and that the relief wells may not work...I guess we'll find out in a few weeks...but that's also what they said a few weeks ago when they capped the well...whichever one it is that they capped...LOL...jk...I can't say that for certain...just trying to be a bit humorous...
Does this guy know what the hell he's talking about?
http://bklim.newsvine.com/_news/2010/07/30/4781973-why-is-bps-macondo-bl...
I don't know about anybody else on here...but this hardly looks like a dust storm kicked up by the rov:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-gG4Fz9B3d4&feature=player_embedded
Looks like silt to me. It doesn't look like "large violent eruptions from the sea floor. Proof that the oil and methane are still flowing into the gulf at huge rate."
This happens every time Boa 1 turns while doing sonar surveys and there are far better turning "storms" than that if you sit and watch for a while. Look at the top of the screen and you will see Boa 1 is turning.
Someone on IRC commented that Boa 1 looked like it was at a Genesis concert at one point as lights shone through the mist-storm. One for the ancient prog rock fans there :)
It's bs, unless you believe that BP would drill an unpermitted well and that MMS was so stupid or so corrupt that they let BP drill an unpermitted well and all of the hundreds of people who would have been directly involved have kept the secret. All the evidence available, and there's a lot, says that BP drilled one well. Not two.
Electric Vehicles EV and the Chevy Volt numbers.
Author Gerg Gardner in today's Detroit Free Press is the basis for my comments and analysis. I can only assume he has access to the correct numbers for the Volt.
16KW Hours lithium battery yielding 40 miles solely on the battery (it has a supplemental 1.4 liter gas engine).
For simplicity, I will assume all of those 16KWH's are converted at 100% efficiency. Based on the 746 watts per 550FPS horsepower, the Battery has a capacity as expressed in horsepower of 21.45 HP. (This assumes that the battery draw down is not quick or else the KWH capacity is not all available to do useful work.)
And with the battery capable of 40 miles, the result is the Volt only requires the average consumption of 0.54HP per mile. Average includes the kinetic energy converted to battery energy on decelleration (hate that word! there is no such thing from an engineering viewpoint. acceleration can be positive or negative).
Recharge of a depleted battery at 100% efficiency and $0.10 per KWH is $1.60. Not too bad if indeed it can acheive 40 miles solely on the battery. EPA has yet to certify the fuel ratings (and very few drivers ever seem to be able to match EPA ratings).
At over $40K suggested price, a battery pack of unknown but limited lifetime and a 1.4 liter gas engine, this seems to be limiting the potential buyers. 10,000 vehicles expected to be built by the end of 2011, and 30,000 more by the end of 2012. Only selected dealers would be able to sell the Volt and only in certain locales.
EV success would be a good thing. But the performance had better be acceptable to the early purchasers to avoid bad public opinion reviews. The price IMHO, would be a turn-off for all but the "green" conscious.
The amount of time that would need to elapse before this EV made a significant inroad to the existing fleet is hard to predict, but it is long. And guess what, the Volt manufacturer also has a vehicle with a 560HP monster of an engine in its top of the line vehicle; imagine how many Volt sales it would take to offset this engine when driven not by EPA standards but by the ego of its' purchaser (never met a stop-light that wasn't placed on other than a drag strip).
BTW, did you remember that I assumed 100% efficiency which allows for wearing "Rose colored glasses". Anybody ready for a perpetual motion machine?
The Volt only uses 8kWh, to make the battery last longer. Charging losses increase the power needed to 10kWh per 40 miles, or .25kWh per mile. That's 2.5 cents per mile at the average rate for power, half that at night time rates.
The battery is warranteed for 8 years, 100K miles.
The list price starts at $41K. The 3 year lease will be $350/month - when we include a $75/mo fuel savings, that's cheaper than most new cars.
KWH is a unit of energy, Watts and horsepower are units of power. Power is the rate of work (energy) done per unit time -- power = energy / time. Based on your assumptions, you could say that the "Volt requires the consumption of 400 KWH (16000/40) per mile", but you can't make any similar statements about "HP per mile" because the concept of HP per mile simply doesn't make sense.
It turns out that 16000 watts = 21.45 hp, so if you can drain that 16KWH battery in one hour (regardless of the distance traveled) you will be averaging 21.45 hp during that hour. But you still can't talk about hp per mile or hp per hour.
What this does show is that the net time-averaged power (allowing for regenerative braking) that a car uses is much less than the peak power needed; 21.45 peak hp would make a nifty golf cart but probably not a very safe car. in fact, GM says its Volt engine will produce up to 150 hp.
Edits: added the stated power of the Volt engine. Also: based on 8 KWH battery usage for those 40 miles and assuming an average speed of 60 mph (so 40 minutes for those 40 miles), the Volt will be averaging 16.1 hp out of the battery.
R L
You are correct in stating that HP per mile is not a valid unit.
But a HP-Hour is a measure similar to KWH and is legit. Yes I know I used HP when I should have used HP-Hour.
A statement such as a consumption of 400 watts per mile (I believe you accidentally called it 400KWH) leaves the average person with their eyes glazed over. Therefore I attempted to put it in terms of HP. The 1st paragraph tried to get the KWH stated in HP but should really been in HP-Hours to be technically correct. And yes, unfortunately the resultant number intuitively is equated to stated HP of the typical car.
Because the stated 40 mile range avoided the time factor, I also tried to avoid the time factor. Time in this case tends to obfuscate. My reference to "quick" was the closest I wanted to get to avoid the time factor.
Had I used the statement as "average consumption of 0.54HP-Hour per mile" it would then have been correct. Speed (time), except at extremes, does not alter this, which is what I was wanting to avoid.
You correctly state that if consumed in 1 hour you will be averaging 21.45 hp (equates to stated engine HP). Stated in terms of energy consumed in that hour, it would be 21.45 HP-Hours, or 16KWH. Seems that is where we started; and not very understandable to the non- electrically inclined.
But I thank you for your reply. Caused me to try to remember back to my college days. Even got out some ancient textbooks to review the subject. Nowadays, Google is a good source in most cases; however there is a lot of stuff posted on the 'net that is not correct. Buyer Beware!
SequoiaCPE,
Thanks for pointing out my "400 KWH/mile" mistake; I meant to say 400 Watt-hours per mile (but not 400 Watts per mile), but 0.4 KWH/mile would have been a much better choice.
On the other hand 16000 watts to 21.45 hp is converting power to power, so that's correct. I think it's also reasonable, but perhaps I could have been clearer. My point was "if you can drain that 16KWH battery in one hour you will be averaging 21.45 hp during that hour": 16 KWH / 1 hour = 16KW = 16000 watts = 21.45 hp.
Hp-hour (Hp *times* hours, not per hour, in case others reading this are confused) would have been technically correct. But as you note even if you had said '0.54 hp-hour per mile' it's going to be compared with the (power) hp rating of a typical car. For example, if you were trying to diss electric vehicles it would be a bit sneaky to tell someone that the EV puts out only 0.54 hp-hour per mile if the only reference the average guy has is that his old V8 had 300 hp.
Looks like we have a case of dueling posts and edits. I think we're finally in agreement on the math.
BTW, My point was not so much to pick nits, but because we're using numbers and math to support an argument, we need to make sure those numbers correctly and fairly support that argument. the 0.54 hp/mile was incorrect; as I argue above, 0.54 hp-hour/mile is "unfair" in that it leads the reader to make a meaningless comparison.
It turns out there really aren't good units for comparing EVs to cars; 0.4 KWH/mile is great for someone comparing their car's electricity usage against their electric bill, but it doesn't help someone comparing their Volt against their old station wagon. Maybe we need to get heavy into the carbon tax /carbon trading thing so that both cars and electric bills list "equivalent tons C02" that we can compare.
I think the simplest comparison is cost.
A Volt would cost roughly 1.25-2.5 cents per mile to "fuel" (assuming .25kWh/mile and $.05-.10 electricity), while the old station wagon probably costs about 15 cents per mile (assuming 20MPG and $3 gasoline).
R L
no duelling, just crossing!
Putting EV vs GV energy consumed per mile comparisons in simple unit-less ratios and compare Apples to Apples. Include cap and trade. Include the current vs forecast costs of energy. Include side-by-side real world testing that are truly representative of the average trip. Would make for an interesting PHD Thesis; but the major stumbling block would be passing peer review, and making it understandable to the people that can use it to societies advantage.
Unit-less Ratios. An HVAC Number "Game". It "used to was" that the government mandated a SEER of 11, then 13, and now ?? (Higher but not sure of mandate). The HVAC Manufacturers thought long and hard about how to meet future increases. When it became more and more difficult to increase efficiency, the got the Gov to allow for a change in the SEER goal tests. They instituted a "Bucket Test" (multiple different testing conditions whose result was then combined). The end result is that it is possible for an OLD SEER 13 or even less unit can outperform a NEW SEER 16 unit in some real world installations (and not in Nome!). The point is that Numbers can not just be accepted at face value. :>(
Perhaps this will help:
Could you make a very rough guess as to the % of the Canadian population that would be well served by an an air-source heat pump?
As a simple guess, I'd say roughly half. Air source heat pumps are an excellent choice throughout Atlantic Canada where fuel oil and electric resistance dominate. They're also well suited for much of British Columbia and southern Ontario.
The Fujitsu 12RLS has a seasonal COP of 3.52, and at $0.12 per kWh its average cost per kWh(e) of heat is thus 3.41-cents. Our Sanyo 12KHS71 has a seasonal COP of 2.73, so it's cost per kWh(e) is 4.4-cents. A litre of fuel oil provides about 9.0 kWh of heat at 84% AFUE. Currently, the average cost per litre in Canada is 88.5-cents (source: http://mjervin.com/WPPS_Public.htm), which puts its cost per kWh(e) at 9.83-cents –– more than twice that of the Sanyo and nearly three times that of the Fujitsu.
Where natural gas is available, a hybrid heating system could be a good choice, given that the incremental cost over a high efficiency gas furnace and conventional central air system is relatively modest. In Edmonton, Alberta, where winters are pretty damn cold, a hybrid heating system would operate over 75 per cent of the time in heat pump mode assuming a cut-over temperature of -10°C/14°F. The economic balance point will be determined by the relative cost of natural gas and electricity, obviously, but for newer, high efficiency systems it's likely to fall somewhere in the vicinity of -10°C.
Cheers,
Paul
http://www.theoildrum.com/node/6801/692451
Cut-over temperature at 14F ignores the fact that the output of the air-based heat pump goes down steadily with dropping temperature until it hits the frost build-up problem, then it falls off the cliff requiring defrosting to maintain air-flow. All the while, the house heating requirement is going up as the temperature goes down (no frost Achilles tendon tho). The cutover temp is thus determined by when do the two curves cross. Or when does the wife bitterly complain about the lack of heat while in defrost?
Sure the crossover can be modified by insulation and/or excess Rated BTU capacity.
Excess Rated BTU is not a cooling recommendation, thus a multi-stage heat pump would be indicated if that solution is chosen. Did somebody just hear the cash register ring? Ever try to design AC blowers and duct work and dampers to achieve a comfortable balanced house. Did that damn cash register just ring again?
R L
No, I am not trying to diss the EV. Just trying to get a better handle on it.
BTW, an economical gas engine at todays EPA ratings at mid 30's MPG has to only be somewhere around 25% efficient at getting the energy to the road. Based on BTU's, but KWH is confusing enough to the average non-thermo savvy!
A point of misunderstanding with regards to converting KWH to KW so that a better intuitive feel can be had. 16KWH battery is only an energy statement. 16KW is a force and equates to the 21.45HP. But when the Volt engine produces 150HP, the force needs to be about 7 times, or 111.8KW. 111.8KW vs 16KWH will drain the battery in just under 9 minutes and have 7 times the current draw if the voltage remains constant. Quite a challenge to the electrical circuit designers, and to the battery designers. I suspect that the controlling computers will only allow 150HP for short bursts, thus circuit and battery heating can be disappated before they reach the melting point. Allows for transients without having to design to sustained conditions.
I wish for EV success, but a realistic view indicates limited production and limited public acceptance will cause EV to be only a small portion of PO alternatives. :>)
If EV's were a smashing hit, the electrical infrastruture would be hard hit to keep up (just ask T. Boone. Pickens about his TX windpower project that was halted because of not being able to get the power to where it would be consumed).
Power transmission lines have a NIMBY and $$ problem as does Nuclear and most other infrastructure additions. :>(
Both the Leaf and the Volt have very affordable leases: about $350/month. The Volt has no performance compromises at all. Acceptance of new things is often slow, but there are no significant limits to growth for EVs.
For better or worse, we have plenty of electricity even before wind & nuclear ramp up: the grid could handle extensive night time EV charging.
A follow-up on GV, This time Diesel Vehicles DV.
I drive a diesel, bought for pulling a heavy 5th Wheel (worked like a champ and got better fuel mileage at 22,000GVWR than the same pickup with a comperable gas engine gets around town unloaded!). Seems like a no-brainer for everybody to get on the diesel Band-Wagon.
I hear a lot of talk and see advertising from diesel auto manufacturers that diesel can cure some of the PO problems.
But I also found that 1 BBL of typical oil is only capable of producing about half the gallonage of diesel as gasoline when trying to maximize the end product in each case. My research into these figures leads me to believe is reasonably correct. I did question this, because it seems counter-intuitive; the more refined yielding more than the less refined.
If magically, all GV's were converted to DV's, would not there be a need to significantly increase in the BBL's of oil we need to supply the diesel?
Is that Band-Wagon really a Trojan Horse?
Yes.
Right now Europeans consume too much diesel, but they get away with it by sending their excess gasoline to the US. If the US were to push it's mix more towards diesel, things would start getting out of balance.
You can push the refinery mix in one direction or the other, but my understanding is that there are rising marginal costs to do so.
Another explanation for Simmons "crazy" claims is that he is so worried about the implications of peak oil that he is trying to scare the public and policy makers into supporting some sort of Manhattan project on new energy sources. I hope he hasn't resorted to this, as he has destroyed his reputation in the process, but I don't rule it out. In either case I no longer consider him a voice of reason.
A New car called the THE AMP!
I just started an electric car company and will produce a car called THE AMP (If this name violates any Trademarks, please inform me and I will change the name).
My chief engineer is on sabbatical, I will use another manufacturers numbers until he comes back (Plagarism). My design exists only on paper.
Now before the EPA can test my APLHA Test machine (ALPHA Test in IT land is a paper test of design goals) I want to test what my design produces. What I want to do is simplify the problem by dividing it into two parts, namely solely as an EV and then solely as an GV. We plan on building two test cars, each identical and fully functional. One we will suffix its' serial number with EV
and the other GV. We will install a software switch so that only one Mode is activated (WE debated a driver blindfold test but that has been scrubbed). We use two so that we can do side-by-side tests. But we have to do this with only paper cars.
I think the best comparison I can initially think of is based on energy consumption. Because energy availability and costs are only available historically, I will leave the operating costs to the prognisticators (I plan on hiring at least 3 so majority rule can be applied!).
Now for the crux of the two comparitors, car EV only talks in electrical terms, while car GV only knows BTU terms. Fortunately, a few periods of time in the past, some intelligent humans were able to equate these two.
But there still remains a quandry; we only know definitely what the GV does in the current state of GVs. How about we tilt the paper test entirely in favor of the EV by assuming all the energy in the battery is convertible into work and let's assume we will be successful in converting our 16KWH into 40 miles traveled before the battery goes completely dead.
When then how do we compare the GV to a 100% effective EV. SIMPLE. We just start with the known quantity of energy in the amout of typical gas fuel that it takes to travel that same 40 miles. Oh but wait a moment. We don't know the MPG that THE AMP GV will get. How about using a somewhat comparable existing cars' MPG with a 1.4 Liter engine; I think that same 40 miles is a fair match.
Now for the ALPHA test comparision. Yes I have not stated the GV efficiency. Instead what I will do is simply convert the EV KWH into BTUs. Then I can divide the average gallon of gas BTUs available by the KWH to BTU conversion of the EV and determine the MINIMUM amount of efficiency I need to get out of the GV to be a match.
To avoid the math, let me say this only requires the GV to be about 50% efficient to match the assumed 100% EV. If today's auto engineers are only capable of getting 50% of the energy out of gas, then there is still plenty of opportunity out there in GV land.
As to the math, it is extremely simple when viewed this way. Try it, a little energy "Google" and a calculator is all that is needed.
There will always be cost/energy dis-continuities, but should not we be prepared for the days ahead where these dis-continuities mostly disappear?
not shouting but EV's MAKE SENSE IN MANY SITUATIONS. LET'S ENCOURAGE THEM. BUT DON"T EXPECT THE PANECEA.
SequoiaCPE,
Very amusing comparison -- though to be fair, you were the one who introduced the assumption (which you seem to be implicitly making fun of) that the Volt kills the entire 16KWH battery in 40 miles. In fact, as Nick points out, the Volt is designed to use only 8KWH in its estimated 40 mile range; that actually means the Volt uses less energy than our estimate.
From my standpoint the only reasonable comparison between EVs and gasoline/diesel/hybrids (besides fun and convenience) is the amount of carbon used per mile. That's because I don't particularly care about peak oil -- we'll adjust to that the way we adjust to any shortage, by downsizing cars and houses, insulating more, driving less, etc., and maybe driving EVs. I care about greenhouse gases.
That said, if you compare BTUs to BTUs I doubt you'll find even a "high-mileage" (40mpg) car will win out over an EV. [Editorial comment: I hate EVs, dislike the hybrid owners who drive like nannies in the fast lane, and would like to punch the next wanker who tells me his plug-in hybrid gets 200 mpg.] That said, the always convenient Wikipedia tells me that 87 octane gasoline has a net energy content of 125000 BTU per (US) gallon. Onlineconversion.com tells me that 125000 BTU = 36.6 KWH. So a 40mpg gasoline-engine car uses about 0.92 KWH/mile, while a Volt will use 0.2-0.4 KWH/mile (depending on if we assume 8KWH/40 miles or 16KWH/40 miles).
Both of those numbers are essentially raw input energy to miles traveled, so we don't need to worry about gasoline-to-wheel efficiency or battery-to-wheel efficiency. For any meaningful comparison we would have to factor in supply efficiencies (such as generation, transmission, and losses while charging on the EV side, exploration/drilling, refining, and transportation on the GV side); we'd also have to figure out what it is we fundamentally want to compare, which is why I turn back to net carbon efficiency.
R L
Thanks for the reply; but it is not the one I would have expected from an ALPHA test participant.
You see the amusing part was sort of a deception. While I correctly described the computation, I intentially inverted the result. Instead of 50% it yields 200% which falls into that never land of "unobtainium". What this tels us is that one or more of our assumptions must be wrong. The obvious one is assuming 40MPG. It must be 80MPG to have the 100% equivalent. And as you and others point out , the 16KWH should be 8KWH which requires an amazing 160MPG! Very very difficult to accept.
If the real world GV is having difficulty achieving more realistic MPG numbers , and THE AMP is not repealing any "Laws of Nature", then the lower energy consumption of the EV must be coming from somewhere not quite obvious to a casual inspection.
It should now be obvious that THE AMP better be tested where it shines, namely in a scenerio of battery mileage with plenty of regenerative braking. When you look at our preliminary brochures, you will notice we will test market in only major cities with lots and lots of stop and go and idling conditions, EV 10, GV ~2. Can only hope the EPA favors our test conditions.
BTW, our warranty VP just said we better not warrant for the full 16KWH; batteries being somewhat of a consumable item. Suggests 8KWH as tested using one of our test machines. Marketing added that we therefore should computer limit the available to 8KWH so that the owner does not witness the gradual decline of the battery. The Chief engineer touched base from his sabbatical and concurs.
The Chief engineer also said he had a few GV tricks up his sleeve that could possibly capture wasted energy going out the tailpipe, and that since the infrastructure was already in place the regenerative braking could apply there as well. The increased Gov MPG mandates in the future may be easier to achieve than was originally thought. BTW, he also reminded us that the GV trans-axle would be replaced with the 1.4 Liter engine directly coupled to an alternator (Electro-motive propulsion systems are much more efficient than gears).
This re-evalation does not change any of the conclusions that I posted. But serves to help describe where THE AMP really shines. And brightly shine it apparently does. :>)
SequoiaCPE,
Honestly I can't quite tell when you're inverting the result for parody and when you make a mistake, so forgive me if I sometimes take the wrong track.
The Amp or the Volt isn't repealing the laws of nature. They're getting some efficiency from regenerative braking; the answer to that is a hybrid. (Hybrids can also get other boosts such as using smaller gasoline engines and relying on the electric motor to provide extra torque for acceleration.) But I'd guess that the main reason is that battery + electric motor can be much more efficient than an internal combustion engine.
The key is that the most inefficient part of the fossil-fuel-to-usable-power chain is burning hydrocarbons. In the EV, that already happened back at the power plant, so you don't see those losses in our equation. In the car that happens on the road, so you do see the losses. Given that, the factor of 2-4 times in "efficiency" doesn't seem unreasonable.
R L
What I was trying to do was to get away from the "furlongs per fort-night" discussions because they tend to be turn-offs. We are all somewhat guilty of the units of measure problems at times, so don't take offense.
I also felt that had I used the assumption of 80MPG or higher, it would have been an even quicker turn-off. :>(
So I chose the hypothetical ALPHA test hoping someone would detect the "error" in my computations. Thus allowing my revealing that direct comparison only reveals the promise of THE AMP in certain applications by defining what those applications most like are. :>)
The problems that can arise by not double or triple checking numbers even when the source seems reliable. A trap that is easy to fall into.
i.e. Wikipedia has a 125K BTU per Gal for 87 Octane. EPA gives a range of numbers depending on winter, summer, RFG etc. that put the BTUs for conventional gas at nominally 114K. Other websites concur but typically give only a single number.
The EPA numbers, while likely more reliable, do not give the statistical analysis results; so their use is probably best used at the mid point of the range unless qualifying conditions are noted.
I go on "Alert" when I see numbers quoted, as for instance 114,000 rather than 114K, the precision of the number seems to imply the same accuracy of the number. 114,000 has a precision of 6 places and implies an accuracy of 6 places; 114K has a precision of 3 places, and explicitly states that 4 or more places of accuracy is a trap to be avoided. Thus when using a number in a formula, one can not expect the results of that formula to be more accurate than the accuracy of the numbers making up that formula (there is not a 1 to 1 relationship between the formulas' members accuracy and the resultant numbers accuracy). Todays calculators are capable of providing extreme precision; but it is up to the button pusher to determine the accuracy such precision really represents. It is easy to end up in a condition I refer to as "Dueling Calculators" which causes arguing precise numbers and not accurate numbers.
EPA goes on to quote a study attempting to quantify driving habits and the effect on mileage, however that study was based on only 12 participants and a very limited mileage driven in a restricted geographical area; thus the results IMHO are only anecdotal. So even when the source seems impeccable, caution is still advised.
Edited spelling typo